BarnstarA barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
Thank you! :) ~ Tom.Reding & his 200-some-odd lines of regex (talk ⋅contribs ⋅dgaf) 02:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
A barnstar for you!
There's nothing quite like cleaning up a good, 'ol-fashioned clusterfuck. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction :) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 04:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Barnstar awarded
A barnstar for you!
Another barnstar for you!
Editor of the Week
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: {{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 20:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
The AWB Barnster
A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC) Congrats on joining the million edit club!
A barnstar for you!
A Dobos torte for you!
You have used your gifts well, Padawan
7&6=thirteen, thank you :) And I really should take the test, but I can't be bothered while editing...perhaps that is or should be one of the questions?? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC) Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC) A barnstar for you!
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
|
Merry Christmas!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021! | |
Hello Tom.Reding, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
May Holidays bring fun and prosperity to you and your loved ones. Merry Christmas to you.RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 14:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
AWB changes
Merry Christmas and season's greetings. I have noticed that you have been running an AWB script against multiple articles. Thanks! Could you please throw the Canada article on your list to give it the same treatment? Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
- Done ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Just out of interest
You did not sleep to make edits? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
- Hard to remember 3 years ago, but yeah. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Tom.Reding!
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
TFD
Heat without light, especially after I asked you not to continue in this vein. Please consider removal. --Izno (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Seems pretty bright to me; and their misinterpretation of the discussion, as in previous discussions, conveniently seems to end up in their favor several times (i.e. RR's response & even your own @ "seems a misreading"). This is developing into a pattern. However, I won't pursue it further there. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Help with discography?
Hi Tom, Good work on all your edits. I am reaching out because I am new and do not know how to edit but need to add and link my discography in wiki. Could you email me for the details? Thank you --Fac.Notitia (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Fac.Notitia: someone at the WP:TeaHouse can help. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Charlie Kunz
I noticed you have edited this page recently, I have a 1950s photo that I could add to the page but uncertain how to do it. Could you help? WessexAnne (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- @WessexAnne: someone at the WP:TeaHouse can help. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1779 in paleontology
A tag has been placed on Category:1779 in paleontology requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Reuesting to creat a page for Sepoydhura tea estate/garden
Sepoydhura tea estate (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC) Dear sir/mam, Its wondering and some sort of dishearting in not getting lists about a place I lives in, I.e.Sepoydhura tea estate/garden. It would be very happy moment for us if I get my place also lists and gets in wikipedia. So, I therefore request you to kindly look into it and hope that of getting to know about Sepoydhura tea estate now then
Sepoydhura tea estate (talk) 08:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for your efforts
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar | |
Thank you for your continued service adding to Wikipedia throughout 2020. - Cdjp1 (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2021 (UTC) |
- :) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:40, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Gelato
Do you want Fidel Castro to come to the United States and ban cannabis in ALL 50 STATES? Of course, not. The gelato (cannabis) article was just approved but it is ONLY A STUB. Please make it good article or Fidel may come knocking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LotteryGeek (talk • contribs) 03:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
CWGC IDs
Hello. I recently came across Category:Wikipedia articles with CWGC identifiers (which you created) and got from there to the discussion here. I once tried to start a far-too ambitious project to identify and tidy up pages using CWGC links, which can be seen here. Would you have any advice on the best way to re-start something like that, maybe using the category that was created a few months ago? I did once try to use Wikidata to generate a list as well, but I remember finding that a bit complicated. Maybe it is easier than I remember? Carcharoth (talk) 05:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Carcharoth: you can use this search to find all en.wiki Wikidata items using CWGC person ID (P1908). I'm getting Category:Wikipedia articles with CWGC identifiers (1,981) closer to parity now; shouldn't take too long. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, that is 1991 articles. The total on my list from 2018 was 3407, but that would be because I included links to cemeteries (and memorials, same type of link at their end). That uses Template:CWGC cemetery, which is P1920 over on wikidata (sorry, I forget how to link more neatly). When I click on 'uses', I get something similar to the query - is that the same sort of thing? Anyway, I guess what I am asking is whether things are set up similarly for the cemetery ID as well, or if that is a bit less 'tidy'. BTW, what do you mean when you say you are getting things "closer to parity"? I might be able to help, and for future work, it needs to be kept in mind that the CWGC IDs are often used on pages that don't match with the article name - by which I mean the CWGC ID for person A might be used on the Wikipedia page for that person's mother or father, if their son (usually son) or other relative was killed and is commemorated. That is the sort of thing I've been meaning to get back to for a while, but haven't had enough time lately. Cemeteries also get mentioned on, for example, the pages of the architects who designed them, or in the town where they are, if they are too small to have their own article. I guess what I am trying to ask is: (a) is it possible to distinguish between uses where the article is the actual person or cemetery, and uses where they are not; and (b) can wikidata help tease out the relationship when it is something different (e.g. son, nephew, brother, husband, grandson, designer/architect, location, and so on). And some people without articles will be associated with a particular memorial (some memorials have tens of thousands of names), so that sort of list could eventually be done by a wikidata query, I think. Or is that sort of thing still best done manually? (I am quite happy to go through a list of 1000s of names and match things up). Oh, and categories as well - there are some very distinct categories (various sportspeople, cemeteries divided up by countries), mostly done by lists and categories, but can wikidata help there? (If this discussion is better somewhere else, please move it.) Carcharoth (talk) 12:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Briefly (I maybe had too many questions above), what did you mean by "closer to parity"? Am still trying to work out what that means. I have managed to work out that some articles have just the CWGC ID added by the Authority Control template and don't have them from Template:CWGC, so how can I work out which ones are which? Carcharoth (talk) 03:55, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Carcharoth: yeah, the larger the wall of text, the farther down it goes on my to-read list. Brevity is key.
- "Closer to parity" means bringing the count of those 2 things closer together, in this case the # of WD QIDs with CWGC person ID (P1908) (~1990) vs. the # of pages in Category:Wikipedia articles with CWGC identifiers (1,981) (at the start it was ~500). The remaining 3 (1990-1987 = 3) I think are redirects
, on which {{Authority control}} doesn't belong. - In terms of distinguishing "accurate" CWGC IDs from "inaccurate" ones, I don't know, and probably requires some visual inspection. It might be automatable to some extent by someone with enough interest in the topic, and experience with HTML scraping via AWB or other software, but also could be very tedious. Bamyers99 seems to have added a significant fraction of these IDs to WD (I spot checked a couple randomly), maybe they can provide some help and/or input? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Noted re: brevity. I have the interest in the topic (I don't find it tedious, I just need to have the time to do it in bits gradually). It is the technical side I need help with now and again. Let's see if someone pops up that can help, or if I can put something together that is less wall-of-text and easier to be understood. Carcharoth (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Francis Schonken edit-warring. Thank you. Graham87 15:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Precious
astronomy gnome
Thank you for quality gnomish work on a large scale, making {{authority control}} available, creating redirects and talk pages, for writing and maintaining astronomy-related articles and categories such as Abell 665 and Category:Discoveries by Carl W. Hergenrother, - Tom, user conceived with a sploof in 2009, you are an awesome Wikipedian!
You are recipient no. 2523 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: thank you very much, I'm honored :) ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:32, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
- I hope you don't mind that it's the prize of the cabal of the outcast ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Lenten Rose |
Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Can you explain why it's "wrong" to place template italic title at the bottom of an article? I guess it's only confusing to a new editor at the top. I have been told infobox coding there is confusing, but think the other is more of a mystery. I bet you can make me understand. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: I'm going off of instructions @ Template:Italic title#Location on page (which I agree with ). Since the title is at the top of the page, it makes the most sense for {{Italic title}} to be somewhere there, too. If {{Italic title}} is at the bottom, it should be outside of the {{Nav}}-block (something I've been focusing on recently), like {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. {{DISPLAYTITLE}} is different, though, in that the lowest instance of that magic word is the one that matters, so I don't move {{DISPLAYTITLE}} up. Hope that helps! ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I am probably somewhat deaf, but don't see the difference between displaytitle and italic title. Both concern the title, both will in most cases never need to be edited once established, so I see no good reason for them to occupy space at the beginning which everybody sees who clicks "edit". I am also new to the term nav block. I can see that title-related templates shouldn't be mixed with navigation boxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: {{Italic title}} is a special case of {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. {{DISPLAYTITLE}} lets you do anything you want with a title, including, but not limited to, italics. Yes, once correctly set, neither of them need to be updated.
- I have section editing turned on in my preferences (I've forgotten whether or not that is/was the default), so I only look at the part of the page that's relevant to edit. I just looked at a page while not logged in, in a different browser I rarely use, and it showed "[edit]" buttons next to each section, so that appears to be the default now. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:15, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- All accepted, only I was not precise enough. I understand the difference of displaytitle and italic title, but not why you would have the former at the bottom, and the latter on top. I understand editing sections, but when some newbie clicks on "edit" in the top line (for the whole article, much more likely for someone unfamiliar to do), they will arrive at the code for italic title: why do that to them? Example Pour le piano. They may not even know what italic means for us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- There are occasions when, for example, and en.wiki article about an author will have
{{Infobox book}}
which automatically adjusts the article title rendering to use italics. In the olden days, the only way to disable the automatic italics was to place a{{DISPLAYTITLE:}}
magic word somewhere after the infobox (last control setting wins); the magic word would override the automatic italics. Many infobox templates now provide some sort of mechanism to disable italic article title (|italic title=
in{{infobox book}}
) or some such so{{DISPLAYTITLE:}}
isn't needed as often. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, getting closer, I think. I know displaytitle from the 200 or so Bach cantatas such as BWV 1, and I known {{infobox opera}} which renders the page title italic without anything else in the 1,500+ opera articles with infobox. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- There are occasions when, for example, and en.wiki article about an author will have
- All accepted, only I was not precise enough. I understand the difference of displaytitle and italic title, but not why you would have the former at the bottom, and the latter on top. I understand editing sections, but when some newbie clicks on "edit" in the top line (for the whole article, much more likely for someone unfamiliar to do), they will arrive at the code for italic title: why do that to them? Example Pour le piano. They may not even know what italic means for us. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- I am probably somewhat deaf, but don't see the difference between displaytitle and italic title. Both concern the title, both will in most cases never need to be edited once established, so I see no good reason for them to occupy space at the beginning which everybody sees who clicks "edit". I am also new to the term nav block. I can see that title-related templates shouldn't be mixed with navigation boxes. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
"Fixes" to taxonbar parameters
Hi, the apparent need to fix the taxonbars at Haworthiopsis coarctata and others is because the Wikidata items were messed up, not because our articles were wrong. I've fixed Wikidata for this taxon, but look at the taxonbar at, e.g., Haworthiopsis attenuata – the correct QID has been made a redirect to the synonym, which has been mangled. I've asked Succu at Wikidata if there's an easy way to correct these wrong edits over there; it took me too long to fix Haworthia coarctata (Q247770) and Haworthiopsis coarctata (Q58927106). So if you see more new issues like this, it's better to leave the taxonbar alone for now. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead: ok. Luckily, there were only 3 other pages in Category:Taxonbars with from2 matching article title & QID (0) that I swapped the order to:
- in case they're involved with this same issue. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- I've checked and these three are all correct swaps. I think it's just a few Haworthia/Haworthiopsis Wikidata items that were affected. (The underlying cause is the insistence by Wikidata that items like Haworthia coarctata (Q247770) are called "instance of taxon" when we know that they are instances of taxon name. An editor over there with little experience of taxonomy has, not unreasonably, tried to merge synonyms for the same taxon.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
ACArt
Hi, can you please skip adding "authority control" to pages that have the ACArt template? Template:ACArt is a tailored authority control template for art-related articles. In the future, it is likely that other such templates will emerge as well. Fram (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Fram: yes; I was not aware of {{ACArt}} and will remove recently added {{Authority control}}s as needed. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:10, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, no problem! Fram (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
- By the way, why did you stop using your bot for this task? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4: because I'm running outside the request parameters and need to keep an eye on it. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Aren't you now adding it to biographical articles? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yup. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- What is outside the request parameters in this case? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- No appropriate {{Infobox}}, and/or more aggressive/comprehensive WP:SECTIONORDER fixing than WP:GenFixes, and/or more template standardization. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- What is outside the request parameters in this case? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Yup. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- Aren't you now adding it to biographical articles? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- @1234qwer1234qwer4: because I'm running outside the request parameters and need to keep an eye on it. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 21:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- By the way, why did you stop using your bot for this task? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 21:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks, no problem! Fram (talk) 15:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
LMDC
Hi! Quick question for you on this edit. I see with the pedestrian bridge that it removed unnecessary underscores, but what's the first change w/r/t Power at Ground Zero? Not disagreeing, just can't tell what it is and curious. Thanks StarM 17:43, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) WP:Dumb quotes. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Bingo ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you both. Clearly I need new glasses as I totally missed that. Have a great day. StarM 17:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Bingo ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Bot Creator Barnstar | ||
For putting your OCD to good use when you created Tom.Bot. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC) |
I see we both have OCD. I had no choice but to give you this barnstar. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, comrade. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 04:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
"FNZA (identifier)" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect FNZA (identifier). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 15#FNZA (identifier) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Help with an edit?
Greetings Tom - it looks as if you did an edit on a page late last year and we would like to see if you could help with another edit there. My Aunt passed away a month ago and we would like to update this in her Wikipedia page, though I'm not sure as to how to do this. Would you consider helping with this? Her name is Liane Winter and she passed on January 17th 2021. I have a copy of her obituary notice if you require to see this. Her family would very much appreciate your assistance. Thank you, Tracyannfl (talk) 20:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Tracy
- @Tracyannfl: I have updated Liane Winter. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you kindly Tracyannfl (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Tracyannfl
Donough MacCarthy, 4th Earl of Clancarty
Dear Tom.Reding. Thanks for adding an authority control to the article "Donough MacCarthy, 4th Earl of Clancarty". However, you had Genfixes on and removed commas out of dates in quotations. You know well: Phabricator task T236729 “Genfixes removes comma from quoted date”. Please repair. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:18, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- Done - indeed; I also added
{{bots|deny|AWB}}
due to the number of occurrences ({{not a typo}} might suffice otherwise). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Authority controls
Hey there — thanks for adding authority control tags to several of my articles, appreciated! (I really should look into them so I know what they are...) Cheers, :) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 21:22, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Script error
I'm not sure what happened in this edit, but it moved the References section into the middle of a citation template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Arbitration Case Opened
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/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 04:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
thank you for all your help here. Paulhus15 (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC) |
Reason for revert
May I ask to explain the revert? --MassimoDellaPena (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
- @MassimoDellaPena: already reverted. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:41, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Please mark addition of {{authority control}} as a minor edit
Can you please mark your edits that only add {{authority control}} as minor edits? Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar | |
Just a barnstar for you!
Your userboxes were fascinating and you seem like a really interesting person. I also somehow see you on every page I edit. Thanks for the contributions you have made! Hhzhang2345 Hhzhang2345 (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC) |
A Barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
Thank you for helping edit Wikipedia and make the encyclopedia a better place for others. Thank you and keep up the good work. --ThanosYourGod (talk) 22:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC) |
Broken templates
Hi Tom, I'm not sure what happened, but it looks like AWB broke two templates in this edit on March 9. It changed "Air Force" to "Air force" in both, breaking them. I've never used AWB, so I have no idea about reporting errors, but I wanted to let you know about this one. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 08:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- There are more broken articles for Tom.Reding to fix in this list. They should be quick work with AWB. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you both. I've gone through my recent 25k edits as well just in case to find other variants. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed; no others found. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:55, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you both. I've gone through my recent 25k edits as well just in case to find other variants. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Authority control, ports and wikidata
Any chance you could show me how you select port articles to have {{Authority control}} added to them? Fob.schools (talk) 13:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Fob.schools: I don't look for port articles specifically, and I'm using my own tools/code with the API since the other available tools are...inadequate. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Tom - I did notice that your contributions were much wider than ports. But that IS an area I know a bit about, and would be interested in doing some work on. Its a RESTful api? Could you even share a typical/example query? I am really confused about Authority control, as the template seems extremely clever. Most templates take parameters, but this one seems to do some background querying to pull out the references from (Wikidata?) and display them on the article.
- I guess what I don't understand is how you know that a particular article has suitable data in WD. Do you ever get it wrong for any reason? Fob.schools (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Fob.schools: mw:API:Properties has the appropriate documentation, but example queries I use are:
https://en.wikipedia.org//w/api.php?action=query&format=json&prop=pageprops&titles=Lion&redirects=0&formatversion=2&ppprop=wikibase_item
https://www.wikidata.org//w/api.php?action=wbgetclaims&format=json&entity=Q140
- and looping through all properties listed @ Template:Authority control#Wikidata and tracking categories. This is guaranteed to find all relevant AC IDs for a WP article. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Fob.schools: mw:API:Properties has the appropriate documentation, but example queries I use are:
WP:VPR#RfC: make Template:Authority control more reader-friendly
@ Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#RfC: make Template:Authority control more reader-friendly (for reference). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:00, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Roger Hall
Dear Tom.Reding. Could you help please. My most recent book was published in November. It is referenced no 23 on my Wiki entry, and mentioned in the last paragraph. It contains a chapter on Roger Hall and several illustrations of his work. He is quoted and mentioned throughout the book, and he was a significant artist. I cannot add a reference to my book as the Wiki Police will cite self promotion or COI. I wonder if you could take the time to add this reference to your original article? My reference is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Larkin - thank you Colin Larkin (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Colin Larkin: I'm no COI policy expert, but what I gather from WP:COI is ~ if you disclose your COI (both on your user page and in the COI'd edit summaries on Roger Hall (artist) (there are 4 Roger Halls)), and your edits are infrequent & follow all other WP policies, it should be ok. And if you get reverted, let it be and make your case on the appropriate talk page. I see from the edit history that Philafrenzy is essentially the sole editor of that page and that they are still active from 6 years ago. Hurray. @Philafrenzy: could you fulfill Colin's request? Colin, you might want to provide Philafrenzy some sort of access to relevant parts of the book, if they don't already have it. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Colin asked the same question on my talk and I replied that self-cite was the relevant policy so I think Colin could probably do it himself. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both I will get my son to do it he is Muso805, just in case somebody objects.Colin Larkin (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Super Mario Galaxy
Your input would be of value on the talk page for Super Mario Galaxy, where I have raised a discussion regarding the inclusion of "U R MR GAY" with reliable sources. As you have made significant contributions to the article, your perspective seems relevant. Waxworker (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Why capitals?
on things like refbegin and quote? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Keith-264: I piggyback some cosmetic first-letter-capitalization on more substantial edits since that matches the capitalization at the top and bottom of articles, i.e.
{{Infobox ...
,{{Automatic taxobox
,== References ==
, {{DEFAULTSORT}},[[Category:...
, etc. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:45, 21 March 2021 (UTC)- Rather you than me, it seems a waste of time. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- What a pal. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Rather you than me, it seems a waste of time. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:V
"Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step" - if that's not clear enough, I'll spell it out for you: You may not add unsourced materials that was removed without a citation, and the 'citation needed' tag is just a recommendation. Don't attempt to override policy with some essay. Kenosha Forever (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Kenosha Forever: that's why your addition of
{{citation needed|date=March 2021}}
to Wojtek (bear) was correct, but your removal of it and the associated text a week later, was not. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 02:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)- That is not what the above quote says. Putting the tag is optional , I didn't have to do it, I could have simply removed the unsourced material. I gave it a chance, no one bothered to engage - out it goes, because WP:V is a core policy, and WP:NODEADLINE is just someone's opinion. . How long to you thing that tag should be leftin ? The previous discussion, which did not result in a source, is over 10 years old. Kenosha Forever (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Kenosha Forever: like you said, "
editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references
". - There is a huge backlog of unsourced statements back to February 2007 (it used to go back further, but there were & are editors who work on this sort of thing), so if it's not a WP:BLP violation, or something similarly egregious, there is WP:NODEADLINE. So instead of angrily removing information from an article that's been there since its first major revision in 2007 (this is related, but a separate matter I'll get to later), why not do some research on it? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 03:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- I did do research on it, and couldn't find any sources that said it was specifically a "Syrian" brown bear. That's what led to me note it on the talk page and to the tag. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- But it looks like someone was able to find some sources now, so we're good. Kenosha Forever (talk) 14:18, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Kenosha Forever: like you said, "
- That is not what the above quote says. Putting the tag is optional , I didn't have to do it, I could have simply removed the unsourced material. I gave it a chance, no one bothered to engage - out it goes, because WP:V is a core policy, and WP:NODEADLINE is just someone's opinion. . How long to you thing that tag should be leftin ? The previous discussion, which did not result in a source, is over 10 years old. Kenosha Forever (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Basshunter videography
Hello. What is the point in adding author-link besides more redudant code? Eurohunter (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Eurohunter: see Template:Cite web#Authors author-link & WP:COinS. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Incorrectly used 'Vandalism'
If I am blocked by Wikipedia, for your use of the incorrect term, 'Vandalism' for an undesired 'good-faith' (their term, not mine) edit, contravenes Wikipedia guidelines. Should IP block occur, is the recrimination to be levelled back at you, as such, if successful, it will be you that ends up blocked, not me.
- Seems kinda vandalism+BLP+OR+unreferenced+unencyclopedic to me. You also introduced unbalanced single and double quotes. I agree with Jamesluiz102. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
seems kinda 'slander'. I agree with legal dictionaries. Charged; Convicted; (defence not permitted) No appellate process.
seems kinda 'McCarthy'
P.S. Thanks at least for responding Tom, a far better response than I got from Twitter...
(a) Account got suspended, but didn't break a rule, (b) Enquired why then, got no response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:12C1:8EDE:13C5:2D62:591D:B8D6 (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
What is authority control?
Hi, I'v seen you've been adding this to a number of pages. What is it, exactly? What purpose does it serve? (not being critical; inquiring mind wants to know. :) ) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Authority control. Cheers! BD2412 T 02:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | |
Thanks a lot for adding authority control to so many articles Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC) |
Breaks
So I was always under the impression that <br> and <br/> did the exact same thing. Is this no longer the case, or should I just not be using <br> within infoboxes or other templates? I saw that my use of <br> had to be removed from several infoboxes, and I'd like to know what I should be avoiding so I don't create lint errors. Hog Farm Talk 15:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: you can keep using both AFAIK (with a preference for the self-closing <br/>, hopefully, lest you have a desire in keeping delinting gnomes employed). Template-wise, many infobox fields accept breaks - can you provide diffs to those removed? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:47, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- this is what caught my attention. Not really a removal, just adding the closing bracket and some other genfixes, mainly related to the usage of templates with lowercase leading characters vs. uppercase. I greatly appreciate those who fix my unintentional lint errors, and I don't want to create additional errors. Hog Farm Talk 17:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Using
<br />
to create lists is probably not the correct way to make lists. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility § Vertical lists particularly at MOS:NOBR. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Hog Farm: ahh - let me refer you to #Why capitals? above. Relatively speaking, self-closing html tags is definitely more important than that selective capitalization (but both are pretty low on an absolute scale). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
- Using
- this is what caught my attention. Not really a removal, just adding the closing bracket and some other genfixes, mainly related to the usage of templates with lowercase leading characters vs. uppercase. I greatly appreciate those who fix my unintentional lint errors, and I don't want to create additional errors. Hog Farm Talk 17:04, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Getting Wikidata to appear in Wikipedia article
Hi, Tom.Reding. The Wikipedia article On Weights and Measures does not have a Wikidata bar (Authority control) showing its Identifiers. Since I am obviously unfamiliar with the process of adding Identifiers to the Wikidata page for "On Weights and Measures," which appears here, a cursory review shows the following WorldCat Identities: OCLC 912074 - which happens to be the Syriac translation of Epiphanius' "On Weights and Measures"; OCLC 949045253 - which title, "De mensuris et ponderibus," is the Latin equivalent given for the Armenian translation of Epiphanius' "On Weights and Measures." Both OCLC indentifiers refer to Epiphanius' work "On Weights and Measures," which he originally compiled in Greek. Under the Wikidata Identifier for the National Library of Israel J9U ID (P8189) I have searched the holdings of that library and I notice where it lists their system identification number for this work as 990030511370205171, which you can access here. I'm not sure if all this is helpful. There must also be a Greek-language publication of the original work. See, for example, Sebastian P. Brock , “Epiphanius of Salamis,” in Epiphanius of Salamis, edited by Sebastian P. Brock, Aaron M. Butts, George A. Kiraz and Lucas Van Rompay. The extant Greek manuscript of Epiphanius' "On Weights and Measures" is now preserved at the Bodleian Library at Oxford University in the UK, as shown here. Hope this helps.Davidbena (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Davidbena: here is why OCLC control number (P243) isn't used by {{Authority control}}. Please use {{OCLC}} instead. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks!Davidbena (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Tom.Reding:, I added the OCLC template to the page On Weights and Measures, but, still, I see no OCLC bar showing the identifiers. Is there something else that I must do? Please advise.Davidbena (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Editing Wikipedia Page
Hello Tom, I'm Ben, I'm working with Birthright Israel and we would like to edit our Wikipedia page with updated informations but I can't find a way to do it. I saw you were the last person to edit it.
Could you help me doing that (or maybe explain me how to proceed).
Thanks for your help, Regards
Ben
- @Bnbrm: Birthright Israel is under WP:Extended confirmed protection, which is "
granted automatically to registered users with at least 30 days tenure and 500 edits"
, and "Users can request edits to an extended confirmed-protected page by proposing them on its talk page, using the
~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC){{Edit extended-protected}}
template if necessary to gain attention.
- @Tom.Reding:
- Thanks for your help, I posted a first update on the talk page of Birthright Israel for the introduction part, could you tell me if it's good this way? It's my first update, thanks for your understanding
- Ben
- @Bnbrm: I trust someone there will review the request in due time. If not, I'll take a look. Also, don't forget to sign your talk page posts with "
~~~~
". ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Bnbrm: I trust someone there will review the request in due time. If not, I'll take a look. Also, don't forget to sign your talk page posts with "
Drop it
Please keep your personal attacks to yourself. This is uncalled for. The editor "creating" that talk page is someone I'm in a dispute with (actually a block evading sockpuppet, the SPI is open), who simply creates that page for the lulz. If you try to berate people and drag up their history, at least be sure that you get the facts surrounding a situation before doing so. Fram (talk) 11:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Fram: looks to me like you're badgering them. Regardless, the correct action would've been to tag the talk page (of an article you created, no less) instead of speedying. Take a chill pill, man, and think about your actions, instead of...not. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, you clearly have no intention to look objectively at the situation and just use it to get back at me, noted. Fram (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- That is objectively funny. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, you clearly have no intention to look objectively at the situation and just use it to get back at me, noted. Fram (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
oops...
|isbn13=
fixes noted with pleasure.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Trappist the monk: while I didn't introduce any problems, I did only fixed half of them -
|last=
&|first=
were both wikilinked, which there is no maintenance cat for. Could you have the module check for these without much overhead? I bet there is a large, but manageable number of them out there (i.e. nowhere near the number of singly-wikilinked authors & editors). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)- I suppose that it is possible to do that. This search, which times out and is only looking for
|first=[[<name>]]
, suggests that doubly-linked author names don't happen all that often. At the moment, I can't think of any reason why|first=
(and the equivalents for other name parameters) should ever be wikilinked. We have|author-link=
to link|first=
/|last=
pairs and the documentation for|first=
explicitly says don't wikilink so it would seem that the module should emit an error message when any|first=
name parameter is wikilinked. - If I decide to do anything about this, I will discuss it at Help talk:Citation Style 1.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose that it is possible to do that. This search, which times out and is only looking for
authorlink= count?
A week ago, you posted to Help Talk:CS1 that you estimated |authorlink=
at about 30K uses (in article space, I presume). I have done a bunch of cleanup edits, mostly intersecting with Category:CS1 maint: ref=harv, since then, and I'm curious if you can provide an updated estimate, or a link to a search that you use to get this number.
I have also mapped |authorlink=
to |author-link=
in a dozen or so wrapper templates, which should reduce the number of pages placed in Category:CS1 maint: discouraged parameter by |authorlink=
. If you see wrapper templates that do not make this conversion automatically, let me know. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Jonesey95: I'll post them here for easy mutual reuse. When I originally counted 309k on 9 Nov 2020, I just used basic
insource:/\| *author#link# *\=/
type searches where # =<null|1–5>
. I chose not to use thehastemplate:"Module:Citation/CS1"
qualifier b/c that made the searches more prone to timing out (especially the lower # ones) at a much lower result count, and since I figured the number of non-CS1 offending templates would be a near/trivial component of the originally-discovered non-hyphenated offenders.
- author1link + authorlink1 + authorlink = 197 + 16,737 + 83,376 = 100,310
- author2link + authorlink2 = 228 + 12,201 = 12,429
- author3link + authorlink3 = 49 + 1,618 = 1,667
- author4link + authorlink4 = 5 + 584 = 589
- author5link + authorlink5 = 3 + 307 = 310
- Total = 115,305
- Splitting up the searches helped prevent timeouts as well, and there were no timeouts above (but I had to rerun
authorlink
3–4x before it went to completion). I'm not sure how I got a 30k total last week. There might have been a timeout or 2 that I didn't try to redo... Still a great improvement from 309k though! ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)- I might've forgotten to search for the "authorlink" variant (83,376 above). Subtracting that from the total gives 31,929. Yet another reason to have these searches spelled out somewhere. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it's still better than 300K, but it would be nice to have Monkbot running on the results of these queries. I have been overlapping searches like this with other error/maint categories to limit the number of false positives, like this search that includes the new "discouraged parameter" category. That category hasn't filled up yet, so the count is too low, but it can help avoid wrapper templates that use
|authorlink=
without causing an error. I have also used petscan queries to find articles that need some other fix besides the parameter fix, and either working on those lists myself or feeding them to Citation Bot. (here is a similar insource query that I will be feeding to Citation Bot) – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)- I notice that there is a very long tail (authorlink30, 15 results) as well.... (authorlink6/7/8/9, 399 results; authorlinknn, at least 104 results) – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
- Between my {{Authority control}} & general cleanup endeavors, I can frequently (~65% of the time) find something non-cosmetically wrong with pages I haven't touched yet. I'm piggybacking most hyphenations as well (
|access-date=
selectively, based on an arbitrarily fluctuating disregard for my emotional well-being). ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)- Another useful source of
|authorlinkn=
parameter usages is the monthly parameter data reports generated by the Template Data headers on template documentation pages, like this one for Cite journal. They are generated based on a database dump from the first of the month and are created about a week later, so they get out of date, but they can work better than a search if nobody has worked through them yet. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
- Another useful source of
- Yes, it's still better than 300K, but it would be nice to have Monkbot running on the results of these queries. I have been overlapping searches like this with other error/maint categories to limit the number of false positives, like this search that includes the new "discouraged parameter" category. That category hasn't filled up yet, so the count is too low, but it can help avoid wrapper templates that use
- I might've forgotten to search for the "authorlink" variant (83,376 above). Subtracting that from the total gives 31,929. Yet another reason to have these searches spelled out somewhere. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Authority control for minor items
While I'm certainly supportive of linking to authority control where it's useful, I'm not sure how useful it is for items like minor railway stations, so I wanted to see why you've found them worth adding. Take for example Southborough station (MBTA). It has two links: a VIAF page that contains nothing but links to Wikidata and a non-human-readable DNB page, and a Worldcat link that 404s. That doesn't seem to have the value to readers that we would demand of an equally-sized navbox; anyone who would find that VIAF page useful already knows that the link is on Wikidata. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Pi.1415926535: there appears to be something wrong with Category:Wikipedia articles with WorldCat-LCCN identifiers & Category:Wikipedia articles with WorldCat-VIAF identifiers links - a few random pages all 404, suggesting they probably all 404. This is either b/c there's something wrong with the OCLC SRW/SRU servers, or the WorldCat-LCCN/VIAF link formats have changed in some way. Normal, non-derived, WorldCat links (Category:Wikipedia articles with WORLDCATID identifiers) aren't experiencing this problem, but my guess is still that it's the former.
- If you don't think a particular link is useful, you can suppress it via a blank parameter like so
|VIAF=
. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 02:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Borderline personalization
We have a history, and I know you maintain grudges, but if you have an issue with ''me'' as an editor, there are numerous venues where you can work that out. The place to do it is not supposed to be the talkpage of an article. Further, claiming that my volunteer editorial work at this website is "intentional orphaning" is a borderline personal attack. jps (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @ජපස: your recent edit history suggests otherwise - that you are trying to orphan Earth Similarity Index, again, and thus WP:NOTHERE. If you want, WP:AfD. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- If that's what you think, you need to talk about it somewhere other than on Talk:Earth Similarity Index, because that's manifestly not what I am doing. jps (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @ජපස: well, in your recent edits I quickly find:
- 9 edits like this to Keplers, KOIs, and K2s
- 2 like this to Gliese objects,
- removal from List of equations
- removal from Habitable exoplanet
- removal from Earth analog
- removal from Earth Similarity Index
- removal from Earth mass
- and topped off with this.
- How is all this not orphaning & not-WP:NOTHERE again? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 14:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- @ජපස: well, in your recent edits I quickly find:
- If that's what you think, you need to talk about it somewhere other than on Talk:Earth Similarity Index, because that's manifestly not what I am doing. jps (talk) 13:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Do you really think I'm "not here" to improve the encyclopedia? What, exactly, do you think I'm here for? I'm just a troll trying to orphan pages? Like, I don't understand how the WP:NOTHERE applies.
But I'll try my best to WP:AGF here and explain what I've been writing on lots of the other pages: ESI is an obscure idea at best and WP:UNDUE WP:FRINGE at worst. Reliable sources which discuss the Earth's Mass do not mention ESI, so WP:ONEWAY definitely applies. And for all the exoplanets listed, there are not reliable sources which list the ESI for the planet. That's precisely the issue. I'm not sure why you won't deal with this substantively, but it sure feels like this is just overly personalized at this point.
jps (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Accessdate
Please stop changing "accessdate" to "access-date" (or any of the other disputed hyphenaizations). See e.g. here. This is not a standard AWB genfix, so presumably something you have purposefully added as a replacement in your AWB run. Unnecessary, disputed changes with no actual effect on the rendered page should not be made using AWB (or any method actually), no matter if the edit otherwise was substantial or not. If I'm mistaken and this is a default AWB change, then please correct me so I can take it up at the AWB talk pages. Fram (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Huh? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- If my post is unclear, then please elaborate a bit on which parts are confusing or unintelligible. Fram (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Where is it said not to change
|accessdate=
to|access-date=
alongside substantial edits? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Where is it said not to change
- If my post is unclear, then please elaborate a bit on which parts are confusing or unintelligible. Fram (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
See WP:ANI#User Tom.Reding misusing AWB to do the same. Fram (talk) 13:19, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- So, nowhere? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- The discussion is now at WP:ANI, but anyway; the two parameters are aliases, both acceptable, and are not in the AWB replacement list because they shouldn't be replaced (in either direction). This is standard practice all over enwiki, to avoid fruitless edit wars (or else I could make the reverse change on all pages where I change e.g. authority control to acart, or another substantial edit). It's the same reason that you shouldn't change citation methods, or whitespace in headers, or ... If both versions are acceptable, just leave them well alone. Fram (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- So, nowhere? ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- And some of us choose to standardize template redirects, à la WP:AWB/TR or with our personal code/settings;
|access-date=
is similar. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:41, 22 April 2021 (UTC)- Uh, no. AWB/TR (or what you probably mean; WP:AWB/RTP) is a fixed list of acceptable replacements. Parameters which work, and which are not included in that list, should not be replaced. That's why we have that list, to avoid these discussions. You were part of the accessdate RfC, you know that it ended with a consensus against this standardization. Overruling this consensus by mass-changing it through thousands of AWB edits is not acceptable. Fram (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- And some of us choose to standardize template redirects, à la WP:AWB/TR or with our personal code/settings;
A reminder about the main AWB rules, especially #3: "Do not make controversial edits with it. Seek consensus for changes that could be controversial at the appropriate venue; village pump, WikiProject, etc. "Being bold" is not a justification for mass editing lacking demonstrable consensus. If challenged, the onus is on the AWB operator to demonstrate or achieve consensus for changes they wish to make on a large scale." Fram (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Wait, so am I making irrelevant, inconsequential edits, or bold, controversial edits?
- Also, the RfC ended with consensus against deprecation, which I don't have the power to do. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 13:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- You are making mass edits lacking demonstrable consensus (for the parameternames aspect), and which are controversial (as can be judged from the RfC and other discussions). Fram (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, "controversial" to a vocal minority that disagrees with every close. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:07, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
- You are making mass edits lacking demonstrable consensus (for the parameternames aspect), and which are controversial (as can be judged from the RfC and other discussions). Fram (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
"MSDOSSYS.STS" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MSDOSSYS.STS. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 22#MSDOSSYS.STS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Crash48 (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Broken edits on Mattia Binotto
I appreciate you cleaning up things with AWB but clearly whatever you're editing in this revision breaks the EngvarB template, do you see this on your end? FozzieHey (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- @FozzieHey: I do (did) in this version. There was a hidden 0-width character "" at the start of the template prior to my editing, whose removal fixed the error. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- This edit inserted a U+FEFF ZERO WIDTH NO-BREAK SPACE between the second
{
and theE
of EngvarB. - —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. Somehow, it made its way into my replace, and I've no idea how.
- Searching through recent edits now. Luckily, it was a new rule. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 16:21, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Module:Authority control files
Module:Authority control files has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
World Cat identity
Hi Tom, the link you posted at Piz da la Margna doesn't seem to work. Cheers, Ericoides (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Ericoides: it looks like the same problem as above @ #Authority control for minor items is happening. I checked a few days ago and they were working. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 20:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Enjoyed reading your about! Ajudante de guarda-livros em Lisboa (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC) |
Not to be confused with ...
Hi Tom.Reding, I believe you are the right person for this query. What does one do with "not to be confused with xxx" 'redirects' when the target term likely to be confused with, is redirected to something else? For example, Gramineae and Graminea are very similar words and people looking it up might not know the exact spelling or might easily mistype it, so it makes sense to place "not to be confused with xxx" alerts on each. Easily done with Graminea — not to be confused with gramineae. However, what do we do for the other way round? Gramineae redirects to Poaceae, so those who reach the page by looking up poaceae directly might be puzzled seeing a message about graminea. Do we have a conventional workaround for this? Thanks for any light you might shed. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Rui Gabriel Correia: since Poaceae has "Gramineae" in its opening sentence, and the article Graminea exists, I don't see an issue with having
{{Distinguish|graminea}}
at the top of Poaceae. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC) - @Rui Gabriel Correia {{Redirect}} seems to be what you are looking for. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2021 (UTC)- Thanks, Tom.Reding and 1234qwer1234qwer4. Much appreciated. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Rui Gabriel Correia In this case, {{Redirect-distinguish}} seems to fit best. I've changed it in the article. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Rui Gabriel Correia In this case, {{Redirect-distinguish}} seems to fit best. I've changed it in the article. ~~~~
- Thanks, Tom.Reding and 1234qwer1234qwer4. Much appreciated. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Brilliant, 1234qwer1234qwer4! I tried combining the two by using piping within the template, but after many attempts with multiple variations, nothing worked. This is indeed perfect. Thank you. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 05:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
KLAR
The VIAF you added to KLAR (the radio station) appears to be for some sort of German music group that not even dewiki has an article for. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:Taxonbar databases
Template:Taxonbar databases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:26, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Introducing myself
Hello Tom.Reding,
Nice to e-meet you. As you will see from my personal page, I am the Executive Assistant to the CEO at Lekela, a renewable power generation company operating in Africa. I’ve been appointed the in-house Wikipedian in residence to help ensure that information about Lekela is factual, fair, and balanced, in line with Wikipedia standards and guidelines.
I have noticed that you appear to be interested in energy/renewables-related pages such as Iberdrola Renovables, Vestas, IRENA, and the general ‘Renewable energy in Africa’ page.
As someone interested in Africa and energy, Lekela has many wind projects in Africa that aren’t mentioned on Wikipedia but that could be captured in a company-focused page. I obviously cannot set up this page as that would break the Wikipedia rules, but do let me know if you would be interested in doing this.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best, Jas --Jas at Lekela (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fram (talk) 13:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
- Re. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Newark NJ Fire Dept Page
Hi, this is Doriden, I am contacting you because of this anonymous user based in Florida that keeps on vandalizing the Newark Fire Department Wikipedia page. All day today back and forth, wrote to him twice on talk page but continues doing it. How can he be blocked? I am asking for your assistance because it looks like you have a lot of experience with Wikipedia. Thank you, Doriden Doriden (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Doriden: it appears that you are manually reverting the IP over several edits. You can instead select the relevant edit in the edit history and click 'undo' (much faster & easier to do). Their edits also look more 'disruptive' than 'vandalism'. Regardless, after your multiple warnings, and other users reverts, I've reported IP to WP:AIV via WP:Twinkle, which you might find incredibly useful in these circumstances. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting it for me, I'm not too computer savvy. Appreciate your response. Doriden (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
BTW, where is the undo button or icon? Doriden (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Doriden: Ctrl+F or ⌘ Cmd+F "undo" in any history window. If you have permission to edit the page, you should find it.
Adjust the radio buttons on the left the affect the relevant edits.~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 10:12, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Doriden (talk) 11:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Doriden: slight correction: the undo button only undoes 1 edit (I rarely use it and assumed it worked the same as "Compare selected revisions"). To undo multiple edits, use the radio buttons in the history window, then click on "Compare selected revisions" at the top. Double-check the diff, and if you're satisfied, click "restore this version" on the left side. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
- For further help please ask at the WP:Teahouse. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 11:26, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm working from a mobile device and I don't know if it has them features. I'll try it, thanks again, Doriden Doriden (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Newark NJ Fire Department Wikipedia page
He just did it again. Disruptive editing. Please help me. Thanks, Doriden Doriden (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Newark NJ fire dept Wikipedia page
He did it again. Can we get him blocked at least temporarily? Doriden (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Newark NJ fire dept Wikipedia page
Can you please help me by reporting him, I have talked to him more than five times and he keeps up with the disruptive editing. I would greatly appreciate your help. I really don't know how to do this reporting and I am on a mobile device. Thanks, Doriden Doriden (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Doriden: please don't spam my talk page. Like I said, for further help please ask at the WP:Teahouse. I submitted the page to WP:Requests for page protection, via WP:Twinkle, which you are able to use. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 22:46, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Category:Northern Ireland MLAs 2016–2017
could you fix the script error that you added to this category? Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
- Fixed ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 00:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Akane Yamaguchi
Hello. Help copy edit. Thank you. Vnosm (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Opportunism
Hi, I would like to ask about a paragraph you wrote on the page about Opportunism. This is the paragraph:
It is often difficult for an outsider to understand why an action or an idea is (or is not) "opportunist", because the outsider lacks the whole context, or the true intention behind it.
Who did you mean by the outsider? The opportunist or the people who are not opportunistic?
Thank you for your answer. Kaktus7202 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Kaktus7202: using WikiBlame, I found that was added in 2014 by a now-blocked editor. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 01:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I can know understand it a little better. Thanks. Kaktus7202 (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fonseca, La Guajira, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Catalan.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Austrian airliners
A tag has been placed on Category:Austrian airliners indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 14:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Austro-Hungarian bomber aircraft
A tag has been placed on Category:Austro-Hungarian bomber aircraft indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Austro-Hungarian experimental aircraft
A tag has been placed on Category:Austro-Hungarian experimental aircraft indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Austro-Hungarian fighter aircraft
A tag has been placed on Category:Austro-Hungarian fighter aircraft indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:08, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Austro-Hungarian military reconnaissance aircraft
A tag has been placed on Category:Austro-Hungarian military reconnaissance aircraft indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 15:10, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Newark NJ fire dept Wikipedia page
Tom, this is Doriden, the page Protection of the Newark NJ fire dept Wikipedia page was reversed by a BOT and a half hour later that ip address from Florida did it again with disruptive editing. I warned him once again. Can we get him blocked at least temporarily for disruptive editing? Thank you, Doriden Doriden (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Doriden: I've described to you above how to deal with this. Now it's your turn. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying but it is extremely difficult to do it from a mobile device. Once or twice when I made a edit that was "questionable" wiki users crawled out of the woodwork to admonish me, and this guy is getting away with all this nonsense. Two hours after the BOT removed the page Protection he pounced on it, this non-static ip from St.Petersburg Florida. OK. Thanks anyway Doriden (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Authority control in non-biographical articles
Hi. I've noticed your edits for some time, and generally they don't seem to be disputed, but I'm wondering whether there has been discussion and explicit consensus in support of adding authority control templates to non-biographical articles? I couldn't find anything other than the 2012 RfC. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Paul 012: all ID proposals & discussions are @ Template talk:Authority control. ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 15:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Authority control + Vital articles?
Noticed you're a driving force for authority control additions. Don't know if you follow a specific pattern, but thinking it'd be nice to focus on Wikipedia:Vital articles lacking this, since these are, after all, vital. FYI, Vital has five levels, starting at the ten most vital, then top 100, top 1000, top 10k, and top 50k. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)