User talk:Bsherr/Archives/2010

Incorrect

Look at the history. Where I was redirecting is the original article. Juan Tu only pointed that to the stupid capitalization after I pointed out that he was duplicating an existing article. Would you please self-revert? LadyofShalott 00:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Bsherr (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! LadyofShalott 00:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So, the postgame irony--within minutes of your block on Juan's IP, TREND iS dEAD! records was moved. Poor guy. Bsherr (talk) 02:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see. I just wish he'd been willing to talk to someone about what he wanted to do. Instead, he was just trying to brute force push it through, ignoring everyone else. Oh well. LadyofShalott 02:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Client List

As you are neither an admin, nor do you seem to be an experienced editor per your edit count, nor do I see that you've done much work in the copyvio area, it would have been better if you had not tried to remove the CSD from this article. Due to the nature of WP:COPYRIGHT, such CSDs should almost always be dealt with by an admin or very experienced editor. In particular, as this article is also the topic of an ANI thread due to the larger issues with this creator (as noted on the talk page), it only doubles the need for it to be handled by an actual administrator. You also incorrectly claimed that it was fair use,[1] when it is not, to take word for word copy from other sites. Listing it at WP:CP was unnecessary, particularly with it already under discussion at ANI, as there is no question on its having had copyvio issues. It had, in fact, been CSDed before not long before its recreation for the exact same issue. I have now completely redone the article to remove all of the copyvio there by ending that issue. Please do not try to restore the copyvio material again, as the actual fact stated is now in the article and sourced to an actual reliable source.-- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 07:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive Wrap-up

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive. Thanks to all who participated in the drive! Over 100 editors—including Jimbo Wales—signed up this time (nearly triple the participants of the May drive). This benefited the Guild as well as the articles in need of copy editing. You can see from the comparison graphs that we increased the number of completed copyedits substantially. Unfortunately, we were not able to meet our goal of completely wiping out 2008 from the queue. We also were not able to reduce the backlog to less than 6,000 articles. We suspect people were busy with real life summertime things, at least in the northern hemisphere! We were able to remove the months of January, February, March, April, and May from the backlog, and we almost wiped out the month of June. We reduced the backlog by 1,289 articles (17%), so all in all it was a very successful drive, and we will be holding another event soon. We'll come up with some new ideas to try to keep things fresh and interesting. Keep up the good work, everybody! Stats If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you edited in the May 2010 GOCE Backlog Elimination Drive, your word totals are cumulative for barnstars (not the leaderboard). Over the course of the next week or two, we will be handing out the barnstars. GOCE backlog elimination drive chart up to 31 July Eight people will receive The Most Excellent Order of the Caretaker's Barnstar (100,000+ words): Chaosdruid, Diannaa, Ericleb01, Lfstevens, Shimeru, S Masters, The Utahraptor, and Torchiest. Bullock and Slon02 will receive The Order of the Superior Scribe (80,000+). The Barnstar of Diligence (60,000+) goes to Derild4921, GaryColemanFan, kojozone, and Mlpearc. The Modern Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar (40,000+) goes to A. Parrot, AirplanePro, Auntieruth55, Bejinhan, David Rush, and mono. Nobody will receive The Old School League of Copy Editors award (30,000+). The Tireless Contributor Barnstar (20,000+) goes to Backtable, Cindamuse, dtgriffith, Duff, e. ripley, Laurinavicius, NerdyScienceDude, and TEK. The Cleanup Barnstar (12,000+) goes to Brickie, Casliber, cymru lass, December21st2012Freak, Nolelover, TheTito, Whoosit, and YellowMonkey. The Working Man's Barnstar (8,000+) goes to Bsherr, Duchess of Bathwick, HELLKNOWZ, Mabeenot, noraft, Pyfan, and Richard asr. The Modest Barnstar (4,000+) goes to Adrian J. Hunter, Airplaneman, Annalise, Camerafiend, Cricket02, Fetchcomms, Gosox5555, LeonidasSpartan, Paulmnguyen, Piotrus, SuperHamster, Taelus, and TPW. Gold Star Award Gold Star Award Leaderboard Articles Words 5k+ Articles 1. Diannaa (248) Shimeru (200,392) Shimeru/Ericleb01 (13) 2. Slon02 (157) Diannaa (164,960) Chaosdruid (8) 3. GaryColemanFan (101) Chaosdruid (130,630) Derild4921 (7) 4. Torchiest (100) The Utahraptor (117,347) GaryColemanFan/Slon02 (6) 5. Shimeru (80) Ericleb01 (114,893) Bejinhan/The Utahraptor (5) Coordinator: ɳorɑfʈ Talk! Co-coordinators: Diannaa TALK and S Masters (talk) | Newsletter by: The Raptor You rang?/My mistakes; I mean, er, contributions

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor at 18:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC).

Talkback

Hello, Bsherr. You have new messages at WT:RPP.
Message added 00:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks!

Sorry 'bout that. I was taking a break from the project andI semi-protected the talk page. I can unprotect that other page for you in the meantime. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

City Terminal Zone

The same reasons I used the last time it was removed (as sid in the edit history), and at the current deletion discussion regarding it. The City Terminal Zanoe is not a rail line, but generl descriptor to three separte lines, each of which has a separate article already containing a route digram. It is redundant and unneeded.oknazevad (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Test templates

Hi David Levy. It's been three years since the last discussion occurred regarding possibly redirecting the old test templates. I think, given the amount of time that has passed, it is time to have another discussion to see whether consensus has changed.

There's a whole range of options to consider for these templates, including (1) deleting, (2) redirecting, (3) userfying, (4) merging if some unique functionality remains for the old template, (5) labelling the test templates as deprecated, (6) keeping status quo. I know the old consensus was that there was gain from deleting them, but I'd like to determine whether anyone is indeed still using these templates, and why, so we might determine whether the standardized templates are not meeting a significant need. There are indeed reasons for not keeping the old templates: (1) poor documentation, (2) indescriptive and disorganized naming scheme prone to errors (test1, test1a, test1article, test1n, test1-alt, etc.), and (3) disinterest in updating or improving them.

In fact, maintaining separate templates defeats reaching consensus, the hallmark of Wikipedia. When users disagree about a given article, we don't maintain two versions of the article. Rather we, resolve the differences in a mutually agreeable way. While that's a rule for articles that may not apply to templates as rigorously, the benefits are the same. The benefit here could be a single, improved template, for everyone's use.

All of these issues could be raised in a discussion, and a discussion is necessary to determine whether there is a new consensus. I'd like to renew the conversation to determine which would be best, and I thought that Templates for Discussion would be the most visible place to do it. Could you suggest an alternative, or do you have your own ideas? Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello! I'll try to address each of your concerns individually.

1. It hasn't been three years since this matter was last discussed. In the interim, there have been several attempts to redirect the templates (usually by editors unfamiliar with the decision to retain them), leading to scattered discussions on their talk pages that have invariably resulted in the templates' continued retention (an explicit condition under which the community agreed to their supersession in the first place).

2. Deletion is not a viable option. When templates are superseded by others performing the same functions, our standard practice is to redirect them (even if there is no evidence that they remain in wide use) because their deletion provides absolutely no benefit (and causes harm if even one person attempts to use them in the future). In this instance, many of the templates likely remain in wide use (routinely substituted, of course).

3. The desire to retain the legacy templates (instead of redirecting them) stems from some editors' preference for their simpler style. This, however, is not indicative of a deficiency in the newer templates. It merely reflects the fact that these templates are used to convey posts addressed from specific users (who want them to jibe with their style of messaging).

4. Unlike templates used in articles and their talk pages, there is no need for uniformity. These templates merely simplify a task for which no exact method is mandated. (Users are welcome to manually type their own warning messages or transclude pseudo-templates from their user space.)

5. The templates are intentionally undocumented. Including them alongside the "uw" series would cause confusion (due to the obvious overlap). The legacy templates exist solely for the benefit of those who are familiar with them and wish to use them. Therefore, the "indescriptive and disorganized naming scheme" is moot (because no one is expected to learn it). The absence of updates and improvements stems not from disinterest, but the lack of a need.

6. I doubt that there would be opposition to the insertion of a tag along the lines of the following:

Does this strike you as a satisfactory solution? —David Levy 18:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi! Your suggestion could be satisfactory, but I can't agree to it unilaterally. I'm glad we can work together on this. I do have further questions, but I think we should talk about it in the right forum, not just on our user talk pages, you know what I mean? We should have a discussion in which everyone can participate, and which provides notice to everyone that it's taking place. I think Templates for Discussion is the correct forum for it, but if you have another suggestion, I'd be open to it.

Also, I can't find any discussions in the last three years. I'm fairly certain there hasn't been anything on TfD, and I haven't seen more than a few scattered responses on the user talk namespace talk page--nothing that rises to a discussion of possible global solutions to this. Could you tell me which you're referring to? Thanks, David. --Bsherr (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Threads have arisen on individual templates' talk pages. (Sorry, I don't recall which ones.)

I would suggest Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace (perhaps with a few pointers elsewhere) as the best page on which to conduct a unified discussion. I say this because the details are a bit complicated and atypical (making the issue poorly suited to a forum in which many users instinctively rush to cast a vote and immediately depart). —David Levy 19:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

The user talk namespace talk page would be fine for now, but I still think TfD is the appropriate place. I understand your point that the users that may comment there don't have expertise in user warnings, but to me, that's precisely the interest. The user warnings are designed for mass consumption, and the opinions of lay users are therefore very important. But in the mean time, as we refine the issues, I'd be pleased to discuss it on the talk page. Before we move over there, could I ask, are you one of the users that prefers the legacy templates? --Bsherr (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Expertise isn't the issue. In fact, we could even advertise the discussion at TfD. It's merely that forum's format/tone that isn't ideal (because users are accustomed to relying on certain assumptions that aren't applicable in this instance). I'd like to encourage meaningful discourse instead of hit-and-run voting. (Note that I don't mean to disparage TfD, which works well most of the time.)

2. I typically use {{test}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}} and {{test4}} in general situations and various "uw" templates in specialized situations. I don't recall using any of the other legacy templates. 04:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Perfect! You'll be an excellent test subject (forgive me, I don't at all mean to be diminutive by that). You mentioned it's the difference in the text, not familiarity with the template name (which could be solved by a redirect) that matters. Let's take Test2 and uw-v2 as a sample. Could you tell me what specifically you prefer about one of these over the other?

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. Such edits are considered vandalism and quickly undone. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you.

--Bsherr (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The text is not a consideration for me (though I can't speak for others). It's the icon that I don't care for. The higher-level templates' icons convey a message of warning, but I feel that the blue "information" icon is purely decorative and accentuates the template's impersonal, boilerplate tone. I recall numerous users expressing such a view, which I thought led to the addition of syntax to suppress the icon (much more complicated than simply using the legacy template), but unless I'm overlooking something, I only see code enabling its replacement with another icon (or any text). I suppose that one could specify a 1px blank icon or non-printing character, but that would be rather inconvenient without some sort of semi-automated script (which I don't use).

Of minor concern are the stop sign-style icons. I prefer the simpler one used in the legacy templates, which lacks the newer version's reflection effect (another element that I regard as purely decorative, as well as aesthetically counterintuitive for something that shouldn't be pretty).

As I noted earlier, I use the "uw" templates when specificity is called for. (I appreciate the ability to load the handy chart and seek the appropriate keyword.) I don't regard this issue as Earth-shatteringly important (and the "information" icon wouldn't bother me quite as much if we could switch to one with better anti-aliasing), though others have exhibited stronger feelings than mine. —David Levy 05:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Great! You see, there are exactly the insights we lose by maintaining separate templates. I for one would be delighted to look into simpler and better quality symbols. It would be a simple matter to create a parser function to turn the icon on and off (completely off, not just replacing with a blank image), or change it from "3D" to "2D", something like uw-v1|icon=0. I can't imagine typing the extra variable would be too burdensome, right? (I'm not looking at the templates while writing this, so I don't know what their current functionality is (thought that'll be the next thing I open), but I know for sure what it could become if desired.) Actually, I think there isn't anything you've suggested that's insurmountable. I really do think that, with a good faith effort from uw-ers and test-ers, we can bridge the gap and merge the templates. Help me out? --Bsherr (talk) 16:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, leaving the icon parameter null on the existing template actually does something really hideous. It interprets the text of the template as beginning with a space and puts it in a code example box. I'll get to fixing that up on all the templates. Then "uw-v1|icon=" will turn the icon off. --Bsherr (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I noticed that behavior last night. A fix would be helpful, but I (and presumably others who don't use warning scripts) would not find it easy to adapt to typing {{subst:uw-v1|icon=}} or {{subst:test|icon=}} instead of {{subst:test}} (which has been practically reflexive for years).

However, if it were possible to code the legacy templates to substitute the corresponding "uw" templates with the icon-suppression/replacement syntax automatically in place, I would have no objections. —David Levy 16:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's something we can consider. I'll get back to you when the fix on the icon code is done, and we'll go from there. --Bsherr (talk) 23:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! —David Levy 23:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Caught up in the new user block metatemplate project. A user warnings metatemplate will be next. --Bsherr (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Internet Journal of Interventional Medicine

Hello Bsherr. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Internet Journal of Interventional Medicine, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article is about a peer-reviewed journal, not a website, blog, etc. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Malik, thanks for the notice. Internet Journal of Interventional Medicine is an internet only journal. My understanding is that web content is an eligible subject under CSD A7. Does that the web content is peer reviewed affect A7 eligibility, or is A7 narrower than it looks? --Bsherr (talk) 03:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't clear from the article that the journal was an internet-only publication. You're right, an internet-only publication is subject to A7 regardless of what type of publication it is, although a peer-reviewed professional journal is more likely to be notable than a blog. :-) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not think an internet only journal such as this falls under A7. That something asserts itself to be a per-reviewed journal is an assertion of importance. I changed that one to a PROD -- someone else deleted it as G11, which I think wrong also, but since it is thoroughly non-notable, I'm not going to argue the point with them. DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Temple change consensus?

Hello. Can you point me toward the consensus discussion on moving {{uw-vblock}} to {{uw-block}}? Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I didn't mean it as a move. Well, now that I think about it, I suppose it is, but I didn't do it for the purpose of renaming vblock! I built out uw-block to be a new metatemplate for the block templates. Other metatemplates don't work independently (see Template:db-notice as one example); they have to be transcluded into another template. But I knew that the way the User Warnings Project set up uw-block1-3 was to have it default to a vandalism reason if no reason was provided, so that's what I did with the metatemplate instead! I haven't completely rolled out the metatemplate to all the block templates yet, because I want to give it a pilot run on just a few to make sure it works as expected, but don't worry, I fully sandbox tested it, of course! You can see the pilots at Template:uw-sblock and Template:uw-adblock. But anyway, if I had implemented the metatemplate on vblock, it would have looked like this (leaving out the "includeonly"s, comments, categories, and documentation):

{{safesubst:uw-block|reason={{{reason|}}}|page={{{page|}}}|time={{{time|}}}|sig={{{sig|}}}|indef={{{indef|}}}}}

But, all of that would only have been the functional equivalent of a redirect (notice that I'm just transcluding the uw-block template and passing each parameter over to the metatemplate), so I just redirected it, though I suppose, if the project members want, we can indeed just use the above code, or we can make the metatemplate just a metatemplate (never actually used except in other templates). Obviously, the other templates bear the benefits of the improved simplicity of using the metatemplate, and show more customization according to their purposes. One of the pilots shows the code all together, and the other (the user-friendly "test subject") has line breaks now; I'm still working on making the appearance of the code as easy to follow as possible.

Since the metatemplate doesn't actually change the functioning or the documentation of any of the existing templates, I decided to WP:BEBOLD and pilot it. I've admired your contributions and leadership on the User Warnings ever since I first started editing, so I hope I haven't been too bold. --Bsherr (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My main concept for Unblock-hard was that you only need to change one to change all of them. The downside on the template page itself is that the code <includeonly>{{safesubst:</includeonly><includeonly>#switch:{{</includeonly><includeonly>subst:NAMESPACE}}|User|User talk=INPUT HERE}} doesn't work when "INPUT HERE" is replaced with "subst:". There must be an obvious alternative that I'm missing. Like I said, though, the text within the template will be correct when the entire template is subst'ed. mechamind90 18:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I know it works. But the purpose you just identified for Unblock-hard is the same purpose as for uw-block. Eventually merging the two will eliminate the redundancy, reduce server load, and fix the transclusion problem you have with safesubst. Cheers. --Bsherr (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

After a second look between Uw-block and Uw-adblock (one of the templates that contains Uw-block), I believe I applied it successfully. mechamind90 18:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I can agree with that

As for user talk pages, when you link to files or templates, make sure to add a colon ":" before them so that it's not mistaken for a real one. Or, you can also use curved braces and add a tlx argument before it. mechamind90 04:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Albion Police Department (Nebraska)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Albion Police Department (Nebraska), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albion Police Department (Nebraska). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Codf1977 (talk) 09:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Total solutions

I set out to userfy this in answer to your request, but the author already has a copy in a user sub-page. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes to CSD and db-g11

Hi. We meet again. I have reverted your changes to the wording of WP:CSD#G11 and {{db-g11}}. A substantial change like that to a widely-used template needs discussion and consensus, and in this case I do not at all agree with your change - there are many spam pages that would fit "does nothing but promote some entity or product" but are not so bad as to fit "consists entirely of blatant, biased promotion or advertisement of the subject" If you disagree, please start a discussion at WT:CSD and see if you can get a consensus. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, will do. --Bsherr (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Government agency not an A7 eligible subject

Hi,

I noticed you have declined a number of CSD's with "Government agency not an A7 eligible subject" - I honestly was not aware of that, I new schools were not but did not know that extended to other Government agencies. - Can you point me to the full list of what organisations are not eligible ? Codf1977 (talk) 07:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Sure! A list of examples of organizations is at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). You'll see there that there is no mention of governments, agencies, and other public authorities. Remember that the standard for A7 is importance, not notability. My understanding is that's the reason government agencies are not included. Essentially all government agencies satisfy importance, even if they aren't notable. The right deletion procedure for them is a PROD or AfD. --Bsherr (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I actually see that a number of administrators have deleted such articles. You're right to ask about it. This is definitely a point that needs reinforcement. I'll submit a RfC in the next few days on the matter. Thanks for making me aware of it. --Bsherr (talk) 08:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably after the KRMS deletion review closes. --Bsherr (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the closest section is WP:CLUB (Non-commercial organizations) as these police forces are, but since the scope of their activities is not national or international in scale that is not the case, and without any significant coverage, or a claim to significance I do feel that they are CSD A7 able - take Friend Police Department (Nebraska) - I did not tag that CSD A7 as it made a claim to significance, the rest of them do not, and going back to WP:CLUB it says "Aim for one good article, not multiple permanent stubs". Codf1977 (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why a governmental organization is not an organization in the meaning of WP:CSD. I certainly have deleted these in a few cases under A7, but the question generally is whether the mere assertion that it is an official association at a non-trivial level is to some degree an assertion of importance. Perhaps the place to discuss this is WT:CSD. FWIW, I don't think WP:ORG is relevant here--WO ORG is talking about notability. A7 is talking about importance or significance. And in any case, I think we do apply WP:ORG to government organizations in AfD debates. (As for police forces, I do not think they fall under A7--I consider there is an implication that a police department is significant. --this has nothing to do with whether they are Notable--in general I !vote to delete articles on them) . DGG ( talk ) 16:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't found a definition of importance or significance, and that's one of the reasons there's so much unnecessary uncertainty around A7. The standard I apply is whether it is something an average person would ever expect to find in Wikipedia as encyclopedic. Nearly all nontrivial government agencies are important in the sense that they could at least be merged into a larger article (in the case of local police stations, as a section in an article on the municipality). Speedy deletion is dangerous because it does not permit merger as an alternative to deletion. A7 only exists because there are certain types of articles (namely articles about private individuals and entities) that are so often subject to biased creation that speedy deletion is appropriate. Government agencies just don't fall into this category. You're both exactly right. We need to do an RfC at WP:CSD. --Bsherr (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at List of law enforcement agencies in Nebraska, I suspect that most of the links could well be to the sort of stub exampled by Aurora Police Department (Nebraska) (I admit that I have not followed every link) - there is clearly no demonstration of significance in that page, and I would not expect to find a page in an encyclopaedia on them. I do think however a page covering state wide is ok. So would the answer be a group AfD ? Codf1977 (talk) 19:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest, per the guidelines at WP:PRESERVE, merging into the article for the respective municipality (so Aurora, Nebraska for Aurora Police Department (Nebraska)), or alternatively, just as you suggest, creating a page with all of them together as a statewide page. The encyclopedia will be better for it. You could AfD, but I don't think there would be any disagreement about this, so WP:BEBOLD instead. Of course, if you don't want to do the merge yourself, just put a template on the page. Remember, this isn't just any encyclopedia, it's the world's largest. Significance must be measured in accordance with that. A historic bank building in Dow City, Iowa, might not be in Brittanica, but it could be worthy of inclusion in WIkipedia. That being said, carry on speedying most Taiwanese cell phone charger manufacturers, local hardware stores, etc. --Bsherr (talk) 19:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason there is no definition of importance of significance is that it was intended to leave the terms as non-soecific and comprehensive as possible. A7 is intended to be used narrowly, only when anyone reasonable with some experience here would agree the article should be deleted. The intent is that anything that if sourced might possibly be notable, or that someone might possibly find additional material to show suitability for an article, should not be speedied. In the case of a police department, there is always the possibility that it has been involved in sufficiently major cases or scandals that it will be possible to demonstrate suitability for an article--even if the person originally writing the article didn't find them or didn't look for them. That's similar to why we don't speedy products--again, without a thorough search, there might be significant reviews, even if the person originally writing the article didn't find them or didn't look for them. I find it increasingly hard to say what a reasonable person might expect to find: Wikipedia is an evolving project, and people look for the most unlikely things, on the chance it might be covered. That's in fact why I prefer objective standards of inclusion, because the current method amounts to guesswork and chance.

Nobody has to work just the way I do, but the following represents the way I personally deal with articles like this. The normal thing to do with departments of this sort is to prod them, and give a chance for people to find information. In my experience, at least half of such prods will not be challenged. The admins (like myself) who patrol prod normally do at least a Google/G News search before deleting the remaining expired prods, just in case. Ones challenged will need to go to AfD , but i would very strongly advise against a group AfD, because it often turns out that one or two of such a group are more significant than the others. If you do go to AfD, of course, you ought to follow WP:BEFORE, and try to find anything yourself. How much effort to spend in this depends on your judgement of the probabilities. In any case, at the least, we'd normally redirect or merge to the municipality or county. Myself, I speedy hardware stores unless something special is claimed; I do not speedy cell phone manufacturers with checking, unless it's obvious on the face of it that the company is not important. There's another thing, more important than how we get rid of the unjustified articles--someone needs to leave a clear non-template explanation to the person adding them, so they do not wast their efforts further, with suggestions for working more constructively. I do not use the standard templates to people adding articles in apparent good faith--it tends to lose us a potentially good contributor. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you got that I was being tongue-in-cheek about Taiwanese cell phone charger manufacturers. Bsherr (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with the group AfD - I will prod these and leave it a week to see if any one objects. Codf1977 (talk)

Looks like it is AfD for these - given the lack of addressing the issue by the creator, I don't feel inclined not to tag others CSD. Codf1977 (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In case you did not follow the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albion Police Department (Nebraska) the result was delete, the closing admin (Cirt) recomended that I ask at ANI about the other stubs in the series. Since I mentioned that you had an objection to the use of CSD for the articles I thought I should let you know about the posting. (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Brianmcfa and law enforcement agencies in Nebraska Stubs) Codf1977 (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Tzedek (UK Charity)

Wikipedia:Coi#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest recommends that "[t]he first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor". I saw no evidence that you had done that. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#SharedIP for individual U.S military departments

Hi Bsherr. I would like to close the discussion as "merge" but am clueless as to how to merge the templates you nominated. If you're willing to merge them and some admin hasn't already done so by the time you respond and I close it, I'll close the discussion and you can merge the templates. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 05:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Featherlite Coaches

I noticed here that you disputed the speedy deletion of the article being created by a banned user on the grounds that other users have made substantial edits. Could you please point me to which edit you believe is substantial? I'm only able to find very small, minor edits by other users, nothing of substance. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of substance is that it includes the categorization of an article. See, for example, the substantial work of Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized. Agree, or did you miss that edit? --Bsherr (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Categorization is not a major edit, at least not for that purpose. A major edit would be the actual substantial addition of referenced material, or a major clean up, copy edit, etc. It takes some pretty serious work by others to keep something a banned editor created in defiance of their ban, not just adding a cat, fixing a spelling or grammar error or two, etc. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious why you interpret it that way. I thought that the idea is that there's a presumption that a page created by a banned user is unacceptable, but that presumption is rebutted if another editor, by way of contributing to the article, finds the article to be acceptable. Was there something wrong with the articles besides being created by a banned user? If not, why delete them? --Bsherr (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's a substantive edit, that may be the case. But a category doesn't indicate that the editor read the sources cited, fact checked the article, etc., just that they took a skim over it to see where it fits. That's not a major or substantive edit, it's more akin to stub sorting.

As to why deletion, the banning policy explains some on this. It was also extensively discussed, you can probably look in the earlier talk archives to see a lot of the reasoning behind the policy (which is that edits by a banned editor made by socking are removed or reverted regardless of their merit). The "nutshell" version is this, however: Firstly, it discourages socking from banned editors—if you know everything you did is going to be reversed the moment you get caught, there's a lot less incentive to do it at all. If you can cause yet more trouble by requiring debate over which edits should stay and which should go, you're disrupting the community and wasting its time even more—which, if you're a banned sockpuppeteer, is probably exactly your goal. Secondly, we do not assume good faith on the part of those who are deliberately evading a block or ban. If you're doing that, you're already violating one policy just by editing at all, so you may very well also be playing at subtle hoaxing, trolling, etc. If you're attempting to subtly evade one policy, why should we presume that's the only one? So, if you've written articles, and no one else has extensively been through them, then they get deleted to prevent that possibility. If the subject really does exist and is worthwhile, someone else can always write a properly referenced article, and that one will stay around. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That's entirely reasonable. It would just be a shame to lose acceptable articles because of it. I've asked for a few of them to be userfied to me so I can take a close look at them. If they're acceptable or near acceptable, my plan would be to do any minor work needed and submit them through AfC. You'd be fine with that, right? --Bsherr (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're willing to carefully check the references and make sure there's nothing funny going on, absolutely. Do you have any particular ones you think might be worthwhile and would like to take a look at? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes please. This one, Rachel Sussman, and Jack Creek (Florida). Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

(reset) Userfied for you, at User:Bsherr/Featherlite Coaches, User:Bsherr/Jack Creek, and User:Bsherr/Rachel Sussman. If you are ready to move any back to mainspace, please let me know so the history merging can be done properly. If they're not workable, you can just put {{db-u1}} to have the subpages deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Bsherr (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have restored to User:Bsherr/Jack Creek (Florida) but I am not sure if you need it now! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bsherr

This is John Manuel if you don't mind, I would like to keep these pages. I will edit something but not too soon. Now, please feel free to change any categorization that you might find important. Thank you for asking, Bsherr. John Manuel "-Todos Llegan de Noche, todos se van de día" (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Bsherr, thanks for your help. 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

VeblenBot

I didn't catch your suggestion about VeblenBot. If you can point me to it, I'll look at it as soon as I can. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That was a good idea, and it was very easy to change. The suggested improvements page had been lost from my watchlist somehow. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Autoassessor2

Little late for this, but for the sake of things, I support the Autoassessor2 run for WP:WPRS. Should have been the first one to support this, but a TFA and a FA have taken up most of my WikiTime. Please let me know if I can be of assistance in anyway on WP:WPRS as I can normally be found doing some radio or TV station editing on most days (not lately, but most). - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Small protection templates

Moved from Talk:Microsoft Hi Ryan Norton. This article properly should be put into Category:Wikipedia pages semi-protected against vandalism, which is accomplished by using {{pp-vandalism}}, not {{pp-semi-indef}}. Please note that this follows a repurposing of this category after pp-vandalism was metatized for both protection levels. The small parameter is contraindicated, even though the page is indefinitely semiprotected, because this page is an article. The small template does not explain semiprotection, the reason for the protection, and how new and anonymous users can seek to edit the article. I hope this clarifies the change in template. --Bsherr (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care which template it uses TBH, but the big version is generally only used to pages with short-term protection, not indef, especially on a featured article. At least, that's the way it has been for years. Is these some kind of recent policy that says otherwise? Ryan Norton 01:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So as you may know, the small parameter was introduced on the protection metatemplate in the second half of 2007. No directions were ever written for its use at that time, but initially it was executed on pages that were not likely to be edited by the users it blocked, like WP and WP Cat pages, for example. It's since creeped into articles, and there's been a steady trend to use it for indef articles. The problem for semi-protected articles is that the (probably only) purpose of the large template is to explain to new and anon users about the protection, and for this purpose, the duration of the protection is irrelevant (so if you're using small on long-term, you may as well use it on short-term too). I think it would be unfortunate if asthetics wins over usability for new users, but you're right in that this probably needs to go to RfC. (But bear in mind also that indef is not the same as permanent or long-term; it only means the lack of a fixed expiry. This would also have to be accounted for.) Not sure how we move forward right here, right now, but maybe I've gotten you interested? --Bsherr (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This page has been semi-protected almost since the beginning when the bit was implemented around 4 years ago, and has just been put back on because pending changes failed (seriously, look at the log). Also, the small version of the protection template was around in 2006, I was an admin then and used it liberally, it just wasn't a paramater; seperate template. There really isn't much documentation on it because protection in general is case-specific, and there was little debate over the small parameter as back then we decided to implement it on the meta page when the user went to view the source. Ryan Norton 02:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the history. It's often difficult to research back. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about there not being documentation because protection is case-specific. I understand that protection is case-specific, but I'm not sure why that would preclude guidelines. If you're not interested in discussing further, that's fine, but if you don't mind, it would be of help to me. --Bsherr (talk) 15:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is difficult to research back because we were less bureaucratic in most areas back then, as in we really didn't document much of the admin-related stuff unless it was really important. Mostly it was just someone would start using a template, someone would think "hey, that looks better", and then everyone else starts using it without much discussion; deletion debates were originally held on the talk page of an article and were never "archived", for instance. In the case of the small icon template if my memory recalls the only real debate over it started when it was introduced with the featured article star at the top of the page; it was put up for deletion, there was a discussion, and that was that. It is probably in the template for deletion archives somewhere if you are really interested. Ryan Norton 02:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox heading

Hi there,

Please could you consider revisiting the deletion discussion about the sandbox warning thing,

Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Uw-sandbox

I do take your point about possibly rewriting it, but my primary concern is that it is a warning template, and as such overused via Twinkle.

Re. your other concern that the bot does not quickly replace that;

a) I've not seen that myself, and indeed I checked an itemised in history showing that the bot does speedily replace it,

b) I just re-checked (and suggest you might wish to do same);

• [2] I changed {{Please leave this line alone (sandbox heading)}}, just changing the P at the start to a lowercase p (thus it still functions fine, but the bot thinks it has been changed)
• [3] It was reinstated by the bot 2 minutes later.

c) If there are problems with the bot, then we need to fix them, I don't see that this means the template is needed though.

If you'd like to get a copy of the template userfied, and consider rewriting it under a different name, that could be a compromise, perhaps?

I hope you don't mind me asking for this clarification, but I see that the item has been re-listed.

Best,  Chzz  ►  15:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral redirecting of SharedIPCORP to SharedIP

Unless I'm missing something, you redirected Template:SharedIPCORP to Template:SharedIP without discussion. Firstly, I feel as if actions like that should certainly be discussed first. Secondly, I don't see how the template is any more redundant than Template:SharedIPEDU, and no one seemed to support merging it with SharedIP when I had proposed such. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

TfD

Hi Bsherr, I closed your nomination of the Gblock templates as delete. You mentioned a documentation in the rationale; could you please provide a link? I can't find it. Thanks, Airplaneman ✈ 11:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Airplaneman. The documentation was on the page itself, not a subpage, so you've already got it. --Bsherr (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks! BTW, you have a query at WP:RFPP regarding the unprotecting of Template:SharedIPCORP. Airplaneman ✈ 06:48, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Extra space in uw-vblock since metablock rollout?

Hello. It looks like there is an extra, preceeding space in {{uw-vblock}} now. I always put one manual line-break in order to keep the standardized spacing, but now two are showing up when the template is transcluded ([4], [5]). Any assistance you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! — Kralizec! (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is corrected now. Very sorry about that. --Bsherr (talk) 19:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks great. Thanks for your speedy help! — Kralizec! (talk) 19:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

{{uw-upincat}}: what happened

I saw the change you made. What happened with my need for "just a warning, no userpage editing" by the notifying user, which need I write not just once? -DePiep (talk) 17:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see my reply on the project talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 17:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Talk page protection

I haven't any idea. That question is best asked of the admin. who protected the page. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 02:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

ACC

Confirmation of my ACC registration. --Bsherr (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Do not delete

Hi,
regarding WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 13#Template:Do not delete, can I ask where that CfD discussion was, or what the category was? I'd be interested in the rationale. {{Do not delete}} never used a template, and only worked through the transclusion list.
Thanks, Amalthea 12:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it's here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 July 12#Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. The indicated consensus from this the discussions linked there was that user pages of indefinitely blocked and banned users would not be subject to mass purging. Since there's no longer a risk of deletion of these pages, there was no longer a need for the template. --Bsherr (talk) 14:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, alrighty, as long as the underlying issue was discussed I'm happy.
Thanks, Amalthea 15:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I do see your concern.

I guess it could be hidden from the documentation. mechamind90 00:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Note that one instance (rare, but it can happen) involves the user vandalizing their own talk page when they're not even blocked. mechamind90 00:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• Now, I did change the documentation to state that "notalk" should always be omitted unless the user cannot edit their own talk page. I added the parameter for the unusual cases (given the template is subst'ed anyhow, it won't occupy extra disk space when unneeded). Hopefully that's enough for administrators to continue to assume when there's still a chance the user can co-operate, and nothing will slow down Wikipedia hardware. mechamind90 04:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:SharedIPCORP

I think you have a misunderstanding of the purpose of the template SharedIPCORP. It was created mainly for major corporations like Hospital Corporation of America, IBM, Microsoft, Walmart, midsize and large hospitals, etc., not small businesses like you've described with twenty employees. I'm of the opinion it should be kept for categorization, but I'm open to other ideas, so long as they're not applied only to THIS PARTICULAR template. Perhaps we could add the word "major" in front of business or corporation in the template? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 17:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi PCHS. I do want to discuss this, but it should be at TfD to keep it the discussion all together. --Bsherr (talk) 17:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I brought it here because the discussion is getting mighty long over there. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 18:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I know, but that's a good thing. Discussion is a good thing, and lots of discussion is lots of a good thing. :-) --Bsherr (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I just don't want the rest of the community to think we're bickering (not the direction I'm trying to go here). I'm glad we were able to come to agreement on SharedIPGOV and what to do with the MIL IPs. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Not bickering, discussing! I'll leave you some cookies. --Bsherr (talk) 19:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:SharedIPGOV

I just added a note on SharedIPGOV about notifying the Wikimedia Foundation Communication Committee (I copied the message from a Senate IP's talk page), and I'd like a second opinion. Approve? Disapprove? Comments? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Replying on the talk page of the template. --Bsherr (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :-) PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 19:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

About this particular edit...

I saw you removed the notification templates HERE per some discussion of a merge. Where/when did this dicussion take place?? I came looking for the template to notify an author of an AFD I did not begin and was stymied until I dug through the histories and found what I needed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 August 26#Template:AFDWarningNew. --Bsherr (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for merge. Three comments. One !vote in support of merge. And closure as merge by one of the commenters. Not exactly an overwhelming support or a wide consensus... but thank you for the link. I find when a nominator fails to notify an article author or major contributor of a deletion discussion, a friendly note that it has happened is in order... but not one that implies that it was I who did the nominating. I suppose if I find the merged template unsuitable in some circumstances, I will simply drop a polite and neutral note composed on the spot. Again, thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll note that the closing administrator only commented as an explanation for that administrator's decision to relist the discussion a second time. All the templates and their creators were properly noticed, and the discussion was open for over three weeks. The purpose was to create a single template that can accomodate all situations, including when the notifier is not the nominator. I believe the current template is effective at that, and that it can be used without implying that its user is the nominator, but if you disagree or have suggestions for its improvement, your comments are welcome, certainly by me, at the template's talk page. Regards. --Bsherr (talk) 01:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Natalism. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 05:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)"

Unconstructive? Really? Maybe I shoudln't have said that they we're insane, but why did you remove my comment about Jim Bob Duggar from "19 Kids and Counting!"? If he isn't a hardcore Natalist then who is? Come on man, I swear in my opinion there is a conspiracy with the duggar family and their 19 kids, and in my opinion you seem to be in on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.72.232 (talk) 06:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this edit

There was no consensus. Except, there was significant discussion about rewording the template completely. You'll also notice several comments about not worrying if a new user removes the sandbox header. If the bot has issues, we fix the bot, not warn new users over what is probably an unintentional mistake. If you were trying to update a table, for example, to an article, and accidentally removed some of the code without realizing, would you expect to get a warning notice saying "Hi, thanks for trying to update this table, but you should not remove all this other stuff because it's important"? Absolutely not. If the header is such a big deal, we can just copy it into the editnotice and not have to worry about it being removed. I know I'm sort of rambling on, but how would you reword this to actually make it a useful "warning", not a "Hey noob, don't remove that next time" notice? That would just scare them off from testing again, in case they accidentally removed the header without realizing and thought that maybe them editing the thing at all was the issue, right? I'm just trying to figure out what consensus you thought the TfD had and how you would reword to it be meaningful to a new user. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:13, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, there was no consensus. Changes to the template can be discussed at WT:UTM. --Bsherr (talk) 02:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you have no opposition to fixing any of the issues I raised above with the current wording, so I have proposed a new wording focused on certain important issues at Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Rewrite_of_Template:Uw-sandbox_after_recent_TfD. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Hayward, California

Oh, i get it now. thanks for your help. i've fixed some other pages where i made this mistake. I now understand the difference between transclusion and substitution a little better. i should have seen that what i was doing was not how the template was listed on other pages. but no harm.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Warnings

I read your comments in this discussion, where you said, if I accidentally removed some code in an article, I would like to be warned! Warnings are not designed to be punitive, but to be informative.

Consequently, I considered putting a {{Uw-editsummary}} here, because I noticed you have not been using edit summaries.

However, I think that would be borderline point, so I refrain from actually putting the template here; but I do beg you to consider - if I had, how would you have taken it? In all honesty - would you have accepted it, in good faith, as honest feedback? Or might you have felt a little slighted by it?

I hope you understand me; I am just asking that you consider how a warning message appears, to our most precious gift, new users.

I think your views on the necessity of the uw-sandbox warning are incorrect; but that discussion belongs over there.  Chzz  ►  03:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Chzz, because of your comment, I actually consulted the guideline on edit summaries. So, in this case, it seems a warning was successful. I generally don't leave edit summaries on talk pages, because the system automatically puts in the name of the relevant heading. Is that not sufficient? --Bsherr (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The phrasing is, "Always provide an edit summary". When editing an existing section, the section title is inserted at the beginning of the edit summary [...]. Details of the edit should be added after this text. ^{Wikipedia:EDITSUM#Section editing}

When adding a new section on a talk page, I agree that the topic heading can indeed be self-explanatory, but it is certainly helpful to add information when editing a section. However, I accept that is open to interpretation.

Nevertheless, disregarding that it is helpful even when adding to a section...the following are very recent edits which were not adding a section, and thus have no edit summary at all; [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] ...etc.  Chzz  ►  05:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Chzz. I'm sorry to say, to be perfectly honest, when I'm correcting an error in an immediately previous edit I made, editing a sandbox I created, posting a talkback notice, or, frankly, posting to talk pages or Wikipedia discussion pages, I'm probably not going to leave an edit summary. It's just too time consuming, and I don't believe people actually find it useful. I guess, in that particular way, I'm a bad Wikipedian. I'll admit it. Feel free to warn me for it, and if it comes down to a ban, I'll accept it. --Bsherr (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I found you a userbox, Chzz.

<sum>:1This user believes that every edit should have a summary.

--Bsherr (talk) 05:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please could you leave an edit summary, at least when editing articles (e.g. [22]). Thanks.  Chzz  ►  19:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Uw-causeblock

You placed a deletion template on the page but you did not actually initiate a discussion at WP:TFD. There are detailed instructions there on how to properly list a deletion discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please allow me the necessary time. Upon completing the first step, I immediately proceeded to the second, and I have been working on it since. --Bsherr (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, sorry, it looked to me like it had been over an hour so I assumed you forgot or did not know what to do next. If you activate WP:TWINKLE it makes such processes more or less automatic, you just type in your rationale and it does the rest. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wish it were compatible with Internet Explorer. --Bsherr (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Restored subst:

I noticed at Uw-block that you changed a "subst:NAMESPACE" to just "NAMESPACE". I see where you're going, but it would have made "Unblock-hard" a highly visible template by not substing it. Perhaps there's a different way you can achieve that objective. mechamind90 23:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain more? --Bsherr (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be very careful in the future

Firstly, hi:) Good to see you around. Now the reason I'm writing. In your edit to the Vandalism page, you left out some critical details on user space vandalism. The next time you undertake edits to such important pages, it's a request, be very careful in not leaving out such details. I have added the details back. If you reply, kindly do so on my talk page. I'm not watching this page. Warm regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I very carefully left them out, and I have a justification for doing so. Per WP:BRD, I've explained the change on the talk page. It's fine to disagree, but please be more careful with labeling the actions of others as wrongful. --Bsherr (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Bsherr, don't get me wrong. But where did I write your actions were 'wrongful'. I repeat, be very careful, gain clear consensus on the talk page, before undertaking such changes. Don't just 'leave a message' on the talk page and then immediately, without awaiting discussions, go ahead and make the change. In summary, don't make such changes before discussions have taken place. Being bold is perfectly all right. Then be prepared for such reversions also. Feel free to take my help in the future for anything. I'm not watching this page. So leave a tb if you do reply (at the bottom of my talk page; not the top of my talk page, as you did, lol). Thanks Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

When you reverted my edits, your edit summary was "add back wrongly deleted paragraphs". You also have the sequence of events wrong. I made WP:BEBOLD changes, you reverted them, and then I left the post on the WP:Vandalism talk page. That's exactly the process explained in WP:BRD, and it's a legitimate way to make edits. --Bsherr (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries Bsherr. Now that I've reverted your changes, get consensus first on the talk page. Warm regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Luxembourg commune

I performed the initial steps by converting the backend of the template, and adding the min/max elevation ranks to the parent template. It appears as though the next step is to substitute it, but I personally would not be opposed to leaving it as a wrapper for {{Infobox commune}}, but substitution would work as well. It calls some other templates for the elevation, population, mayor, and area data, which allows for these data to be updated in a central location. Let me know if you have any comments. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 04:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Cat

Sorry, me being an idiot. Lucky my bot is smarter than I am! Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Should have been this one Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from February 2007 Rich Farmbrough, 17:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Yes I have a bunch but only SmackBot for the heavy lifting in article space and Femto for the tiny tasks are authorised. Mirror Bot has been sitting in BRFA for weeks, Chron Bot will be trivial but useful - but it will help others not me. Translate Bot will be a magnum opus. Unfortunately I have spent about 80 hours sorting the rubbish as a result of the {{cite/{{Cite affair. Rich Farmbrough, 18:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

SmackBot did lots of trivial cleanup - including replacing template names with canonical versions. I added the Cite templates, some folks got annoyed about three weeks later - not because of that primarily but because I was using the same rulebase for my personal edits, and clogging up their watch-lists with complex diffs. A few more jumped into the melee on my talk page and started leaving messages in un-associated threads. I cleared the talk page - got reported to ANI and 8 minutes later I was blocked. Smacky and Femto got blocked too, people came out of the woodwork at ANI, and I was not there to defend myself - so a lot of nonsense was talked, although there were people being more sane. There's a massive thread, I stopped looking at it, maybe it got closed or archived. Of course no-one will do the work to get the bot running again except me - Sladen kindly reviewed some edits. It's kinda crazy on a load of levels - I have a BRFA in for SmackBot as I have voluntarily broken it to satisfy the "by the letter" folks - usually the "WP:IAR" policy wins, but I can do it by the book if the people who run the book can. But BAGGERS are busy and there's only a few of them - look at the BRFA Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot 35 36k of me explaining to Fram about SmackBot and how it has been working for these past 4-5 years and 3.5 million edits - fun to do, but not really germane in a way. I don't mind, but basically if it didn't work it would have broken by now, and if it really annoyed more than .01% of the editorship it would have been stopped. But that's Wikipedia for you. Rich Farmbrough, 18:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for that. I think the main problem is just a certain amount of inertia, BAGGERS have been burned in the past for approving stuff, and for not doing so. Probably the only task more thankless than running a bot is approving them. (Actually bot masters do get a bunch of thanks, as well as the odd brick-bat.) Rich Farmbrough, 18:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Good idea! Perhaps {{Monthly clean up category}} could be entered for the "Even it's own author is puzzled by it" category! Didn't know you were a template twiddler. What do you think about creating a "template clinic"? Rich Farmbrough, 19:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

It would be useful, because of the time I, at least, spend bashing my head against a brick wall - either because of an obscure WM bug or because of code blindness. The help pages on templates are appalling - I have done a little clean up, but by the time one works out what they mean, one is too exhausted to fix them. Rich Farmbrough, 20:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Exactly the example I was thinking of! I think I cleaned up the subst: bit there. I should go and try again, but like you, I felt I didn't "get it" although I have used it successfully. Rich Farmbrough, 20:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BsherrAWBBOT

I've marked this task as approved. Please see the request page for details. I've also mark this as approved for bot editing on AWB's check page, and a 'crat should flag the bot shortly. Cheers, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem :), make sure you update the bot's user page btw. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Move of Buena Vista, Miami to Buena Vista Miami...

All the other neighborhoods within the City of Miami are using the comma convention. Looking at other cities, like NYC, all those neighborhoods are also using the neighborhood, city convention. Why did you change Buena Vista, Miami to Buena Vista (Miami)? Now it is the only article on Wikipedia that I can find that follows this. It's not consistent with all the others. - Marc Averette (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Per WP:NCGN, places that are not CDPs are disambiguated parenthetically, not with a comma. If other examples exist, they are also inconsistent with the naming convention. I'm only halfway done with Washington, D.C., right now. Could you help out on Miami and New York? --Bsherr (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. If that's the way that's been decided, I'll change all the Miami ones. Tampa, Jax and Orlando need to be changed too. After that I'll browse around and move any other ones I find. Thanks - Marc Averette (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! --Bsherr (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Done, for the most part. There were only 3 (Miami) that couldn't be moved, since the page already existed. I'm just waiting for the admins to delete those so I can move them. Double-redirects are the only real pain, they made it take a bit longer than I expected. - Marc Averette (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Great that you're getting the double-redirects, but if it's too tedious, a bot will get them for you automatically. --Bsherr (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the parenthetical is only necessary for disambiguation. So if there's no other subject sharing the name, you can leave it off. For example, Bay Point Estates (Miami) can just be Bay Point Estates. --Bsherr (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what I wanted to do originally. I remember when Coconut Grove, Miami was just Coconut Grove, then it was suggested that all neighborhoods within a city need to have the city's name. If the name CG is unambiguous, then it should also probably be reverted back to that. - Marc Averette (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes indeed. A title is only ambiguous in relation to other subjects bearing that title; if there are no others, for our purposes, it's not ambiguous, and the disambiguation is unneeded. Please go ahead with any you find. --Bsherr (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Golgi apparatus

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Golgi apparatus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. —Mikemoral♪♫ 22:57, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Delighted, Mike. There's room for improvement in the article, but I believe it's met the standard for good, and I hope you'll agree. Please let me know if I may be of assistance to you. Regards. --Bsherr (talk) 23:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll probably review tomorrow my time (later today UTC). Skimming the article could you add references to the end of the lead and the section "Golgi apparatus in popular culture"? Thanks. Those seem to be missing for those, but when I do a full review, I'll make sure to scrutinize it a bit. —Mikemoral♪♫ 05:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I must apologize. This is the first time I've been able to access the Internet for about three days. I apologize I cannot complete to review in the seven days that I said earlier. My ISP had some troubles, now I can't rememeber how to reconnect to the Internet with my comp. Just droppinng off this message from a public computer. MikemoralSock (talk) 19:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite all right, Mike. Sounds frustrating. Hope you get a resolution soon. --Bsherr (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

<-- Sorry about that again. Turns out there was an error with the ISP so my service was cut. I should be able to review the article this weekend. :) 05:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:DASH before continuing

Please read WP:DASH prior to continuing to edit Foggy Bottom—GWU (WMATA station). Specifically, please take note of the following passage:

“

Spacing

Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940). Exceptions are occasionally made where the item involves a spaced surname (Seifert–van Kampen theorem).

”

Thus by the guidelines for dashes, the title should be spaced, and will be returned to such. Please do not move the page to an unspaced title without discussion explaining why you believe that this follows the manual of style's guidelines for treatment of disjunctive dashes with multiple words. Thanks! SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:nn-warn-multiple

Hi Bsherr, I just reverted your edit to this template as you redirected it to a template which works differently and doesn't give the same information, and the result was confusion as I use this template frequently. There was a recent RFC which changed the icon of the template, and I don't see any evidence that there's consensus to redirect the template. Please let me know if I'm missing something, otherwise take it to TfD. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 10:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There seemed to be consensus at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion, but do as you see fit, I suppose. --Bsherr (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see a discussion about nn-warn-multiple on that page; is it in the archives? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 06:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, in the last archives. --Bsherr (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I just checked the archive; the discussion was one user noting that nn-warn-multiple doesn't indicate the multiple reasons for deletion, and then you redirected it for reasons I'm not entirely clear on. The template isn't redundant to the target of the redirect, and the redirect will simply cause confusion as the syntax is different (as it did for me). There's certainly no consensus on the matter. You might wish to discuss possible improvements to the template on the template's talk page. It's likely to be an unnecessarily complicated job to add the various reasons to the template however, and "multiple reasons, see the note on the article" seems like a reasonable solution to that issue. GiftigerWunsch [BODY DOUBLE] 16:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the commenter on the talk page (and nobody there disagreed) that this notice template is fatally flawed because it fails to describe both (1) the action taken (identification for speedy deletion), and (2) the reason. It relies on a presumption that the page will exist when the creator sees the talk page message, but because speedy deletion is intended to be immediate, there is no cause to assume that the page will exist. This is bad, because the creator is left without any explanation for a particularly demoralizing action, and never receives any specific meaningful corrective guidance. Therefore, I boldly redirected to a notice template that requires a reason. Now, I cannot stop a user of that template from putting as the reason "Please visit the article for details", of course, but I would hope that users would recognize the problem this causes. I did not use a soft redirect, and there's no requirement that a soft redirect be used every time. Users who properly use the preview before saving an edit will notice the difference in the template, and will look up the template to learn the new syntax, as has been done with countless redirected user warning templates. There was no objection to the action on the talk page, and, in fact, there was no reversion of the edit for weeks, so per WP:CONSENSUS, I was proper to assume that this action represented consensus. Now, it wasn't my initative to take on this template, and as I said, you may do as you see fit. But, you may wish to confront these problems on a talk page so that we can make this template compliant with the standards set by all the other db-notice templates, because, you're right, there's certainly no consensus, including consensus to permit this template to continue as is. --Bsherr (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Tuskegee syphilis experiment

The category, Subjects of apology by the United States government, does not exist and if I recall correctly was nominated for deletion with approval. I reverted the edit. Veriss (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You added this article, Tuskegee syphilis experiment to the category Category:Subjects of apology by the United States government after a similarly named category, Category:Official Apologies by United States of America, was approved for speedy deletion. You were an active participant in the discussion for deletion. The text of the discussion is here. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_9#Category:Official_Apologies_by_United_States_of_America.

It appears that this is an attempt to circumvent the decision to delete the category. You specifically asked if this name would resolve the issue and were told no. You created it anyway. Veriss (talk) 04:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not circumventing the decision to delete the category. I'm trying to find a way to reform the category in a way the meets the requirements of the deletion discussion by making it less broad. Why is that a problem? And if you look at the discussion, you'll see that no one responded to my suggested rename. --Bsherr (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The response to your question by Bearcat was WP:OCAT. I'm not going to argue with you, I'm just a Chuck Sixpack here. Being a simple guy, I will say it appears that are trying very hard to make some sort of political statement but you may have some other objective. Veriss (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Haha, that's the thing--I'm not making a political statement at all! If you look at my contribs, you'll see I'm mostly a template editor. Bearcat never identified which category of WP:OCAT he was referring to; I believe the reason for this is because he could not, because the argument was bogus. I believe there must be a way of making this category work. See my full explanation on Good Olfactory's talk page. But I'll consult the closing administrator and see. --Bsherr (talk) 04:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

wizard in db-notice

Hi,
referring to the article wizard in {{db-notice}} wasn't an improvement, IMO: It's now showing on pages like {{db-R3-notice}} or {{db-vandalism-notice}} where it is inappropriate or doesn't make sense, and it's now mentioned twice on {{db-a7-notice}} or {{Db-spam-notice}} where it was already added to the prose. If you want to stick with the box please remove the phrase from the prose and either move it to the few notices where it makes sense, or only show it in the meta template if asked to by the wrapper (via parser function).
Thanks, Amalthea 13:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amalthea. My objective is to make the text and presentation of that information consistent from template to template. I agree that it's not needed on every template. Could you help by adding the parameter "wizard=0" to db-notice templates that, in your view, don't require it? Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 13:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Amalthea 14:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue now is identifying articles templates that should have it. I take it you're volunteering? :-) --Bsherr (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Articles? Amalthea 14:41, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Gah, I meant templates. Sorry. --Bsherr (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well, all those where you remove it from the prose. I'd assume G11, A1, A7, A9 may have had it. G11 should actually check whether it is in main space, won't usually apply for pages in other namespaces. Amalthea 14:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:SharedIPGOV/Sandbox

Can you tell me why it should be deleted? I declined because you didn't provide a deletion rationale; a G6 tag by itself isn't normally a sufficient reason for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, how is this a plausible term?

No one is searching for this. (I am watching this page, so please reply here.) — Timneu22 · talk 09:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. I do know it's neither a misspelling nor a misnomer, and therefore is not eligible for speedy deletion. --Bsherr (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an implausible redirect. Period. R3. Oh, and to say "it's a former article" when it was around for only 90 minutes is just baloney. — Timneu22 · talk 14:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Then why is R3 called "Implausible typos"? Are you saying this is a typo? And I said it's a former article because it is a former article, regardless of the length of time it existed as such. --Bsherr (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

{{SharedIP US military}}

I've had my bot remove this template from all of the user talk pages on which it appears, and replace it with {{SharedIPGOV}} and Category:Shared IP addresses from the military of the United States, thus preserving the existing categorization, as in this example edit. If the category is kept, no further editing of the talk pages will be necessary; if it is deleted, Cydebot will be directed to remove the category from the user talk pages. In any case, {{SharedIP US military}} can safely be deleted, without waiting for the CFD to be closed. Peter Karlsen (talk) 03:39, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that {{SharedIP US military}} is still being used via assisted editing scripts. To avoid a potential inconvenience caused by the deletion of the template, I am redirecting it to {{SharedIPGOV}} for now. Peter Karlsen (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

G11

The reason behind the removal of the "will provide" message from the G11 template is because such material is deemed forbidden even in the userspace. mechamind90 17:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

On the face of the policy, you're right, but G11 is often inconsiderately applied to pages that are promotional, but can actually be rewritten so as not to be, and that's what I have in mind. But I suppose you're right. I don't mind if you redo the edit. --Bsherr (talk) 20:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

It is worth noting that leaving it out does not actually state that the page can't be userfied. mechamind90 21:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The UW metatemplates look good, by the way. :-) --Bsherr (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

winnowTag article

Bsherr,

I have been trying to understand what is the normal Wikipedia protocol for when an advert template can be removed from an article that has been improved since the advert template was added to it. Ranging about with this question in mind, I read similar question from an editor of the Halton Hills Public Library which had been posted on the advert template talk page, together with your answer. I wonder if you would have a moment to review the winnowTag article and determine whether if in your opinion the advert tag can be removed? Or if not, any advice you may have to offer about the article, this question, or a good forum within which to learn more about this, would be much appreciated.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wingiii (talk • contribs) 04:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah... good thing, SineBot saved me from my error of neglecting to sign by adding four tildes. Wingiii (talk) 05:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. There's no formal protocol for removing tags when an issue has been fixed; anyone can do it. Though, as the creator of the article, it's probably less of a conflict of interest if someone else does it. The best place to go for assistance with an article is the talk page of the WikiProject relevant to your article. I've added the WikiProject Software template to winnowTag. You can click the link to the project page from that template, and then click discuss to bring you to the talk page. Of course, if you have any questions, you can alwas ask me, or the WP:Help desk. Cheers. --Bsherr (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about posting an off topic question on the page I asked about becoming and Admin. Thanks for your help. --StartrekismylifeJadzia (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for your suggestion and tips

I will sign future posts. Thank you for the information you sent me. I filed a RfA and have nominated myself. Thanks again, --StartrekismylifeJadzia (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Nicky Cruz

The article was not protected only because there was one incident of vandalism. If you review the articles history, you will see that the article has been a constant target of excessive vandalism in not only in the month of October, but all throughout. The protection status is necessary to discourage this type of behavior, however it will be uplifted in due time. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Good question. Semi-protection would have been better. Will change it to semi. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Great. Thank you. --Bsherr (talk) 22:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Good work with and . PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 21:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Shared IP templates

Hi. If you want to make these templates consistent, why not design a meta-template that they all use? Also, could we look at a clear and consistent naming scheme for these templates? I've boldly renamed one of them - what do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Martin. I considered a metatemplate, but there are only a half dozen of them, and they each have some distinction that would require a new parameter, so I'm not sure it's worth it, but it might be. As for names, I'd like to see spaces added, but I'm not aware of any templates that use parentheses, so I think it's better without them. --Bsherr (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you think of the naming convention "Shared IP xxxx"? That seems to be what most of them use. --Bsherr (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It just seemed to me that you updating one template and then going round all the others to make them match. This is the classic example of when a meta-template is needed. "Shared IP gov" is not really much clearer than "SharedIPGOV"! It is preferable to have the name as descriptive as possible using everyday language rather than codes which only a few people understand. Therefore I prefer something like Template:Shared IP address (government) or Template:Shared government IP address. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As to the meta template, that's true. As to the name, I'm thinking about the names of other templates: "edit protected", "uw-vandalism1", "cleanup", "BLP"... None of them are really designed to be descriptive, certainly not to the extent of using parentheses. Rather, I think the consideration is convenience. (Redirects cure this to a certain extent, but not if a template is just going to be known by its redirect name.) Do you know of examples with names similar to the type you suggest? --Bsherr (talk) 19:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Uw-number

I just closed Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_October_20#Template:Uw-number. It would be great if you could take charge of the merging. Let me know if you want me to help. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. --Bsherr (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Nn-warn-multiple links to your talk page

I added this template to a user's talk page and was surprised to find that It told the user to go to your talk page to know why the page was tagged for speedy deletion instead of mine. I trust that this is an error of the recent redirecting and rewrite. It it possible that you could fix this? I am not very fluent in the inner workings of templates. Thanks --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it should work now. Could you confirm? --Bsherr (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I tried it out and it seems to be working now. Thanks for that. One more question, however; should {{db-notice}} be substed? I see no transclusions other than this template on talk pages. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Db-notice is used as a meta-template. It's not intended to be used directly on user talk pages. Other db-notice-? templates transclude it. Regards. --Bsherr (talk) 22:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know it is not a direct template, but what I am saying is that once the warning message is substituted onto a user's talk, the meta template is directly transcluded on their userpage. Is is necessary to double substitute as in {{Db-test-notice}} (Which also uses the meta template)? --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 22:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Yes, substituting both the meta and the "retail" templates would be preferable. Since these are talk page mesages, the message should be permanent, which would mean substitution instead of transclusion. --Bsherr (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Golgi apparatus

I apologize for my prolonged absence. I'll begin reviewing today, then finish up tomorrow or the day after. —Mikemoral♪♫ 17:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Article on hold for now, comments at Talk:Golgi_apparatus#GA_Review. Regards, —Mikemoral♪♫ 18:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:ISP

Okay, lets talk about something other that SharedIPCORP for a change... what are we going to do with Template:ISP? It still uses the old style. I think it should adopt the File:Shared IP.svg. Thoughts? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 22:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've put the new code at Template:ISP/sandbox and requested the edit on Template talk:ISP. --Bsherr (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

{{Expand}} templates RfC

Since you have recently commented on the type/color of one or more "expand" templates, could you express your opinion in the centralized RfC on this issue? The discussion is currently fragmented between various template and TfD pages, which makes a consensus on this issue difficult to form. Thank you, Tijfo098 (talk) 08:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I find your recent actions on Template talk:Expand disruptiveunhelpful and have reverted you again. It is much better to keep the discussion in one place so that people do not have to repeat what they have said in other places. As there has already been an RfC started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (article message boxes) it makes sense to continue it. It is certainly not a good idea to open two separare RfCs on the same issue! Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I've explained at so-called "centralized RfC on this issue" why it's not the right place for the RfC. If an RfC is brought in the wrong place, it should be moved to the right place. --Bsherr (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! GOCE November 2010 backlog elimination drive progress graphs We have reached the midway point in our backlog elimination drive, so here is an update. Participation report — The November drive has 53 participants at this point. We had 77 participants in the September drive. In July, 95 people signed up for the drive, and in May we had 36. If you are not participating, it is not too late to join! Progress report — The drive is quite successful so far, as we have already almost reached our target of a 10% reduction in the number of articles in the backlog. We are doing very well at keeping our Requests page clear, as those articles count double for word count for this drive. Please keep in mind the possibility of removing other tags when you are finished with an article. If the article no longer needs {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, or other similar maintenance tags, please remove them, as this will make the tasks of other WikiProjects easier to complete. Thanks very much for participating in the Drive, and see you at the finish line! Your drive coordinators –The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 15:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Help template

Bsherr, Thanks ... I didn't realize that template was part of my page....sorry!! Good catch on your part! KoshVorlon' _Nal^uboutes _Aeria ^Gloris 17:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Committee for getting things done

You are cordially invited to join the committee.Rich Farmbrough, 18:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC).

Just a question

Why are you capitalizing templates? You have been going around capitalizing the "w" in {{wikipedia category}} templates on category pages. As these are transcluded templates that aren't really visible, isn't that really non-productive? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(1) Wikipedia is a proper noun and should be capitalized. (2) It makes it more difficult to run scripts to consolidate other templates into Template:Wikipedia category when it could be in either case. Is there a particular reason you object? --Bsherr (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not objecting, it just seems an unnecessary work as it is not actual text you correcting but unseen templates that don't need to be capitalized. While Wikipedia is a proper name, these are not instances where it is displayed as such. To me, it would be like going in and capitalizing all of the instances of <br/> in the embedded HTML code. If it is helping run scripts better, that is a logical reason why. I was just curious, that's all. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There are other possible examples: like piped links, invisible comments. It's true that it doesn't have any visual effect, but it does make running scripts easier for me, so it makes me more productive in the long term. Of course, I still wouldn't change it unless it were objectively incorrect. Regardless, thanks for checking in with me. --Bsherr (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The small barnstar, for gnomish work

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is for improving the Pat Tillman article by the simple moving of an infobox to its logical location. ~~~~

Thanks, GeorgeLouis! --Bsherr (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Drive – Final push

Greetings GOCE Backlog elimination drive participant, We are now coming up to the last few days of the drive, the last for 2010. Currently, it looks like we will achieve our target for reducing the backlog by 10%, however, we still have huge numbers for 2009. We have 55 participants in this drive. If everyone just clears 2 articles each, we will reduce the backlog by a further 110 articles. If everyone can just do 3 articles, we will hit 165. If you have yet to work on any articles and have rollover words, remember that you do need to copyedit at least a couple of articles in this drive for your previous rollover to be valid for the next drive. There are many very small articles that will take less than 5-10 minutes to copyedit. Use CatScan to find them. Let's all concentrate our firepower on the first three months of 2009 as we approach the end of this final drive for the year. Thank you once again for participating, and see you at the finish line! – SMasters (talk) 04:09, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

{{uw-upincat}}

 Done Can you point me to how to edit that specific documentation-page? Now it is generic uw-, but I'd like to describe the options (cat=, defer=). -DePiep (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You'll see that I've already documented the two parameteres on the documentation page, last bullet. But if you want to edit it, the documentation is at Template:Templatesnotice. The last bullet has a #SWITCH for displaying additional information on Template:Uw-upincat. --Bsherr (talk) 15:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it was already documented. OK so. Guess I didn't read it recently. -DePiep (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage header

If you are doing and AWB run to add {{Talk header}} to numerous talk pages, then you should probably stop. The template is only suppose to be added to talk pages of highly visible articles. If it was suppose to show up on all talk pages, then it would have been transcluded through Meta. —Farix (t | c) 02:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Consistent with the documentation, I only add the talk header to pages with talk threads. --Bsherr (talk) 03:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be added to a talk pages unless the page is highly visible or is subject to contentious discussions. Talk pages that aren't very active should not have the header at all. —Farix (t | c) 03:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain how you arrived at that conclusion? --Bsherr (talk) 03:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

From the documentation: "Talk pages that attract frequent or perpetual debate, articles often subject controversy, and/or recent-and-highly-visible topics are usually appropriate for this template. Calm talk pages do not need this template." Also check through the past TfDs of this template, which discussed the overuse of this template. —Farix (t | c) 04:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The last conversation on the subject only concluded that it should not be applied on pages without talk threads. --Bsherr (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Also from the template's documentation, as part of the "nutshell": "This template should be used only when needed. There is no need to add this template to every talk page."

Correct. The consensus is that the talk header should be used on talk pages with active talk threads, not every talk page. Why are you also removing the auto archiving notice? --Bsherr (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that is not what the document says nor is there a consensus to add it to every talk page that "has a discussion". —Farix (t | c) 04:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say every page that has a discussion. I said pages with active talk threads. Do you understand what I mean by the latter? --Bsherr (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

That is still not what the documentation says. And how does one define "active talk threads". I see no "active talk threads" on that page. And even if there was a recent discussion, it wouldn't justify the presence of the header either. The header is only justified on "very active" talk pages. —Farix (t | c) 04:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Redirect as redundant?

What does "Redirect as redundant" mean? (See {{Hole (band)}} at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.) Wikkitywack (talk) 22:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Elections are currently underway for our inaugural Guild coordinators. The voting period will run for 14 days: 00:01 UTC, Friday 1 December – 23:59 UTC, Tuesday 14 December. All GOCE members in good standing, as well as past participants of any of the Guild's Backlog elimination drives, are eligible to vote. There are six candidates vying for four positions. The candidate with the highest number of votes will become the Lead Coordinator, therefore, your vote really matters! Cast your vote today.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors Backlog Elimination Drive! We have reached the end of our fourth backlog elimination drive. Thanks to all who participated. Stats GOCE November 2010 backlog elimination drive graphs 58 people signed up for this drive. Of these, 48 people participated in the drive. Although we did not eliminate the months we planned to (January, February, and March 2009; and August, September, and October 2010), we did reduce the backlog by 627 articles (11.2%), which was over our goal of 10%. 49 awards will go out to 33 of 48 participants. Check out the complete list of barnstar winners here. Barnstars If you copy edited at least 4,000 words, you qualify for a barnstar. If you participated in the September 2010 backlog elimination drive, you may have earned roll-over words (more details can be found here). These roll-over words count as credit towards earning barnstars, except for leaderboard awards. We will be delivering these barnstars within the next couple of weeks. Our next drive is scheduled for January 2011. In the meantime, please consider helping out at the Wikification drive or any of the other places where help with backlogs is needed. Thank you for participating in the last 2010 backlog elimination drive! We look forward to seeing you in January! Your drive coordinators –The UtahraptorTalk to me/Contributions, S Masters (talk), and Diannaa (Talk)

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

GOCE Barnstar

		The Modest Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded for your efforts during the November Backlog Elimination Drive. Thank you for participating! Diannaa (Talk) 00:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Infobox reactor

See here. I looked up the edits that orphaned the template. 134.253.26.6 (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD tag of Template:Anon vandal

Hi Bsherr, this thread may be of interest to you. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 03:56, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The Gambia

Hello. You recently participated in a discussion regarding renaming of several pages from "The Gambia" to "the Gambia". There is currently an RfC on the naming issue at Talk:The Gambia. Feel free to participate in the discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me. --Bsherr (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Automatic class and assessment of certain types of items

I responded to your comments at the village pump and I like your idea bout automatic classing and assessment of these types of things. Do you know how hard that would be to implement? --Kumioko (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied there. --Bsherr (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, as mentioned on the Village pump I will get that started today and let you know when I do. A couple questions though.

1. After doing this will we need to go back and cleanup the ones that do currently have an assessment or class?
2. Could we also apply it to Books?
3. Can we apply it to Portals if the portal doesnt already have an assessment as Featured Portal?

Thanks for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

Hi I had put the backlog notice because there are entries which are older than 48 hours. There is one entry which is even 7 days old.

 If the list contains entries that are over 48 hours old, please add {{Admin backlog}} to the top of this page.

The notice doesnot mention about any 'unaddressed' issues. Thank you for understanding. WarFox (talk | contribs) 20:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

There are three entires that have not yet been decided. Only one is older than 48 hours, and it is waiting on the requesting user to respond. Technically the instructions don't speak to this situation. If you think this constitutes a backlog, you can restore the template. --Bsherr (talk) 20:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have put that template, if you had done that change before. Now the statement avoids confusion. Thanks WarFox (talk | contribs) 20:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

GA WCSP-FM

I have placed the GA review on hold for further action. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Responded at my Talk page. I'll start working on this soon. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 14:42, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, Bsherr. I realize this is sort of a reply, but my own Talk page is a bit confusing just now, and this is my second response to it. Anyhow, wanted to let you know that I've updated WCSP-FM, posted a summary at Talk:WCSP-FM and placed a note on Racepacket's Talk page. Hope that's enough to pass GA, but willing to keep at it if need be. Thanks again for the nomination, WWB Too (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

AFD note

You recently edited the AFDNote template, ostensible to clarify the language. However, I would have to argue that the new language is more awkward than that which you replaced, and also no longer contains any information about why a particular user (other than the creator of the article under discussion) is being notified. Specifically, I think that

The article [[{{{1}}}]] is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article

is much more awkward than

A user has requested discussion about whether the article [[{{{1}}}]] is within Wikipedia's criteria for articles

Actually, I think the version prior to that

A discussion has begun about whether the article [[{{{1}}}]], which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted.

is actually better than both, and I would suggest a return to that wording. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:43, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

My purpose was to make the template more accurate and multipurpose. By deleting the text explaining why the user is notified, it allows the template to be used in any situation in which notification of an AfD is warranted, including on project talk pages and the talk pages of related pages. Regardless, the particular reason a specific user is being notified isn't particularly relevant to the message of the template. But if you have suggestions for improving the clarity of the text, your input would be very welcome. If you like, we can continue on the template talk page. --Bsherr (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Template:R help. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please review WP:BRD, and then the entry "Boldly editing" at WP:VAND#NOT. If you have any questions, let me know. --Bsherr (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see Template talk:R help#Requested move.

 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  20:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Christmas Card

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png

Merry Christmas At this festive time, I would like to say a very special thank you to my fellow editors, and take the time to wish you and your loved ones a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. And, in case you can't wait until the big day, I've left you each three special presents, click to unwrap :) Acather96 (talk) 10:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Green and Yellow Present.gif

File:Yellow and Red present.gif

File:Blue and Red Present.gif

nuh ibn zbigniew

Please delete the Nuh ibn Zbigniew thread. I am the person mentioned and don't want unsubstantiated claims and vindictive lies about my life made through wikipedia. I cannot police this thread on a daily basis.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngondek (talk • contribs) 17:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

120.17.169.149

Hello, Bsherr. Would you mind relaying to me what this IP stated at Talk:Pedophilia? Through email, if you prefer. Flyer22 (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

From memory, it was something like [e-mail address] is an Internet pedophile and then something about notifying the police. I had it oversighted because of the e-mail address. --Bsherr (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thank you for informing me. And Happy Holidays. Flyer22 (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Of interest

Pursuant to this, you may be interested to see User talk:Joshua P. Schroeder#Cold fusion talk where eventually the decision was made to semi-protect. jps (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Delrev

I've replied to your question on Template talk:Delrev. --Tothwolf (talk) 10:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report

Season's Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors We have reached the end of the year, and what a year it has been! The Guild of Copy Editors was full of activity, and we achieved numerous important milestones in 2010. Read all about these in the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report. Highlights Membership grows to 503 editors 2,589 articles removed through four Backlog elimination drives Our encounter with Jimbo Wales Guild home pages reorganized and redesigned Report on our inaugural elections Guild Plans for 2011 New barnstars introduced Requests page improved Sign up for the January 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Get your copy of the Guild's 2010 Year-End Report here On behalf of the Guild, we take this opportunity to wish you Season's Greetings and Happy New Year. See you in 2011! – Your Coordinators: S Masters (lead), Diannaa, The Utahraptor, and Tea with toast.

Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)