User talk:Bsherr/Archives/2018

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Bsherr. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

AWB

Hello Bsherr, welcome back. I've reactivated you for WP:AWB, please be sure to read over the current Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use before you begin. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 03:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. --Bsherr (talk) 17:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brijesh Shandilya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Classical (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Move doc page

can you move {{Infobox coat of arms/doc}} over {{Infobox emblem/doc}} to correspond to the move you executed for {{Infobox coat of arms}}? Frietjes (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Can't believe I forgot. Yes, soon as the predecessor page is speedy deleted. Thanks! --Bsherr (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Bsherr. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

Wikipedia:Requested moves
Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Swarm ♠ 17:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Hello. I noticed you reverted obvious vandalism [1] with the following edit summary: ". (Reverted edits by 90.253.72.139 (talk): not providing a reliable source (WP:CITE, WP:RS) (HG) (3.4.4)) (undo | thank) (Tags: Huggle, Rollback)"

Please consider recalibrating your end of things - it isn't helpful when obvious vandalism is obscured, and I'm sure something just glitched in this case. Thanks CapnZapp (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Does my minor addition suffice?

I pared down the changes from Tamwin's. Does the new version 'better differentiate' the template than the old? Do you have other thoughts/objections? thx, Humanengr (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Empty talk pages

Please stop flagging these pages for speedy deletion. Deletion of an empty talk page while the article page is present and valid in not appropriate.----Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: Why would it not be a page created in error? --Bsherr (talk) 16:56, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Reversion

Just a quick note to explain this a little more clearly: We usually keep the shortcuts for sections in guidelines and policies (but not the shortcuts that lead to a whole page). The reason is this: Those section headings change every now and again, and people will update the shortcuts to point to the new section heading. But they won't look for or update all the manual links to it, which means that any spelled-out links will be broken.

Please continue to replace whole-page shortcuts, such as WP:NMUSIC, when you see them, but please leave the section-specific shortcuts, such as WP:LSC, in place. It will save us a lot of trouble in the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I haven't heard of this. Is there a guideline on this? --Bsherr (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that an editor as experienced as you should really need a written rule for this, beyond Wikipedia:Use common sense. But, yes, as it happens, someone did take the time to document this particular detail, which you can read at Wikipedia:NOTBROKEN. Note that this guideline doesn't actually authorize bypassing any of shortcuts at all (although most experienced editors don't mind if you replace WP:NMUSIC with the full name of the page), and it explicitly prohibits replacing any shortcuts to sections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: The purpose of the change is not to bypass the redirect. Rather, it's to avoid the use of the shortcut in the text because it is opaque. WP:NOTBROKEN does not address that. If your concern is that the section links are easily broken, there is a guideline on that, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Broken_section_links. Would you have any objection to either putting in anchors or adding a comment at the linked section, or both, as prescribed by the guideline? --Bsherr (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

A third alternative, unique to project pages and thus not mentioned in the guideline, would be to use a piped link, [[WP:SHORTCUT|Wikipedia:Article#Section]]. --Bsherr (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the ping earlier. WP:NOTBROKEN says:

"Shortcuts or redirects to embedded anchors or sections of articles or of Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed, as the anchors or section headings on the page may change over time. Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links."

Note that this injunction uses the word never, and that it specifically links to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines as the kind of page whose shortcuts should never be bypassed.

Do you think that bypassing those shortcuts is a reasonable interpretation of the rule that "Shortcuts...to sections of...Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should never be bypassed"?

(MOS:LINK isn't about redirects. It's about managing direct links, e.g., when there is no shortcut or redirect.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Okay. I hope it's clear from the above that I have no interest in the link itself, only in what is displayed. So again, does the third alternative above work? It complies with your admonishment not to bypass the shortcuts. --Bsherr (talk) 00:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the shortcuts are opaque (if you don't know what that means, then you just click on it...), or that "Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists#Adding individual items to a list" isn't opaque (what's that long thing, and why are you sending me to a style page when I have a content dispute?).

Which audience are you trying to optimize this paragraph for? The ones who have been around long enough to recognize that anything in all caps is a shortcut, or total newbies? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: The most affected are the visually impaired, who will hear their screen reader spell it aloud, "double-ewe, pee, colon, el, eye, ess…", as opposed to pronouncing words, and will then have to click through and lose their place on the original page to know to what the link is. I happen to like the full link and section name, because the user then immediately knows which guideline is being identified, as opposed to having to click through or already have knowledge of the meaning of the shortcut. Something between the two would be to use a piped link to contextualize it, for example, "WP:LISTCRITERIA" becomes "the selection criteria for stand-alone lists," but that will often create redundant text in the prose that will have to be resolved. For example, "Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the criteria at WP:LISTCRITERIA" becomes "Inclusion within stand-alone lists should be determined by the criteria at the selection criteria for stand-alone lists." The sentence obviously needs to be completely reworked, which is doable, but more time consuming. --Bsherr (talk) 01:42, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

IMO, optimizing for Graham87 and editors using similar software is a highly desirable goal.

I think re-working the sentence would be good. I've had a go at fixing the first (because it seemed easier). Do you have any inspiration for the second? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I'm very grateful for your help. In scrutinizing the second sentence, I think there are some other issues beyond the link itself. Your line above, "Why are you sending me to a style page when I have a content dispute?", is prescient. I can't find the language on importance at WP:SOURCELIST. I'm thinking a link to Wikipedia:Summary style might actually be best. Ideal would be one of the relevance essays, but it's hard to choose between them. Anyway, I think I'm going to start a discussion on the project talk page for more visibility, and see if we can't improve the whole section. I'll ping you when it's up. --Bsherr (talk) 18:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Forest City logo.svg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hi Bsherr. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, do check back at WP:PERM in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Alex Shih (talk) 09:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!

I very much appreciate your critical commentary and found our discussion immensely clarifying. Best, Humanengr (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Humanengr: So kind of you to say. It’s such a pleasure to speak with folks like you who think deeply about making improvements. Even though this didn’t exactly work out as you had proposed, there is obviously a lot to do to make the project pages around these concepts better. If you ever want to take that on, I hope you’ll ping me. I’d be thrilled to work with you. Bsherr (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Template editor?

Would you like template editor rights? It looks like you monitor a lot of templates, and are very knowledgeable about them, so template editor rights would probably be very useful for you. Plus, you can then revert my edits yourself rather than having to make edit protected requests! ;-) If you'd like the rights, I'd be happy to give them to you. --Deskana (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Haha, yes, I went away for a bit and when I came back, there was a whole new regime and I was on the outside of it! So, over a thousand edits in the template namespace, but didn’t have the 5 edit requests to meet the standard. ;-) Until now thanks to you, Deskana! So yes, I’ll gratefully accept that template editor permission. Thanks very much, Deskana, that’s very thoughtful of you to offer. --Bsherr (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. Enjoy! --Deskana (talk) 22:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks again Deskana! Bsherr (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

I was reviewing the PERM archives and I see you were given a temporary NPR grant, which surprised me. I think you can obviously be trusted, but access to NPR is notoriously strict (without need, IMO). Anyway, I see you haven't done any patrolling yet, but let me know if and when you do happen to review a new page. I'll take a look and make that user right permanent if it looks like you've demonstrated competence. I'd be inclined to do so already but it's considered to be poor form to arbitrarily overturn other admin decisions. Let me know. Regards, Swarm talk 22:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Swarm. I’m actually happy for the scrutiny. Would be great to have a double-check I’m doing it right. I’ll be sure to take you up on that chance for feedback. Regards until then. Bsherr (talk) 05:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Bsherr/Archives,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bsherr. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Revert at Template:EP

Hi Bsherr. I noticed you reverted my edit at Template:EP and wanted to ask for your rationale? Your edit summary cited WP:ACCESSIBILITY broadly, but did not provide any specifics. Thank you, Mifter (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mifter: Thanks for the message. The padlocks with the imprinted characters are preferable to the color-only padlocks because the color-only padlocks are indistinguishable for colorblind users. In circumstances in which it is possible to use either, we should prefer the imprinted padlocks. --Bsherr (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I presumed that as the text has an explanatory note as well as further links that the concern was ameliorated but I appreciate the clarification. Best, Mifter (talk) 06:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Bsherr/Archives,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

Improving alt text

Can you explain your reasoning for this? Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Are you referring to describing it as a portrait, or not describing that he is dressed in a suit, or both? --Bsherr (talk) 20:57, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Clarification

Just to be clear, my long-ish responses to you at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC on capitalization of prepositions aren't intended to start any kind of argument with you. Rather, I'm using your comments as an insertion point, as leverage, to inject some important ideas into the debate that the "Uhh, just, um, follow the sources, or something" non-thinking on the topic doesn't consider otherwise. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:43, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I quite appreciate it, actually. Your insight is very thoughtful. But very considerate of you to reach out here. Cheers. --Bsherr (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)