Jump to content

User talk:Jon Kolbert/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Jon Kolbert! Thank you for your contributions. I am Beeblebrox and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Jon Kolbert, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi Jon Kolbert! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like ChamithN (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Useful queries

You might find some of my quarry queries useful :)

https://quarry.wmflabs.org/Sfan00%20IMG

Feel free to fork them for your own purposes. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Seattle Scarf Guy.jpg

Let me get this straight... A file that was uploaded in 2007... is somehow a copyright violation of a completely different photo .... that is marked as copyrighted in 2010?! Well, time travel notwithstanding, it wasn't. It was my original photo. Thanks for torching it. Someday even all your contributions will be so unceremoniously obliterated, too. - Keith D. Tyler 05:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, I can't see the file or source right now, but if something must be off here. I do unreservedly apologize if I have erred and I want to make this right. I see you left a message on the deleting admin's page, I will wait for them to respond before jumping to conclusions. Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cardston (provincial electoral district), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Parrish, Paul Shaw and Don Ferguson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Image categories

Hi, Just a quick friendly note to say that this edit probably goes against Wikipedia policies for two reasons. 1) "Category:New Democratic Party" is not an image category. 2) It is not a no-display category.

If the image needed to be categorized in a specific category, an image category would have to be created for this purpose and it would have to be categorized somewhere in the category tree for images, "Category:Wikipedia images" and "Category:Wikipedia images by subject", but not in the category tree for articles. If such an image category existed for NDP images, it would be named something like "Category:New Democratic Party symbols" and it would be a subcategory of "Category:Canadian logos" and of "Category:Political logos". However, an image category for NDP images on Wikipedia would probably be considered too specific according to current practice. If you need to create an image category, it might be acceptable to create a more general image category for something like "Category:Canadian political party symbols" or "Category:Canadian political logos".

The other thing is that non-free images must not be displayed outside of the articles for which they are authorized by the policy of Wikipedia. Considering that many image categories include non-free images (that's precisely why some images are on Wikipedia and not on Commons), consequently those image categories list the images but they do not display the images. You can see "Category:Canadian logos" and "Category:Political logos" for examples of such image categories. Regards, -- Asclepias (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, I was not aware of that. I've since removed the category, but I imagine that the file could be transferred to commons as it seems to be too simple to be eligible for copyright. Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikiproject!

Hello, Jon Kolbert! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Mendis Wickramasinghe

Hello Jon Kolbert. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mendis Wickramasinghe, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: discovering 21 new species of animals is a sufficient claim of significance. Thank you. SoWhy 09:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Jon Kolbert. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

File PROD is live

I notice that you have sent batches of unused personal files to FFD - just a note that PROD has been extended to files, and it's live in Twinkle now. Please use it for these cases to avoid cluttering FFD. – Train2104 (t • c) 14:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

File mover granted

Hello Jon Kolbert. Your account has been granted the "filemover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! – Juliancolton | Talk 17:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Orphan Image

Thank you for flagging up that the image Quincunxlapermlitter.jpg was orphaned. I have now reattached it to the LaPerm page where it was supposed to be so it does not need to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quincunxcats (talk • contribs) 22:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
For tirelessly working through Wikipedia's media file backlogs to identify un-encyclopedic content and copyright violations. Keep up the amazing work! :) -FASTILY 01:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much :) Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

FFD and PROD together

There are a few cases (File:Raleigh mie fry1.jpg, File:Raliegh mie fry3.jpg) where you PRODed a file and later sent it to FFD. It's not immediately obvious why you did so, but please deprod the file if you change your mind and feel a discussion is warranted. – Train2104 (t • c) 03:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Train2104: From my understanding, once anyone raises an objection it must go to FFD instead. One user made an objection and as such, I just sent the batch to FFD. In the future I'll be sure to take off the PROD tag even if the opposing user doesn't themselves. Thank you :) Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Russell Hoban photo

Unfortunately I don't have email archives from 12 years ago - I would've been more careful to preserve that message if I'd understood the intended procedure. I can try to contact the photographer again now if that helps. But I'm a little surprised that the standard of proof is "can you (the editor) send us something that looks like an email from the photographer"; wouldn't that be just as unverifiable as what I wrote in the photo summary? ←Hob 19:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hob: I'm not certain about the exact procedure, but if the photographer has an website and you have an e-mail from bob@bobsphotography.com or the like, I'd imagine they'd use something like that. The process is outlined a bit here, Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I'm a bit slow to understand this... it's been a long time since I was regularly active on WP and things have changed quite a bit. Anyway: I am in touch with the photographer and can get the email in the desired form, but now I'm unclear on where to send it. The page you linked to above at "here" seems to be for Wikimedia Commons, but this photo isn't on Commons currently, it was uploaded to WP instead. And when I look at the "Contact us" page linked from WP:OTRS, under "Licensing" I see instructions for how to donate a new image to WP, or how to take down an unlicensed existing image... but not where to send emails granting permission for an existing image. Any advice would be much appreciated... ←Hob 03:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hob: My mistake for the confusing response, I've uploaded the file on commons here for you, could you forward on the release of the license to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org? Cheers. Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
No problem - thanks. Actually, would it be simpler if the photographer emailed them directly, rather than me forwarding it? She's not a WP editor but does that matter? ←Hob 04:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
@Hob: There's a copy of a recommended release template - located here. If the photographer e-mailed them directed that would probably be best. Just be sure to include a link to the photograph - which would be https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Russell_Hoban_2.jpg . Thank you! Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Money clip pic

The money clip pic use to be on the main page but was removed by some one. An example of the rocks use. Feel free to add it back to the main page. Thanks. LanceBarber (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Toast sandwich

DoctorWho42 has given you a Toast sandwich! Bread (🍞), toast (🔥), and bread (🍞) promotes WikiLove (📖💞) and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toast sandwiches are wonderfully delicious! They are made by putting a thin slice of toast between two thin slices of bread with a layer of butter, and adding salt and pepper to taste. Its origins can be traced to the Victorian years. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a toast sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.


Spread the goodness of toast sandwiches by adding {{subst:Toast sandwich for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 08:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Squares of Savannah

Hi, Jon!!! I got the "under discussion" notices about the Squares of Savannah images. Left some info on their individual pages but wanted to touch base directly. My work computer blocks images in Wikipedia (and only in Wikipedia...don't ask me how or why), so I can't see which images are under discussion, but I assume that they are the aerial black and white photo with the squares tinted green, and the schematic of a typical square in the original Oglethorpe plan. Or...I guess one might be the old, hand-drawn map of the original layout. Anyhow...all are still utilized in the "Squares of Savannah" article. I created the first two specifically for the article, and will be happy to address any issues. Thanks!!! PurpleChez (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, the source of the map in both images is unclear, and as the image is a derivitive work of that map the copyright status of that map needs to be verified to confirm it's eligible to be released under a free license. Cheers. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

SMILE!! 31 JULY 2017

Hello Jon Kolbert, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Election results templates

Hello. Can I ask why you're creating Alberta election results templates that are rounded off to only one decimal? The standard approach for Canadian pages is two decimal points (which is a practice I see you've followed on the BC templates). CJCurrie (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@CJCurrie: Sure thing, that's a reasonable question. The reason I have for having two decimal places on the British Columbia election templates is that the Elections BC document cited goes to two decimal points for each candidate, whereas the Elections Alberta document (results start at page 60 of the PDF file) only goes to one point. Make no mistake, I do see the merit in going to two points however that would be very time-consuming to calculate manually, given that there is document which contains all the information for all the ridings, the document I linked there lacks the invalid votes so I need to search that up elsewhere.
I think the solution here isn't to manually input them. Plenty of times I've come across rounding errors or entries that aren't even close to the actual value. The template needs a good re-write so that the only number values that it needs are
i. vote count for each candidate
ii. rejected ballots
iii. total electors
and, if I'm not mistaken, everything else should be calculable given that data, leaving less room for error and a lot less work on the hands of the editors that maintain these templates. A template with such functionality would be the key to having all these riding result templates standardized and easy to maintain. I would write it myself but I don't have the necessary skills to do so, as I'm not that familiar with that sort of thing. What do you think? Jon Kolbert (talk) 03:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree on this point. There was a pretty thorough discussion (and vote) on the form of these templates a number of years ago; the "two decimal points" approach was the clearly preferred option, and it's been the accepted standard since then, notwithstanding what the official listings issued by different federal, provincial, and municipal authorities have been. I've also seen rounding errors on some Wiki pages, but I think the best response is to fix them rather than changing the system outright. (I could note in passing that I *always* calculate the numbers myself whenever I create one of these templates, to ensure the official percentages are correct ... there have been a few occasions where either they haven't been or the percentages provided have been calculated in relation to the total number of votes rather than the number of the total number of valid votes.)
It's also been standard practice to have a "percentage change" column as well, when possible.
It's not an issue for me if you want to create new Alberta templates with only one decimal point for the time being, but I would request that you not change the two-decimal listings (or the percentage change columns) for existing templates. Thanks. CJCurrie (talk) 03:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Quick addendum: moments after posting my previous message, I realized that you were proposing a template that would automatically generate the percentage information, total valid votes, etc. The answer, unfortunately, is that I don't know how to generate this either ... and, even if I did, you'd need an extra step to generate the percentage change numbers. CJCurrie (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
@CJCurrie: Noted, I'm glad we both agree that each vote percentage should go to two points. In a large number of cases where I have removed the second decimal, the vote count has changed slightly as the official tally came out, as such, I have been much more comfortable just leaving it as the single decimal as that information is readily available. As for the percent change, would you be able to explain what the procedure is for calculating the figure when an electoral redistribution has taken place? Cheers. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:51, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
If one doesn't have access to the redistributed "before" totals, then it's best just to leave the column blank in those cases. That, at least, is my view, although some people have preferred to add a "percentage changes not factored for redistribution" notice instead. CJCurrie (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Move review for Damn (Kendrick Lamar album)

An editor has asked for a Move review of Damn (Kendrick Lamar album). Because you were involved in the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. — TheMagnificentist 12:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete File:Atrivedi.jpg

I can't believe no one thought to delete before! Didn't even know I had uploaded. Can I just delete it? Thanks, Atrivedi (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

@Atrivedi: Haha it's no problem! There's 108K in Category:Wikipedia orphaned files and I'm trying to sort between ones that are useful and those that aren't. I'll tag it for deletion under "author request". Have a nice day! Jon Kolbert (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Bot approval

Hi Jon, did you get bot approval (wp:brfa) for the http->https? See for example User:Bender the Bot which does the same thing (convert to https) and it went through bot approval for each website it converts to give the community a chance to comment before the work is done. Generally any high volume sustained work requires bot approval. -- GreenC 13:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@GreenC: Hi there, I did not know that was required for semi-automatic edits. Nonetheless, I have made a separate account and filled out a BRFA here so that I can do this within policies. I have stopped performing script-assisted edits since receiving your message. Please let me know if there are any more necessary steps or adjustments to be made! Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, just noticed this on my watchlist [1] .. same problem with archive URLs. Maybe due to webcitation.org ? There are about 20 archives that should be checked for. The list. -- GreenC 21:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@GreenC: Ah, thanks for spotting that! I've now amended it, it was set to skip over if the URL was preceded by a "/", now it's set to skip replacement if it's preceded by "/" or "?url=". After looking over that list, that should now cover all cases. Thanks again! Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:38, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Kolrbert Bot

Could you add a description of what the bot does at User:KolbertBot, or at the very least a link to its BRFA? Thanks. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I've added some a basic description of the bot's task. Thank you for the poke - a proper userpage there was overdue. Cheers. Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Kolbert Bot

Hello, I think I've spotted an anomaly. With this edit, the bot seems to have removed part of the closing ref tag in the second two instances. See also here. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Eagleash: I've found the issue - basically, the Regular expression is written in a way where it expects a few characters and then a "/" after "books.google." - but it wasn't limited to a-z, so "<" matched and consequentially was replaced. I've stopped the bot, I will amend the regex later today and also search and repair affected pages. Thank you for pointing that out! :) Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The errors showed up on a page I use to find ref. errors. Eagleash (talk) 17:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks OK to me

This edit which you reverted looks OK to me. Have I missed something? Andrewa (talk) 04:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I've responded by Special:EmailUser. Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know

Sorry I wasn't aware it was "the Beatles" I was just changing it back from the idiotic edit before of "Cow" and "Moo". Nobody else seemed to notice it.

@Sundayclose: I think this message was intended for you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Procureur2014 (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Hi I have just seen a notification from you, to a page that I have mostly written on, about the American poet Herman George Scheffauer, but I can't find the actual message or discover what it is you wish to notify me of? Is this perhaps a bot? Regards

Special:Diff/799527250

Hi Jon, there seem to be an issue with the edit summary of your bot. --Leyo 19:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Leyo: Hello, thanks for pointing that out. That page should have only been in the list of pages to run on if there was an insecure link to be changed, which there wasn't. I'm currently looking into it. Thanks for the heads-up. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
@Leyo: I think I've found the issue, the page transcludes {{DOI}} - which prior to this edit on August 26, used relative linking on one of the domains which is being migrated to HTTPS. One of the downsides of using relative linking is that all relative links are included in a list of http:// links using Special:LinkSearch, which is how the list of pages to edit is generated for the bot. As far as I'm aware, there's no way to specifically filter out relative links at this point and there has been opposition to converting relative links to back to http or https so not much progress on that front has been made. I do think the conversation regarding relative links is worth revisiting, because having an inaccurate list for http:// links is hardly ideal, as shown in that diff above. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
Thank you for adjusting YouTube links in articles about the Mexican Drug War! Your work is greatly appreciated. MX (✉ • ✎) 13:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
@MX: Thank you :) I appreciate it. Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

HTTPS links: comprehensive source of domains to convert?

Hi Jon. I like the bot work you've been doing to convert HTTP to HTTPS links and have made a suggestion for how it could be taken forward on the bots noticeboard. Thanks for all you're doing. Beorhtwulf (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Bot edit summary incorrect

The bot account User:KolbertBot made this edit, where it removed .ph from Google link(s), despite the summary saying "HTTP→HTTPS" (which, indeed, was also done as part of the same edit).

  1. Why? Is it really necessary that all links go to the US version of Google?
  2. I think that the edit summary should reflect the edits made.

Thanks --Psiĥedelisto (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: Hello, thank you for noticing that. I remember that there was a discussion (I cannot seem to locate it at this moment) regarding "sensitive domains" such as .co.tw in China, for example, and the preference to use the international domain .com was established. In any case, the bot isn't loading pages from Special:LinkSearch/https://books.google.com.ph or any other secure Google Books domain. It only changes links that were insecure in the first place or, as in the case above, happen to be in the same article as another website that is being updated. Regards, Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Noticed some edits today in the Sobibór extermination camp article with the same edit summary but with Google .ca links replaced by .com. Have you located that discussion because I'd like to see the rationale and perhaps add the example cited below but could not find the discussion so quick. There are regional variations in the availability of books on various Google domains and a citation is meant to be an indication where the editor found the information added to the article. If the .ph, .ca and/or .com versions are identical it might not matter but if there is a difference in presentation and/or page numbers, for example, it might change the citation in a way which might hamper a subsequent editor in their efforts to locate exactly what was referenced and where the information appears within the sourced book. Does the bot verify whether or not there are regional variations before changing the domain from .ph or .ca to .com in the references it changes? Do you check before or perhaps follow up to check yourself after the bot has made the changes? I'm asking because one of the books I just checked behaved differently for me with a link including .ca than with a .com in the url. https://books.google.ca/books?id=XPtLsXGciJgC&printsec=frontcover#v=snippet&q=Burggraben%20ZAL&f=false

I hereby also echo the request that the domain changes be added to the edit summaries to mention these alongside the http(s) changes. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Verso.Sciolto: I've since adjusted the configuration of the bot so that the bot uses the original country domain so that this no longer occurs. Thanks for the observation - I will try and locate any other examples of this and rectify them. Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
ok. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that not changing the domains is a solution either since the issues you raised above obviously exist and Google's own "country redirect" implementations may make access in each location convenient but also more complicated in some respects for a multi-national place like Wikipedia as well. I guess we'll just have to address those other aspects of using Google Books in a different way.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I’ve been looking at this -and other examples, a little, too- and the issue which has prevented me from making changes so far is that I essentially have no way of verifying how a book will be displayed when such a reference is clicked anywhere else in the world. The change you made directs to the main entry for the book rather than to the referenced page or searched text within the book. In this example the page number is provided in the ref name and as long as the book’s edition is the same so will be the referenced page and the cited text from that specific page. Technically the reader can search the book themselves and locate the referenced excerpt or relevant passage from there but that's not quite the same as the original ref.
Are books on the .com domains universally accessible? If so, a change in the url to prevent the country redirect might work in conjunction with the code for the page number. … if it is advisable to exchange those for the key-word search strings as were previously incorporated in the original reference with the .ca domain. Not overriding the country redirect might make navigation of the Google Books site on the readers end of the equation easier but it might also introduce changes in code behaviour resulting in the link no longer pointing to a specific text/page in the referenced book, depending on how Google Books behave in different parts of the world. In addition to the issues you raised above there are also copyright considerations and the issue of different book editions with page number variations, pages numbers etc not necessarily always indicated in other parts of the reference to be altered. It may in fact be illegal to access certain books in certain countries so overriding country redirects could spell trouble for a reader who lives in a country where access to books scanned for Google is restricted. Corrections welcome but some preliminary ideas based on Google Books url "parameters":
Which one, if any, offers the preferable approach to changing urls that are not for .com Google Books and who do we ask or where do we test implementation before changing other such references as well, if desirable? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
@Verso.Sciolto: I think https://books.google.com/books?id=XPtLsXGciJgC&pg=PA52 is the best option, and that is also the recommended method. I'm going to ask around a bit more, and see if it's worth submitting a bot request to amend Google Books links to strip non-essential data and leave the page parameter so we have consistency across the wiki. What do you think? Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Not convinced that is the best option and don't see how a bot can determine what is and what isn't essential data in references where key word searches rather that page numbers are included when content was linked to various Books / Google Domains, for example. Also having a hard time finding the page where the rationale for these changes in domain extensions was outlined. Also, can't seem to locate the approval for this part of the bot's operation. The approval I found seems to be about authorising the http(s) change but I didn't see one for the Google Books domain changes - which are occurring again - and are as before carried out without a note in edit summaries. I've reverted changes in one article where co.jp was substituted to .com. Would appreciate if you could point me in the direction of the places where and people with whom you've discussed these matters after asking around for a bit.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Verso.Sciolto: I've managed to find the relevant discussion for performing this on Google News/Books domains. The replacements Bender the Bot has previously made have been added to KolbertBot's database as there are still plenty of remaining links to be changed for various domains. I have taken a look through the Google Books links, and it seems as if a number of links have both the "q" and "dq" parameters, and only the ones with "dq" highlight the text. I will find out more about Books parameters more to see what better options there are to cite precisely the material desired. Cheers. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Please "temporarily" stop the Google Books aspect of the bot's operation until it has been ascertained exactly what the consequences are of implementing this universal change to all references which utilise country specific Google Books urls to .com urls. This change alters behaviour. Content which previously directly linked in a sources can in fact become inaccessible due to changes made by the bot by appending the .com extension. As it did in the Chihayafuru article where I reverted only that aspect of the edits made by the bot. Perhaps the revert went unnoticed because of not using the "undo" button but a subsequent bot run made the same change. Those .com changes are still not indicated in the edit summary which makes it complicated to follow up in which of the many articles altered in each bot run such .com changes accompanied the bot's changes to http(s). This makes it quite difficult to find where changes were made and follow up to test how the changes affected the altered reference in those articles. Given the redirects and country specific implementation by Google on Google's various Google Books this is crucial. Unless the bot checks whether or not the altered book url behaves the way it did before by reading the linked source text and comparing it to the article's text body I see no practical benefit to implementing these changes as currently implemented. The linked discussions did little to illuminate or address the issues raised throughout this exchange of ideas, including but not limited to to edit summary per article. Will continue to test and hopefully we'll find a solution to present readers with well behaving Google Books - to all who click the links to read the references text in the sources.

edit to append - InternetArchiveBot indicates the changes made in the edit summary and also posts a Talk page notification as part of its output. I don't think the Google Books instructions are currently ready for implementation and I'm skeptical that a bot can be instructed to verify book contents but once those issues are resolved and it is ultimately concluded that changes to all Google Books urls are in fact desirable then a similar notification system might also be useful for the bot instructed to implement such Google Books edits.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

WebCite Text Encoding. (Separate issue included in conversation): Google Books domains - different outcome as a result of bot edits to country specific urls

The archived version of a site referenced in the Future Boy Conan article made some other issues visible. Not necessarily within the scope of this thread or directly relevant to the bot operation but... WebCite archive versions appear to use a different Text Encoding than the original text of the sites they archive - which results in the archived version appearing as mojibake to me. The archived version from the WayBack machine doesn't appear to have that Text Encoding issue and displays Japanese text for me. Not sure what someone else will see in these archived versions when they click the links but perhaps useful to point out in the context of picking an archive to stay ahead of link rot. The WebCite archive link works with either http or https but the original site, where the archived text used to be hosted, only works with http. The link in the reference is a dead link so that element of the situation with this particular url may be moot - Found there as a result of the bot edit.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

@Verso.Sciolto: What are the URLS for the archive and original reference? Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
I've since left notes in the Future Boy Conan article / its talk page and I should have Wiki linked that article itself in my comment above too. The referenced site is Searchina. net: https://www.searchina.net/?y=2011&d=0113&f=national_0113_015.shtml Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for checking the text encoding and subsequently editing the Conan article to switch archives. On the issue of http(s) itself. How do we deal with sites where the change to https hasn't been carried out and a https in a link will result in 404 and/or other errors? Like the "searchina" (ne.jp / net) site or the following example. Have not used the following Alvin Lu interview as a reference in a Wikipedia article yet but noticed that this link for it: http://www.theoasg.com/articles/kodansha-comics-finally-licensed-chihayafuru/4108 works while this: https://www.theoasg.com/articles/kodansha-comics-finally-licensed-chihayafuru/4108 does not, when I referenced it elsewhere. What would be a good way to deal with (a) situation(s)/site(s) like that/these? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 05:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Verso.Sciolto: No problem! The website you referenced doesn't support HTTPS at all, so that link should never be modified by the bot. As for other archive links affected by the WebCite encoding issue, I'd recommend verifying a few other Japanese references to see if there's a similar pattern. The archive link in the Conan article seems to have been added here, the editor is still active so they might have a better clue as to what specific articles may be affected. Let me know what you find out, I'm here to help out in any capacity I can. Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
In other words, the bot operates from a known to be good master list of site which have already switched to https. That isn't case in the Google Books scenario, is it? There the bot works within an environment of unknown outcomes. Would you agree that is an accurate assessment when comparing the two tasks? Verso.Sciolto (talk) 14:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Verso.Sciolto: Not exactly, with Google Books the domain shouldn't matter. You had identified a link which contained a parameter that generally shouldn't be used - specifying the exact page(s) is the recommended method for citing Google Books. Jon Kolbert (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
The domain "shouldn't matter" - unfortunately it does. Unlike with the http to https change you can't predict the outcome when all your bot changes is the country specific extension to .com in the Google Books url. It isn't just a link either. The example provided was one of several affected in that one Sobibor related article.Verso.Sciolto (talk) 15:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Google Books domains - different outcome as a result of bot edits to country specific urls.

Can you tell me with whom you are currently discussing the Google Books domain related issues and inform me where that conversation is taking place? (I've Started a new section with a more specific header for a topic described in other sections above for which the headers don't quite sum up the entire issue.)Verso.Sciolto (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I've engaged in queries with bender235, the operator of Bender the Bot, as soon as this issue was brought up. I am currently working on a comprehensive solution so that users can efficiently and safely access Google Books material. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
I'd like you to broaden the conversation to more people, submit a formal proposal for approval for this specific aspect of the bot operation and before doing so I'd like you to start a conversation on Google Books related talk pages beyond the "bot community" about the necessity of and execution method for these sweeping changes as well. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
It's being worked on. Once I have more information to present about the possible options, they will be presented so there can be a full discussion on where we want to go from here. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to block your bot for a particular reference?

Hello. Thanks for your help in cleaning up HTTP→HTTPS. Your bot recently ran on Virginia Tech shooting, which alerted me to a couple of urls there that were missing archive-urls. I've added them, but unfortunately, one of the archives won't work if the url is converted to HTTPS, as it's an archive of a video. Is there a way to add something to that particular citation template to get your bot to ignore it? This is the relevant citation:

{{cite web |title=Raw Video: NBC Releases Gunman Video Manifesto |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2007/04/18/VI2007041802198.html |work=The Washington Post <!--|section=Metro--> |agency=Associated Press |author-link=Associated Press |format=Video |date=April 18, 2007 |archive-url=http://www.webcitation.org/6td3upRY6 <!-- note that changing the url to "https://" results in a site that doesn't contain the video, which is what's being archived! --> |archive-date=September 20, 2017 |dead-url=no}}

Thanks!—D'Ranged 1 | VTalk :  23:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@D'Ranged 1: Thanks for the poke - I'm looking into it. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@D'Ranged 1: The Washington Post is in the process of converting their website to HTTPS, some sections haven't been converted yet but they should just redirect back to the http site for the time being. In any case, clicking the link should take you to a working site.
If I understand correctly you're having some difficulty with this URL in particular. I'd recommend using the InternetArchiveBot console - it's very through and tested with this exact purpose. I've just used it to add some archives and fix existing ones.
I do not seem to be having any issues playing the video - may I ask what browser you are using? Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jon Kolbert: The issue isn't with the Washington Post site, but with the WebCite archive url: http://www.webcitation.org/6td3upRY6 plays the video easily, but if you change it to https://www.webcitation.org/6td3upRY6, there is no video, just a photograph. The Internet Archive (Wayback Machine) doesn't archive videos at all; early archives of the page there show a big black screen; the latest archives show a static photograph as well. Perhaps you can exclude webcitation.org from your bot patrols? —D'Ranged 1 | VTalk :  00:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@D'Ranged 1: Ah, I see what you mean. I've sent an e-mail to the WebCite technical team, hopefully they'll fix it because I doubt they want this happening either. I've killed the bot for the time being until there's a fix and we know this won't happen again. Thanks again! Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jon Kolbert: I added the {{cbignore}} template to the citation. If your bot doesn't recognize that template, perhaps it should? Cheers! —D'Ranged 1 | VTalk :  10:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
WebCite has little to no technical support in my experience. This is a strange problem that looks like a WebCite error but I wouldn't count on a fix. It's been policy to convert webcite URLs to https with other bots IABot and WaybackMedic. I'm not sure Kolbert's bot can support {{cbignore}} as it would require parsing each citation individually which is much more involved than a whole-page regex. Unless it did a general search for any cbignore and skipped the whole article if one existed. Or use {{nobots}} for example {{nobots|deny=KolbertBot}} .. this assumes ‎KolbertBot is exclusion compliant (it checks for a nobots template). -- GreenC 13:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
One other thought.. I don't believe WebCite is actually archiving the video (it's Flash). It shows up because the live page has it and so the underlying link works. But if the live page ever went dead the video wouldn't be there. Archiving Flash is pretty difficult. -- GreenC 13:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
It sounds like it would be worth using WebArchive or another archive service in place of WebCite - if the link goes dead there's little merit in using a non-secure WebCite link. Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
There's a copy at archive.is but the flash didn't transfer. archive.org no go. That's all I can find. -- GreenC 19:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Jon Kolbert. 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:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Alex ShihTalk 17:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Images lacking information...

As you seem to have a good grasp on things...

Any chance you could chip away at this query so it's eventually empty? https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/18892 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at them once I have the chance - thanks! Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Also - https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/18909 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Blog Inquiry

Hey Jon,

Hope you're doing well.

I came across your page through researching the edits of a few music-related Wikipedia pages and wanted to get in touch as I'm currently working on a blog to discuss best practices / tips for Wikipedia and thought I'd reach out to see if this is something you'd want to be involved in.

Let me know your thoughts. I would email you but I already emailed a few people today and that action is currently throttled for me. Please email me back (on my user page) if you’re interested. Thanks!

CMCreator900 (talk) 23:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Gaussian Correlation Inequality

So, yeah, that was not gossip, that is what truly happened, sir. Contact Mr. Royen himself, and mention my name, Joshua Lempert. He should recognize the name. The conceptualization of the proof was almost entirely mine. However, I am not a professional mathematician, so, I knew no one would listen to a claim from me personally. I don't blame you for deleting it without first checking to see if it was true--for it is quite a story. However, it is nothing short of the truth. Now, that being said, I do like my most recent edit, where I just mention my name once in a very concise manner. Much better than the first edit, which ended up being very long-winded. So, no hard feelings; we all make mistakes.

Sincerely, Joshua H. Lempert Jlempert87 (talk) 11:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

RE:

I explained the situation there.8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

RE:2

I was adding a movie to the template as the Power Rangers film had an autistic character, I have no idea why on earth you reverted the edit. It is an autism related article.188.28.184.135 (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Sapperton station, Braid station, etc.

Hi,

The naming convention which specifies lowercase "station" is here: WP:CANSTATION. Basically, unless there is consistent usage and sourcing of the station as "Name Station" (i.e. Union Station (Toronto), Grand Central Station), "station" is not considered part of the proper name. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

BC Liquor Stores

The article is looking good! I read the pdf you sent me as well, it was pretty neat although I wish it was more in-depth about the "Indian List". Obviously it was a personal recollection and not an academic paper though so I understand its limits. I'm interested in some of the papers he recommends in the sidebar as further reading, but I don't have much database access so I don't know if I could get them.

As a side note, have you considered submitting the article to DYK? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Yeah I'll definitely look into those other materials - I just added a section how it went from complete government control to the hybrid model we see today with some private and some government stores.
I'm willing to nominate it for DYK but I'm not sure what "fun fact" to use. :P Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hm, maybe the Indian List? Your hook could be something like "...that until 1968, BC Liquor Stores maintained a list of some 5000 people prohibited from purchasing liquor based on perceived risk factors such as Indian status?" ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I was originally leaning towards that - I've created a nomination here. I'm not sure if I've done it right. Do you mind taking a look? Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like it's set up fine, although I bolded the page name for you per the norm. :) I wonder if it would be more interesting and "hook-y" to mention the "Indian list" by name, like, "...that until 1968, BC Liquor Stores maintained a list of some 5000 people prohibited from purchasing liquor, referred to as the "Indian List" due to the practice of automatically including indigenous people?" I think that might draw a little more "whoa tell me more" interest. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos: You're right. I've since adjusted the hook to include "Indian List" to capture more attention. Thanks for the help :) By the way, if you're able to snap a photo of a storefront and/or interior of a BC Liquor Store, I'd really appreciate it as the one in the article isn't that great. Jon Kolbert (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
My phone camera is garbage but I'll see what I can do :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

RE: BC Electoral Reform Map

Hey Jon!

Im absolutely able to make that map when the time comes (given that it seems to not be for another year). Ive actually already made maps for the previous 2005 and 2009 electoral reform referendums so Im more than ready to make it! Thanks!

- DrRandomFactor

@DrRandomFactor: Great! I was planning on making an article well before the referendum to give some context on the issue at hand. I thought it would be useful to have a blank map of the current electoral districts to allow less-adapt Illustrator users (like me) to be able to "paint-by-number" for use in other articles as well. Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Jon Kolbert: That would be awesome if you could work on the article! I think it literally was just announced so someone will have to make it. Also I do have a blank map of the current BC ridings available. It's on the page for BC provincial districts but ill just link it here.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Columbia_Provincial_Ridings_Map_-_Blank_(2017_-_present).svg

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge submissions

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Odontomachus spinifer

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Thanks for the ping, I've re-done the review and added some notes on some modifications that could be done. Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Yoninah (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

File:MM-8 The Key to the Universe.bmp

 Done Now File:MM-8 The Key to the Universe.png Thanks for the help. Ronhjones  (Talk) 11:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Hi! Dear, Thanking you for caring the article - Ilse Aichinger as well as for all your valuable contributions on Wikipedia. I also tried to re-arrange its links and sections. Hence, 2 sections as - Themes in Works and Criticisms need a through revision. Hope, you will visit the page once again. Best wishes !!! WILLY-NILLY talk 13:29, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

BC Liquor Store images

Sorry it took so long. Hope the quality is okay, I took them with my cell phone. Feel free to touch it up, crop, or modify it any way you want. -- Ϫ 02:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@OlEnglish: No worries - I appreciate the gesture. They look pretty good to me! :) Hope you had a good long weekend! Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
File:BC Liquor Store Port Coquitlam.jpg One more for ya! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:47, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Didn't know there were so many fellow editors from the Vancouver area! Alex ShihTalk 04:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
It wasn't hard to persuade editors to visit the liquor store to snap a photo ;) - maybe HomeSense would be a different story. I'm thankful fellow editors were willing to help out - it is a collaboration after all. Jon Kolbert (talk) 04:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Lol

The moment IRC gets wind that one of the regulars is up for RfA. GMGtalk 13:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo:👀 Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey... were you the one making up fancy signature graphics with transparent background the other day? GMGtalk 17:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Nope. My signature is the default one because I can't make anything better :P Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
No no. I meant in infoboxes on biographies. GMGtalk 18:22, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Oh, I understand what you mean now - that wasn't me but I have the necessary software to give it a shot. Are you needing a trace? Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Sure, if you've got time to kill. Someone vandalized Terence V. Powderly earlier today and I was reminded what a bad job I did with his signature. GMGtalk 18:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: What page did you extract the signature from? Jon Kolbert (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't have a page number, but it's five pages down from the very beginning. GMGtalk 18:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: I gave it a shot but wasn't able to do much better than you had... Sorry I couldn't do more Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
No worries. The scan itself is pretty distorted. Maybe I'll go on the hunt for a different version in an archive somewhere. GMGtalk 19:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Libertarianism sidebars

Hi. The term "Libertarianism" has a very specific meaning in the United States and, to some extent, Canada, which is sharply distinct from how the term is understood in Europe and much of the rest of the world. In the United States (and Canada), it's almost universally associated with concepts like free market economics, free trade, anarcho-capitalism, etc. By contrast, in the rest of the world, especially Europe, "Libertarianism" is closely associated with far-left anti-statist ideologies, communal anarchism, anti-Stalinist socialism, etc. Therefore, I made a separate sidebar to distinguish the term as it's understood in the US. It really makes no sense to have Ron Paul, Ayn Rand, Friedrich Hayek, and David Friedman in the same category as Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bakunin, Peter Kropotkin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, etc, and is extremely confusing for people who don't understand the nuances of the term's distinct usages (exactly the type of person who would be consulting an encyclopedia in the first place). I chose to qualify the American sidebar with the phrase "In the United States" and leave the rest of world sidebar as simply "Libertarianism" for three reasons: 1) the rest of world understanding of the term Libertarianism was already in widespread usage centuries before the American (and Canadian) understanding of the term; 2) to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality, given that the rest of world understanding of the term is much more widespread and global than the American understanding of the term; 3) there is already a specific article on Libertarianism in the United States distinguishing it from the rest of world understanding of Libertarianism, and the only other articles on country-specific "Libertarianism" (Libertarianism in the United Kingdom and Libertarianism in South Africa) both refer to the exportation of American Libertarianism in the past 30 years. Does this seem reasonable? Erhik (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Erhik: It doesn't quite seem reasonable that the Libertarian Party of Canada is "part of a series on Libertarianism in the United States", does it? Jon Kolbert (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It certainly does descend from the American stream of Libertarianism. Most members of the Libertarian Party of Canada would vomit at the idea of association with Communist figures like Kropotkin. In any case this is a relatively minor issue, can you please address the main point? Erhik (talk) 00:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Erhik: That may or may not be the case, but it's standard practice to bring up these points at the appropriate talk page instead of unilaterally replacing the template used in 60+ articles. My suggestion to you would be to undo your edits for now, and start a discussion on the proposed changes on the template talk page. We'll see where the discussion goes and we'll move forward from there. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay fair enough, sorry. Erhik (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
@Erhik: It's all good. Thanks for being reasonable :) Jon Kolbert (talk) 01:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

warning about your bot edit to Jorg Haider article

Hi, your bot recently put Jorg Haider in a box, with a label on it, which would be frowned upon by the Austrian judge who ruled against such stereotyping of deceased. I`m not sure if Austrian law has provisions outside of Austria, but I know Canada has similar laws, so brolly best to remove it.

oopsie! sorry, it seems it was NOT your bot. Most profuse apologies.126.209.12.35 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Pings

To fix pings, just change a preference in your preferences. (For example, changing from English to Canadian English or vice versa.) It will allow you to receive pings again until they put out the patch soon. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Milli Fire

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jon_Kolbert/Archive_1&oldid=1143893524"