User talk:Xaosflux/Archive34

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Xaosflux. 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.

Hi. You asked a while back at DBR about a better version of Wikipedia:Database reports/Blank single-author pages. If it's any help, I've replicated the query with a bigger limit at Quarry. It needs some tidying up - you will have to download the results and manually translate the namespace number to actual namespace using the table at the top of Wikipedia:Namespace, so "1 AltiGator" needs to become Talk:AltiGator and so on, and the handling of Unicode characters needs some attention, but apart from that it should be good enough for your purposes. Cheers.Le Deluge (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 17:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

In the "Talk" part of your signature, could I interest you in  #4c924c  instead of  #00ff00 . The colour hurts my eyes (it's trivial but wouldn't hurt to ask, would it). --QEDK (T ☕ C) 16:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: I'm OK to change to a different shade, let me mock some up, not sure if I'm in love with 4c924c (I try for ones in the Web_colors#Web-safe_colors list) What do you think of these below? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

1. 00FF00 (current for comparison):

   ^Talk

2. 00FF33:

   ^Talk

3. 00FF66:

   ^Talk

4. 00CC33:

   ^Talk

5. 00CC66:

   ^Talk

6. 009933:

   ^Talk

My eyes say yes to the last 3. (Thanks!) --QEDK (T ☕ C) 18:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 18:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Lovely. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion around the rights to be bundled in Page mover has set me thinking. move-subpages would seem to be of most use in relation to templates which, in the cases which require TE attention, usually come with the set of /sandbox, /testcases, and /doc. Should the priv be added to the TE set? Can't say that I've come across a situation in the 9 months I've been servicing requests at TPERTable, but it seems a logical step to ensure that TEs would be able to service the full set of requests. Your thoughts please? Bazj (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: I don't specifically object to this, but don't think it is that needed. The place it is the most needed is talk pages, which may have tons of archives. Most templates that are TE protected are fairly "stable" - and not often renamed (moved). If someone was involved in moving template around a lot, then they certainly could qualify for the proposed page-mover as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Then again, I see TE as "more advanced" tha the proposed page-mover, so that makes perfect sense to me. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

That was a dummy edit, not a null edit. ;) nyuszika7h (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Well yes it was :D — xaosflux ^Talk 14:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Xaosflux,

I am sure your closes are right, but looking at a couple:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shiva eng2002/Veeramani.K "Non-notable musician with no references". These are so common and so obvious, it should be a speedy criterion? Little issue with a SNOW delete, except maybe for a SNOW on the first day on the basis on the nomination statement, maybe in your close you should assert that the nom is right?

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shiv Chhatrapati/India and World special days "Mix of English and Hindi? No references." Now that's a weak rationale. Presumably when you looked at the article, you saw it would be a SNOW delete. I trust you, but could you at least give a CSD-like justifying rationale. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi @SmokeyJoe: Unless you want to really contest these, I'm not going back to them (in which case I'll revert and let them run) - but will try to put more context in to future snow closes. If I'm closing per snow it is not strictly a CSD criteria, but those that I think really have no chance at MfD (regardless of the nominators statement). We've had a huge backlog at MfD lately and I'm trying to get it under control. I do look at every page I delete prior to deleting and am a huge advocate of merging histories to ensure even the smallest oldest attributions are maintained. I think we still have a project wide gap on what should and what should not be allowed in non-article space, including all the variants of sandboxes and drafts that are "core content" related; I can see the POV's of the people that say who cares-put anything and the "this better become an article very soon" camps - but the overall community consensus is still very gray. Sorry to ramble on and on here - let me know if you want to actually object to any speedy I make, I will almost always revert unless it is obvious disruption (attack pages/blatant copyvio/etc). — xaosflux ^Talk 03:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Xaosflux. No, no intention to contest, but just a little more context would be great. Thanks for working on the horrendous backlog. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @SmokeyJoe: (and also directed at Xaosflux) What would your thoughts be on proposing a couple obvious speedy deletion criteria to help limit the needed nominations? I've admittedly been one of the worst offenders in contributing to the backlog because I've been trying to weed out some of the incredibly obvious spam from the draft/user space. There's probably a few categories that could be made into speedy deletion criteria for the draftspace (not userspace) with no major objection. The one that comes to mind immediately is "Biographies of living persons where the primary subject is a minor (less than eighteen years of age) or group of minors and no reliable sources are provided." ~ Rob^Talk 08:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I have long noted a missing BLP CSD. BLP deletions are longstanding practice, but undocumented. I suggest "Unsourced private information on a child or private individual, or any unsourced negative material on any living person." Pages consisting predominantly of this should be deleted. Small amounts in an otherwise acceptable page should be removed per WP:BLP. Use of Wikipedia:Revision deletion may be appropriate. I think this would cover BU Rob13's desire.

New CSD criteria need to be well drafted to get a serious hearing.

NB. In my grumpy moments over busywork nominations, I don't consider BU Rob13 to be an offender. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

In regards to a new CSD, I don't think the age of the subject should be a primary factor; GNG is too rigorous for drafting, but perhaps a DNG where there should be some assertions that the GNG will ever be reachable should be required within some timeline of starting the draft. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think my page is the best place to come up with an answer, but personally I think WP:DRAFTPROD should be revived, but tweaked, perhaps a longer wait period (a month?) and be inclusive of any encyclopedic content that is being drafted (not necessarily only the draft namespace, but also user subpages exclusive of generic sandboxes -- which can easily be reset). — xaosflux ^Talk 11:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll let y'all decide whether to bring this up. Last time I made a policy proposal, I was personally attacked, so I'm not too keen to repeat that. You guys have more experience in this area than I do as well. Drop me a talk page message if you propose any draft CSD criteria. ~ Rob^Talk 02:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

You should run for crat. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 19:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@QEDK: They are hidden away, just kidding they are right here, but not easily retrieved due to a bug (they were issued using the old interface that allowed inputting a lowercase letter for the first character and executing the change). Thanks for the nod, I've thought about it, but the needs for crats is pretty low still - I was about to "run" for oversight last time, but a personal commitment was keeping me off line for a bit - will probably throw my hat in to that one if it comes around again. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, why aren't you a crat yet? You've been around for so long, you are one of our most active behind the scenes admin and someone who knows all the policies inside out. You already oversee the BAG and regularly provide valuable input at BN. Yours would be a much welcome addition to the bureaucrat group. - NQ (talk) 19:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Ofc he would be and I'm pretty sure he'd sail through RfB too. I insist that you run for crat, considering you're one of our long-standing and valuable admins of the community. --QEDK (T ☕ C) 11:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I second that. Kharkiv07 (T) 12:45, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I was curious, so I searched the system and I could only ever find one appeal (UTRS appeal #13364) that was related to one of your blocks. It appears that very few users find your blocks arguable.--v/r - TP 01:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

It's usually just blatant vandals and naughty bots :D — xaosflux ^Talk 01:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Panini (sandwich). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. My point is never to make work for other editors. So, in the future, if I come upon a stale draft which was incorrectly created on the main sandbox of a user, should I simply blank and put the sandbox template on the page (as you did)? Or should I still G13 it, and let an admin do it? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@Onel5969: There was nothing "wrong" with what you did, and these are very much a case-by-case type of call. Basically when these are contested they end up at MFD and normally then unless there is a good argument (like copyright violation, attack page, serious blp concerns, etc) the trend is that User:User/Sandbox type pages are normally just blanked, while User:User/SomeArticleSoundingName get more discussion as to redirecting/mergering/moving to draft/etc. I've found the best way to deal with other people's primary sandboxes is normally to just ignore them, however if they are in categories/using non-free images then {{usersandbox}} or {{Inactive userpage blanked}} can easily be applied. I tend to use the later if there was significant content of only one subject. Hope this answers your questions, please let me know if I missed anything. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the response. I'll keep those parameters in mind. However, I guess I was asking regarding the specific instance at G13. As I said, my goal is never to create more work for other editors, so if I can do something differently which makes it unnecessary for another editor to get involved, I'm more than willing to do it. With that in mind, if I come across a sandbox at G13 is it appropriate for me to do an edit like this? Or should I G13 it? Thanks again. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I think blanking it like that is the most appropriate in that case, had it been User:Pankaj1989007/Institute of Aeronautical engineering though I'd go the G13 route - the only difference being a page title - but the MfD trend leans in that direction. There is still much discussion going on regarding "draft" type cleanups in the various forums. If you do go the G13 route, I'd leave the user who's page you nominated a note as well on their main talk so that if they come back they know what went on - this is also subjective but is more useful if the editor is recent (say last edit within the year) and "younger" (say this was their only edit, or they had very few edits) - so as not to confuse them (newer editors can get lost looking at log messages). Please note, this is not "official policy", just my experience as a long time admin. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again. That's why I was asking you, because of your long-time experience. Be well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey Xaosflux. The value of MediaWiki:Restriction-edit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is visible in the protection log. I don't think (Note: Extended confirmed protection has restricted usage, see above.) should be visible there. (CC: Callanecc) — JJMC89 (T·C) 04:39, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, I deleted that message again. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

For the deletion it says Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Kirlianis, which that xfd does not exist. Wgolf (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Not sure why there is that speedy on the page at all. Wgolf (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I reverted that, and removed the invalid CSD nomination, I left the aging BLPPROD notice. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

• Draft:Redefy Real Estate

Please help me. You deleted a page I've been working on for months. Called "Redefy Real Estate". This is my first attempt at a Wiki and I had submitted it several times, each time working on the things that needed to be improved. I went back to add more references because it needed more to be notable. I was surprised to find it deleted. Please, please, is there a way to get the code back? I really am working to get this published and I don't want to start over. Please respond! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRoberts1988 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC) Oh sorry, I didn't see your reply below. I sent you my email address. Thank you! SRoberts1988 (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@SRoberts1988: following this discussion Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Redefy Real Estate - the commenters were of like mind that the draft article for Redefy was never going to meet the Wikipedia:Notability Guidelines. Simply adding links is not enough to make something notable, and I agree that the draft really did read more like an advertisement than an encyclopedia entry. What makes this specific company notable? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:56, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I will happily email you a copy of the article if you want to develop it outside of wikipedia for a future try - if you want this use the Email this user link to the left so I can get your email address, then leave a note here. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

 DoneEmailed. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we essentially EC'd, saying substantially the same thing. How do you want to resolve this? Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Certainly not be edit warring :D I'm trying to figure out exactly what we broke from each other ... just a min. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@L235: - so as not to thrash the policy page, what do you think of this: (make changes as you think are needed). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection prevents edits from all IP editors and any registered user with fewer than 30 days tenure and 500 edits. This level of protection is to be applied in topic areas authorized by the Arbitration Committee or the community.^[1] Pages with this level of protection can be edited only by editors with the extended confirmed user access level, granted automatically to editors with 30 days tenure and 500 edits.

Currently this level is used on Gamergate controversy, and the related talk pages,^[2] as well as Brianna Wu^[3] and Anita Sarkeesian.^[4] It may be used on any article that can be reasonably construed as belonging to the Arab–Israeli conflict^[5] and is used on several caste-related articles.^[6] When used as an arbitration discretionary sanction, this level may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption.^[7]

ArbCom isn't making claim to owning this "protection level" , but does allow for it to be used as a remedy. Some points for use outside of remedies are that it must have a community consensus developemed, and must only be used after other methods have failed. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I removed the last sentence (as redundant), but that looks good to me otherwise. Thanks for doing the mock-up. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@L235: - you don't think the new expectation are appropriate? There has been some back and for on other pages about how this can/can not be used (outside of arb remedies) and having the policy only say "or the community" is very broad. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Outside of arbitration decisions, it is expected that extended confirmed protection may only be applied in response to persistent sockpuppetry or continued use of new, disruptive accounts where other methods (such as semi protection) have not controlled the disruption.<ref>[[Special:PermaLink/720421803#Arbitration_motions_regarding_extended_confirmed_protection]]

• Hmm, I haven't actually seen those other discussions; do they establish a consensus for using this level outside of arb-authorized conditions? The community is certainly free to develop its own policy, but so far as I am aware, the community has only authorized use where ArbCom authorizes. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

  The RfC closure to create the protection level allows for use by armcom "or the community" - I'm reading this new arbcom motion to layout the "expectation" for use outside of arbcom - this would still be coupled with the requirement that the use is allowed by the community - a very loose topic. What did you read that as meaning? — xaosflux ^Talk 21:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Hmm, particularly with Kelapstick's comment that Note that this is, in my mind, only applicable to the use of 30/500 when used as a Discretionary Sanction/Arbitration Enforcement. Should the community decide to extend the use of this protections use beyond DS/AE (and amend the protection policy), that is outside our remit. In other words, the committee does not own this protection level on the whole, but we can determine how it is used to for DS/AE. If that makes sense., I view that as the only time it may be applied as a discretionary sanction; ArbCom is not authorizing admins to use it outside of arbitration enforcement. (I think.) Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

    • ArbCom doesn't have the authority to authorize or not admins to use software features (such as a protection level), because ArbCom does not make policy (the community does). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

      OK I guess we'll be back to community discussions - thanks for the feedback all. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I was about to post a new section on the article Walling and noticed the talk page was empty and had the following;

A page with this title has previously been deleted.

If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below.

23:56, 28 November 2015 Xaosflux (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Walling (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)

As far as I was aware talk pages were for discussion, and are not to be cleaned up or deleted? In fact I read that they are not to even be archived if it is potentially controversial or if someone objects. May I ask why you deleted the talk page and what it's content was before deletion?

I do not think with all of the server space available to Wikipedia as a whole that we are running out of room any time soon and would submit to you that any form of cleaning up--besides speedy deletions, nonsensical content, duplicate content, or spam et cetera--is not only a waste of everyone's time but could be presumed to have sinister intent especially by the kinds of conspiretards we all run into on here!

You might want to reconsider that in future, ESPECIALLY on a subject like human torture. Because while I'M thinking "I wonder what was on the page before he deleted it?" you know THEY will be thinking "I bet the CIA were exposed and Wikipedia is in on it." and then they'll spend the next six years on a rampage defacing stuff about how they have proof that we're all illuminati agents because Xaosflux deleted a talk page. :P Out of fear of association in the eyes of said conspiretards I'm now too scared to restart the talk page, but thought I'd mention it to you because it is poor form (not just because of the kooks we deal with day to day) to employ any form of censorship and unnecessary deletion of information could readily be categorized as that intrinsically. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 09:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@BaSH PR0MPT: - Please see my note on User:BaSH PR0MPT. I've restored the history. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:25, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi! Looks like this page needs to be created per latest post at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T133981 — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I created it, there also appears to be a problem with the implementation not quite working. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:36, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Interesting... also look like your account with the right does not link to WP:Page mover somehow. Xaosflux ep list user — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done @Andy M. Wang: Gotta give me a couple of mins to roll out the messages :D — xaosflux ^Talk 17:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You recently deleted some talk pages and a template directed me to contact you. Just wondering what's up and if there are any issues with creating new talk pages. Reidgreg (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

(Deletion log); 11:00 23 May 2016 . . Xaosflux deleted page Talk:Last Day on Earth (The Walking Dead) ‎((G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (TW))

(Deletion log); 11:00 23 May 2016 . . Xaosflux deleted page Talk:Not Tomorrow Yet ‎((G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (TW))

(Deletion log); 11:00 23 May 2016 . . Xaosflux deleted page Talk:Twice as Far ‎((G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (TW))

(Deletion log); 11:00 23 May 2016 . . Xaosflux deleted page Talk:East (The Walking Dead) ‎((G7: One author who has requested deletion or blanked the page) (TW))

Replied on your talk. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

This deleted (well, moved, but whatever) draft, which I noticed you commenting on elsewhere, is currently at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 23. Thought you might like to know. —Cryptic 03:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Cryptic. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You mean MediaWiki:Group-extendedmover.css in the comment in this edit. Sorry I can't fix it for you. --RexxS (talk) 13:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done @RexxS: Thank you for the note, this has been corrected. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

okay, for example, in that thread someone linked to "Special:blockedlist" which has all current blocks...this is a page/function that must not have existed at some point in time and was then created...how was it created and by who? thanks. 68.48.241.158 (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Can you please complete this move (part of an RM discussion) ?

• Let Her Go (Passenger song) → Let Her Go

For some reason it's not letting me do a move-over-redirect. Thanks. — Music1201 ^talk 03:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done @Music1201: - I had to force the delete to do the move. Please review the outcome, there may be more cleanup needed (I stuck a generic {{for}} on it). — xaosflux ^Talk 03:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the hold up was that there were old (2013) log entries tied to that target. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

About 10 minutes ago I performed about 5 move-over-redirects and they worked perfectly fine, but now I'm trying to move Shantae (series) → Shantae per this RM discussion and it won't allow me too. Perhaps this is a bug? — Music1201 ^talk 01:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Music1201: I don't think it is a bug, Wikipedia:Moving_a_page#Moving_over_a_redirect has a proviso "If the new title already exists but is just a redirect to the old title" - but it appears you are trying to do multi-page moves. As this doesn't appear urgent you can either let a pagemover take care of it, or tag it for speedy deletion. If you think you are running in to a bug against the directions, please try to recreate it (use multiple of your own sandboxes) and we can get a trouble ticket open. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I will try to do the sandbox thing and see if I can recreate the problem. Can you delete Shantae so that the Shantae (series) → Shantae move can be performed? Thanks. — Music1201 ^talk 02:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Music1201: Shantae has been deleted. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:47, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. — Music1201 ^talk 02:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

20:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Please block user:86.58.36.235 for vandalism. 2602:306:3357:BA0:8DB8:C6E6:5396:67C7 (talk) 21:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It appears that @Deryck Chan: is already looking in to this. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

This could be a false alarm. See User_talk:86.58.36.235#June_2016. – Fayenatic London 21:52, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rojava. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

We need your comment. Please help. Thanks. Toto11zi (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

18:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Moved to Talk:Indian River State College

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pulse (nightclub). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Heyo Xaosflux. Just wanted to leave a note that the message delivery bot did not leave a time-stamp. Perhaps to other recipients as well which would cause archiving problems. Cheers, Yash! 12:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note @Yash!: - if you think it will would be best I could have a bot go through and add a time stamp to everyone? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if that is possible but that could help. Yash! 18:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Yash!: I had Special:Contributions/Fluxbot clean it up for me, thanks for the note. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind commenting on whether a general task as described at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BU_RoBOT_21 for all templates within Category:Sportsperson infobox templates would be worth submitting? There were no errors I'm aware of on either that task or task 16, but I'm not sure if such a general task would be considered too broad. ~ Rob^Talk 23:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: what is the approx transclusion count? — xaosflux ^Talk 23:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Almost 186,000 for every template in that category combined (minus the couple I've already done or am doing manually because I'm combining this with other cleanup tasks that must be semi-auto). The actual edits would be significantly lower. For instance, {{Infobox basketball biography}} has 11,731 transclusions but pre-parse brings the number of edits down to just 550. If a similar percentage applies to other templates, we could expect under 10,000 edits. It could be higher, though, since the editors in the basketball topic area tend to be fairly diligent with using endashes. ~ Rob^Talk 23:27, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I think we'd invite community discussion for a bit longer then normal due to the run size, but if there is support I don't see a problem with the scope being large. The biggest opposition is likely that this is primarily a cosmetic change (from the point of view of readers). — xaosflux ^Talk 04:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this kind of straddles the line of what is cosmetic, but hyphens and endashes are intended for grammatically different purposes on computers. Other than just a stylistic and grammatical concern, using hyphens to denote date ranges can cause issues with machine readability. ~ Rob^Talk 07:44, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

19:14, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

15:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
46		Bukka Raya I (talk)						Add sources
9,175		CM Punk (talk)						Add sources
2,090		Tel Aviv (talk)						Add sources
4,549		Orlando, Florida (talk)						Add sources
5		Ananda Gotrika (talk)						Add sources
626		Violence against LGBT people (talk)						Add sources
2,695		Crimea (talk)						Cleanup
1,478		Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation (talk)						Cleanup
24		Joel Veitch (talk)						Cleanup
9,056		Twitter (talk)						Expand
4,481		Houston (talk)						Expand
6,174		Belarus (talk)						Expand
8		Ravella Nayaks (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
11,662		Ronald Reagan (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
1,397		Social justice warrior (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
51		Radiance (software) (talk)						Merge
56		Harry Solomon (talk)						Merge
69		Wikipedia in culture (talk)						Merge
4		Ministry of Transport and Telecommunications (talk)						Wikify
156		SyncToy (talk)						Wikify
313		History of transgender people in the United States (talk)						Wikify
3		Kremenchuk flight college of National Aviation University (talk)						Orphan
12		Bob Poe (talk)						Orphan
14		Society of Vijayanagara empire (talk)						Orphan
29		Ambitus (music) (talk)						Stub
9		Gold Town, California (talk)						Stub
11		Landtag of Schleswig-Holstein (talk)						Stub
11		Harihara II (talk)						Stub
522		Moner Mohammad Abu Salha (talk)						Stub
35		JAMA Internal Medicine (talk)						Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

19:45, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

One of your answers has a sentence commencing "I occasionally processing requests ..." You may wish to tweak it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC).

Thank you, I fixed the verb tense. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Xaosflux. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 19:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— MusikAnimal ^talk 19:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: replied. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:58, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Xaosflux. You have new messages at Nepali keto62's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NepaliKeto62^{Talk to me} 01:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I think I've encountered your name at literally every backlog I've run into today. Closing MfD discussions, approving bot trials, handling full protection edit requests, etc. etc. etc., you're managing to do it all. Thanks! ~ RobTalk 03:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For responding so quickly to my {{editrequest}} on {{School block}}. Seriously, I frequently see things get backlogged for hours, and that was rapid fire. Thanks! PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Schoolblocks are like gun-control, they only stop good faith contributors. 01:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

You are welcome, whenever I pop in I check the editprots, waiting stinks! — xaosflux ^Talk 02:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you please change MediaWiki:Right-extendedconfirmed to Edit pages protected as "Require extended confirmed access" to be inline with the autoconfirmed, template editor, etc. Thanks. — Music1201 ^talk 04:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 13:34, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

For some reason I thought you already are a bureaucrat.FabledGold (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! — xaosflux ^Talk 19:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Parks and woodlands in Sheffield, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 13:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)