User talk:BU Rob13

Please feel free to leave a message for me here. You can click the link in the box below to do so. Please be sure to link to relevant articles/diffs and sign your name by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Adding content within an irrelevant subsection on my page will likely result in no response.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by .

Your GA nomination of Ted Alford

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ted Alford you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ted Alford

The article Ted Alford you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ted Alford for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Ted Alford

The article Ted Alford you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ted Alford for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 3#States and territories by year (early history)

Rob,

At the aformentioned CFD, you said that you'd implement a few functions at {{Infobox former country}}. I was cleaning out WP:CFDW, and I noticed that hasn't happened yet. If you have some time, could you take a look at that? Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: The solution I had proposed/agreed to implement was {{State establishment decade-only century category}}, a different template that omits years entirely. I strongly recommend against implementing an automatic handling of this via a single template by checking for the existence of categories, as you'd theoretically need to check for all 100 years in the century. #ifexist parser functions are WP:EXPENSIVE. Adding a new parameter that calls {{State establishment decade-only century category}} if set to "yes" is more plausible if we have a strong desire to keep this as one template. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I misinterpreted your comment then. I'm not really knowledgeable on this matter, which is why I asked for help. See Category:States_and_territories_established_in_9 for example. The reason Xin dynasty is still in that category is due to {{Infobox former country}}, and that's preventing the category from being emptied. Could you fix that? -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: Ah, I see what you mean. This is a bit of a catch-22. The auto-categorization already checks for the existence of categories before throwing individual articles into categories, but until you delete the category, the articles will remain in them (preventing the bot from orphaning and deleting the category!). Just delete the category and then manually purge the articles that used to be in it and the category should be automatically removed from the article. If it's not, the autocat template is coded wrong, and feel free to ping me to take a second look at it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:28, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bbundu

Bbundu has repeatedly violated WP:MOS by linking the section header for WWE Network on the A.J. Styles article, even after multiple warnings and a final warning. CrashUnderride 02:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked for disruptive editing. I generally don't handle AIV stuff unless I come across it in the course of my normal editing or see it on my watchlist. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 10:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brown

Is the Josh Brown thing something that ESPN has been reporting? I just figured it was the same guy on different IPs. My TV is normally permanently set to ESPN, except for the past 2 weeks, because Olympics. Lizard (talk) 03:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CBS Sports among others. It should be incorporated into the article when the dust settles, but not as BLP violations in the infobox. I doubt this is quickly going away. We need to give shorter protection levels a try so as not to act preemptively, but I think it's obvious this will head quickly toward long-term semi. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this being the NFL we certainly are in no shortage of precedents. Lizard (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Tony Akins (Canadian football)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tony Akins (Canadian football) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Tony Akins (Canadian football)

The article Tony Akins (Canadian football) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Tony Akins (Canadian football) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Wizardman -- Wizardman (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rivers

Hi,

I think in your closure you failed to give appropriate attention to option A, i.e. to use the term "rivers and streams" (you mentioned that using simply "streams" would be inadvisable, but not "rivers and streams"). I think using "rivers" in areas where a river specifically refers to a large body of water and precludes small ones (e.g. the US) would violate MOS:STRONGNAT. I do think it might be worth bringing to the table the idea of "watercourses" to greater prominence though, as that unambiguously covers small streams, big streams, medium-sized streams and everything else that would otherwise be lumped under "rivers". Regards, --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jakec: Watercourses received due consideration but seemed to be rejected by most participants. If one person suggested it and no-one else commented, I would have likely relisted to see if it was a suitable compromise, but many people advocated for it and it never received much support beyond the initial few. As for the "streams" vs. "rivers and streams", I mentioned the "streams" portion because it's what people generally agreed could cause WP:ENGVAR issues. Adding "Rivers and" before it doesn't change the fact that "streams" isn't a term applied to watercourses in Australia, the Philippines, etc. by the local populations. As I mentioned in the close a bit, even some advocating Option A acknowledged that this was an ENGVAR issue, but their solution was to make ENGVAR exceptions for those few, which went against the large consensus that consistency was desirable here. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Chelimo

FYI, you protected a version of Paul Kipkemoi Chelimo with vandalism in the last sentence. 68.190.32.9 (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, someone else fixed it. 68.190.32.9 (talk) 01:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, but I only semi-protected it, meaning editors who are autoconfirmed can still edit it and fix previous additions of vandalism. They've since fixed the mistake. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Euclides of Megara

Hi Rob. Page Euclid of Megara needs to be moved to Euclides of Megara to avoid confusion with Euclid. Sources are listed at talk:Euclid of Megara.

Also, the disambiguation page Euclides (disambiguation) needs to be undeleted. For this dicussion, please see user_talk:Bkonrad.

The problem is that from a subject specialist's perspective, this is an obvious naming mistake that needs correction, especially since Wikipedia mirror sites and copycats perpetuate the Wikipedia naming mistake back onto the search engines. ~~ BlueMist (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]