User talk:Zackmann08/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Null edits

Edits like this don't change anything about display, so why are you making them? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:12, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: because those parameters are deprecated, I'm cleaning up the backlog. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

See Category:Music infoboxes with deprecated parameters. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hm. Good point. I think the solution is to fix the template to not include these in the tracking category but that's not your fault. Thanks. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: The template is being fixed... But the first step is to remove the use of the deprecated parameters... I say this with all due respect, but if you are a template editor, how do you not understand this? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

The template should not have a tracking category for "Single1" versus "single1". That is a problem with the template: neither should be a deprecated parameter or require 17,500+ edits to replace "Single1" with "single1". ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: sorry I didn't mean to undo your comment! Clicked the wrong thing. That being said, I don't agree with your comment so lets discuss! The point here is to make all the parameters uniform. I guess my question for you would be why do you care? Now don't mistake my tone for me being a dick!! lol. I realize that sounds like a jerkish comment... I don't mean it like "piss off". I genuinely mean "why does it matter to you"? I'm curious what your objection is to making the change? Help me understand where you are coming from... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:48, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I care because 1.) I don't want to get hundreds of more emails to see revisions that don't change anything substantial and 2.) users who insert "Single1" rather than "single1" are going to be plentiful and shouldn't think they did something wrong. There's no reason why a template can't be flexible enough to allow for those different capitalizations. Why introduce the overhead of "fixing" a single letter to be capitalized or not? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: ok your first complaint is just silly. Turn off email notifications. Sorry but not going to worry about that. Your second point, however, is valid, but it opens a slippery slope. Where do we draw the line? What about a user who wants to use {{{single 1}}} instead? Or {{{single_1}}}? Where do we draw the line of allowing different formats? The only case where I have seen good call for multiple params like this is when there are different spellings for the same word. {{{color}}} vs {{{colour}}} for example. I don't want to be dismissive here because you do make a good point, I just think it is a very slippery slope... @Frietjes: as a Template editing expert, I'm wondering if you could chime in here? Koavf makes a good point and I'm curious what your thoughts are on the matter? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I personally, don't see any harm in supporting alternative caps, or underscores, etc.., but that is easier to do if the template in question is implemented as a module where we can more easily remap parameters. I would think the better place to discuss "supported template syntax" would be on the talk page for the particular template, rather than here. Frietjes (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of Infobox settlement for large regions

Hi, Zackmann. I see that you converted Great Basin to use {{Infobox settlement}}. On the positive side, it looks better and is better maintained than Geobox. However, I'm concerned about downstream automated users of the metadata (like Google). The Great Basin isn't a settlement, nor is it an admistrative area (like a province or state). It's a natural feature or landform. It is probably more appropriate to convert such articles to user {{Infobox landform}} rather than an infobox about a human-defined area. If we use {{Infobox settlement}}, geographic databases will get updated with incorrect information.

I'll attempt a fix for the articles on my Watchlist, but thought you'd want to fix other such articles. —hike395 (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Later -- I'll start doing some of the conversions of articles that you've converted, but thought you'd want to be careful moving forward. —hike395 (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: you make an excellent point and I 100% agree! Let me know how I can be helpful? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:32, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: 1837 Great Plains smallpox epidemic is another good example. not sure what Infobox to use there... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I think Geobox on the epidemic article is completely unnecessary. —hike395 (talk) 02:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

{{Infobox pandemic}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Geobox to Infobox settlement

I think there are a few more articles using Geobox that could be converted to use Infobox settlement. The ones I've spotted are listed below. -- WOSlinker (talk) 10:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@WOSlinker: Much appreciated! I'll get it done. Care to chime in on Briarcliff Manor, New York?? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@WOSlinker: got them all converted. Let me know if you find anymore? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I've commented above in the relevant section. I've also found one more geobox that could do with converting, Sobieszów. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Geobox

Please leave the long-term status quo on the Briarcliff Manor article. I have talked with many about this issue before, and it's really very clear that Geobox has many important parameters that are helpful, and your infobox you just added takes away many of those. Until or unless the infobox template is changed to include those, I will incur WP:IAR and the fact that deprecation is not backed up by any policy, to continue using the geobox template. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: WP:IAR is not policy, it is just a way to get what you want... This template has been deprecated for a long time. If there are parameters missing, add them. But just reverting the edit because you don't like the template that has long been the preferred way is NOT a solution. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

You're starting that comment with a lie. WP:IAR takes you to "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy." I don't know how to add parameters, so I implore you to. As for the standard on Wikipedia for the near-decade I've been editing here, it's that if anything stops you from making the article a better one, then ignore that obstacle, don't follow it. That's why IAR is in place, to correct issues like this. And local consensus is a hugely important factor - having all editors to an article agree on how to display and present it. I wrote that FA, so you should respect the authorship and the fact that it is complete and thoroughly vetted and approved. I know what I'm talking about, I have been a regular writer here since 2009, with nearly all of my edits fully manually writing and editing English Wikipedia articles. Leave this one to its highly-vetted status quo. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:17, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

There isn't a single article in the United States about a settlement that uses the Geobox, so your "local consensus" argument is totally invalid. Second, the fact that you wrote the article is completely irrelevant. You do not OWN the article. Third, times change! A decade ago all infoboxes were hard-coded HTML. That has long since gone away. So sorry but things change over time. Fourth, if you are going to use your 10 years of experience to show that you are more important and get more of a say, then you should know how to edit a template to add the necessary parameters. Finally, if you really want to compare resumes, you have barely 25,000 edits... I've got over 172,000. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I maintain the quality of the FA, which means that I keep all of the parameters from being removed. This is one instance of that. It's not ownership, it's simply keeping the standards and qualities of one of several of my FAs. Secondly, I am a writer and photographer here; I won't aim to tackle adding parameters, I'll leave that for you techies; that's where most of your edits came from, right? You did make about 77,000 edits just this month, they have to be semi- or fully-automated. Thirdly, if it ain't broke, why fix it? The geobox works better than the infobox, so I don't understand your insistence to instill your preferences on others. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

So sure I have 25,000 edits writing dozens of FAs, FLs and GAs, while you have, what, about 40 to 70 edits each to your most-edited articles? Have you even written an article from scratch? I spent about 1,200 edits to this article alone, so stop imposing yourself when you haven't contributed anything. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: it isn't my preference bud. I'm just the one carrying out the backlog task of converting the articles. You can call it what you want, but what you are describing IS ownership. The Geobox template use for Settlements was deprecated a long time ago and not by me. I'm just handling the conversions. So you can argue with me all you want and accuses me of instilling my preferences on others if you'd like but it does nothing to help the situation. If there are things you don't like about {{Infobox settlement}} I invite you to to leave a comment on the talk page for that template. However, the infobox has 483,155 transclusions. {{geobox}} as a whole only has 21810 and less than 3000 of those are for settlements. SO you want to talk about consensus... 483,000+ compared to less than 3,000... I don't understand why this is even a conversation. Anyway, IDHT applies. The template is deprecated.

For the record, I DO NOT think edit count is a good indication of credentials. An editor with 500 super helpful edits can have a much higher standing with me than an editor with 10,000 WP:AWB spelling corrections. I only mentioned it because you brought up your 10 years. All BS aside, I'm not interested in a measuring contest. You clearly have done a wonderful job on here and I do not mean to imply otherwise. Your work creating FA is wonderful and very commendable. I don't for a second belittle that and my 170k+ edits don't give me any more say in this matter than you with your 25k. In the same light, your having made so many edits to the one article doesn't give you any more say on it than I get. I'm done arguing with you. I've said what I need to say and I think anything else will just be a spitting contest. If you feel so strongly about this I welcome you to start a thread on the talk page for others to chime in. Have a great day and keep up the great work on the FAs. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Clearly there is a consensus for the infobox template overall. I don't know where that discussion happened, I tried to find it, and couldn't. I don't know how thorough it was or if anyone even mentioned how Geobox has far more parameters and displays things much better. We can open up this discussion, but until/unless I can format all of the information on that article like it has been for the past four years, I will not stop. I won't stand for diminishing quality simply because some editors are trying to cut down on template discrepancies and streamline things. IAR applies in full here, that your edit only hinders the quality of content, so it should be reverted. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: Ok. I'd actually like to try to start fresh. Obviously we are both pissed off... If you are willing, lets start over. I know that I can get a little frusturated and hot headed at times. That being said, I would like to try to work WITH you to resolve this situation in a way that we can both be satisfied with. So, lets start fresh.

I see you reverted my change? Would you mind telling me specifically the information that was removed that you are concerned about? Yes I know I can just compare the diffs, but I'd like to get your take. If you wouldn't mind making a list of the information that was removed by my change, let me see if we can't find a good compromise. This is a wonderfully written WP:FA and I certainly don't want to degrade the quality of the article. Personally I think some of the infobox info is superfluous, but lets start by making a list of what your concerns are and we can hopefully work together from there. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:21, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm on my way to work right now, but will reply in full soon. Best, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ɱ: sounds like a plan to me. Look forward to your response. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Since Ɱ hasn't done a comparison yet, I've done one myself at User:WOSlinker/Infobox for Briarcliff Manor, New York which shows the missing and extra fields. Below that is the full geobox and infobox. I've then added in the missing map and some image alt params ([1]). I don't think there is a need for a link to Wikimedia Commons in the infobox, as there is a link to Commons at the bottom of the page as well. That then just leaves a few other items of difference to discuss. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@WOSlinker: really appreciate you taking the time to do this since Ɱ doesn't seem to have the time. I agree that the commons link has been removed and my response to that is if the 480,000+ articles using {{infobox settlement}} don't need a commons link, why on earth should we update the template for ONE article? The same thing applies for the address of the government. That was removed because it isn't part of the infobox for a settlement. This is the entire issue with {{Geobox}}. It is WAY to generalized. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

talk page lurker @WOSlinker: The infobox/Geobox comparison you have has a couple of minor mistakes -- may I fix them? —hike395 (talk) 03:02, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

You're right, no time between work and chores at the moment. Will reply further as I am able. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395:, yes feel free to update them. -- WOSlinker (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lily Hoy Price.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Lily Hoy Price.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Albums

Is there any better? - DVdm (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

@DVdm: I'm sorry?? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Zappa albums . - DVdm (talk) 07:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request ZackBot 10

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ZackBot 10 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 01:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

Your BRFA

Your recent BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ZackBot 10) has been approved with a ramp up schedule, see the BRFA for details. You are always free ramp up at a slower pace, should issue be presented that require minor fixed you can continue with fixes, if major fixes you will need to re-start the ramp up. Happy editing, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Possible improvement to Geobox building migration

In this edit to Theatre Camões, you appear to have removed the |municipality= information, which could have been placed into |location_city=. If your goal in these migrations is to preserve as much editor-contributed information as possible, an improvement to your script or process might be possible. (Here's another edit of the same type.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: doing my best but feedback like this is always appreciated! Thanks much. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: any chance I could enlist your assistance in doing some of these conversions? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Beyond my technical abilities, sorry. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Really? Most of them I'm doing manually at this point... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Deleting information during infobox conversions

I left a message at Talk:North Bend Rail Trail but now I see you've done a bunch of these conversions in the last day: Please compare the information in the Geobox here to the information you retained when you converted to infobox. There is a lot missing! Was this intentional? I've been quietly observing the discussions about geobox/infobox conversions to articles about rivers. My greatest fear about infobox conversions is that a decade of careful work by countless editors will be cast aside, too quickly to be noticed at the article level, in the process. That appears to have happened with your recent edits to articles about protected areas, and I hope you will fix the damage. --TimK MSI (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@TimK MSI: you really didn't need to post this in 3 locations... 1 was enough. I'm working on it now. That being said, just a reminder that you are more than capable of fixing it... I understand this was my mistake and I'm happy to fix it, but not sure why you didn't just fix it yourself. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Another conversion loosing information is this one Keith D (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Keith D and TimK MSI: a couple of things.

1. Thanks for bringing these to my attention. I'm doing my best with these conversions but I am very far from perfect and am relying on people like yourselves to catch my mistakes.
2. Please do try to be bold and FIXIT when you can. This isn't a case of "don't make me do all the work"!! Please don't take it that way. I get the "I broke it so I should fix it". My point is more a cost benefit. How much time does it take you to list the pages for me to fix vs fixing them yourself? That being said... Feel free to list as many pages as you would like. If you literally want to leave me a list of pages that I broke I will be more than happy to go through them 1 by 1 and fix them.
3. Some information is going to be lost. There is just some information that was placed in {{Geobox}}es that was really never meant to be there. For example some pages used the geobox to list the park hours... Not something we need.
4. There are also some style differences. {{Infobox protected area}} does not have separate rows for country, state, county, etc. So if you look at North Bend Rail Trail for example. I intentionally removed the list of counties because I felt that it looked worse to list them out like that, but that is just my opinion. More than happy to restore that information.

If you have any other comments, questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to drop me a line. I'll do my best to fix and address! :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

• I don't mean to pile on here, but I've noticed your conversions as well. I work on pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting and fix reference errors, like these - - and you're quickly filling that category up with your converts. In the future, in those articles that you are converting that use a list defined reference format, if you're not planning on using the refs in the new infobox, could you scroll down to the bottom of the page while you are editing it and comment out those refs not being used any longer, by inserting <!-- in front of the beginning ref tag and inserting --> behind the closing ref tag. For example, like this. I will fix the articles that are currently in that category. Thanks. Isaidnoway (talk) 09:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Isaidnoway: seeing as I kinda screwed the pooch here, I don't feel you are piling on. I appreciate your sensitivity to that though. Also appreciate you taking the time to fix the issues for me. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Should we be using another infobox for Simpson Pavilion please? I see you have nominated this infobox for deletion--is there a better option?Zigzig20s (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: there is nothing wrong with that page or its template. {{Geobox}} is being nominated for deletion. It is related to template used on the page so that is why you are seeing the message. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I am wondering which infobox we will be using if this one gets deleted though? Or will it remain the same, only with different characteristics (for example we removed "religion" from the biographical infobox a while back)?Zigzig20s (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Zigzig20s: nothing will change about that article... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:47, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

OK thanks. I am not sure what will get deleted then.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit war

Briarcliff Manor was recently unlocked, but that doesn't mean you can resume the edit war over templates. Talk it out, or the next step might be a block. Jonathunder (talk) 19:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: consensus was reach and the user is just insisting on having things 100% his way. I'm removing myself from the situation. I am going to file a formal complaint and then refrain from ANY further edits to the page. Not the article itself nor the talk page. I'm not interested in getting slapped with sanctions because of this user. I appreciate your message and assure you I will not make any further edits to the page. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping short of three reverts. Please don't think I want to discourage you from edits to the talk page. Jonathunder (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jonathunder: At this point I'm just done. This is so beyond ridiculous. The infobox has over 480,000 transclusions and this user is refusing to let it be used on "his" page because he doesn't like the formatting of one parameter. I'm the first to admit that I'm not perfect and I'm more than happy to meet people half way and to compromise. But this user has refused at every turn to compromise on ANYTHING. It has 100% been his way or it isn't happening. So I'm removing myself from the situation. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Geobox usage categories

Hello, Category:Geobox usage tracking for building type and Category:Geobox usage tracking for settlement type currently have a total of two pages in them (none in the latter). As these types are deprecated (building and settlement), the tracking categories should be removed from Template:Geobox and all pages in them should instead populate Category:Geobox usage tracking for deprecated types (as the uses are using deprecated types),. Category:Geobox usage tracking for settlement type already has a speedy deletion notice on it. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 03:22, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@BrandonXLF: seeing as I created the categories and am the one who tagged it for speedy deletion, I will leave them as they are right now. Once again, there are things at play here that you don't understand. Given the number of times that you have screwed this stuff up, please don't come post on my page and tell me what "should" be done. You don't know what you are talking about. K? Thanks. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:48, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Tea time

Given your comments at the Briarcliff page, here, and above, I'd suggest you consider stepping away for the moment. It's clear that you are frustrated by the various conversations going on, and as a result are snapping at other editors. Whether you feel that the objections being raised are valid or not, comments of this type are not contributing to a collegial resolution - quite the opposite. Sit back, enjoy this tea, and let others manage the discussions for a while. Best way to prevent yourself from getting burnt out and avoid saying things you may regret later. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: while I appreciate the sentiment, I think the comments that were directed at me were wildly out of line and given that, my response was more than appropriate. That being said, I think a rootbeer float might be in order so perhaps I will step back for a bit. Thanks for the kind message. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:33, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Closure of your ANI complaint

Hello Zackmann08. I put a closure box on the complaint you filed at ANI. It looks like everyone is getting some of what they want. Keep in mind that you stated "I will not have any contact with Ɱ other then the required notification of this post". Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

That was while the complaint was playing out. I don't believe that means I'm never allowed to interact with them again does it? That being said, I'm not interested in interacting with them again but if they continue disrupting the TFD and merger process, I'm not simply going to ignore them. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

You've received advice that the situation is already moving in the right direction (see comments above), and at least some editors think you are bludgeoning the process. This is not a good time for you to become aggressive. (See the comments by User:Ivanvector at ANI: "the editors working on resolving the outstanding issues could do so more efficiently without Zackmann08's obsessive interference"). If you intend to maintain a high level of activity, including criticism of others, and warnings for canvassing, I can always undo my ANI closure and let the discussion continue. It looks like you weren't sincere in your promises to step back. EdJohnston (talk) 02:47, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I'm not really sure what you mean by not sincere? I'm not seeking any further confrontation with M. However, if he chooses to comment on a discussion I am involved in, I'm not going to simply ignore it. I feel that particular ANI had run its course, as the person who filed it I have no objection to you closing it. If you want to reopen it then be my guest. Not sure what my warning for canvassing has to do with anything at all. Am I supposed to not warn users who are violating policy? I really don't understand what point you are trying to make. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

So your promise was only to stop contacting him for the duration of that single ANI thread? Not much of an offer. I happened to notice that you did not notify User:Ɱ that Template:Geobox was up for discussion at TfD even though you had just had a dispute with him at AN3 about usage of that very template. I notified him myself. When User:Qui1che complained about not being notified you said @Qui1che: get the hell over yourself. It is not my responsibility to ping you. Given what an absolute pill you have been through the entire process, why on earth would I go out of my way to help you? (at Template talk:Infobox river). It does not sound like your diplomatic skills are getting much exercise these days. EdJohnston (talk) 04:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: well it isn't my responsibility to notify M about that template being up for TFD. He can see that for himself. Given how disrespectful and difficult they have been, I have no interest in going out of my way to accommodate them. I'm not going to notify everyone who edits a template that there is an ongoing discussion nor should I ever be expected to. That is why the TFD process exists. The template is up for TFD and he is welcome to comment. You chose to personally notify him and that is just fine with me although his comments on the TFD clearly had nothing to do with the template itself and were purely directed at how much he dislikes me personally. So again, not sure what you point is? As for Qui1che have you read the thread??? After a lengthy process where the decision was made by dozens of editors to merge a template (including multiple senior admins), Qui1che comes in and cries foul because he wasn't personally notified. He rants for pages about how since he wasn't personaly informed of the process, he is going to go out of his way to make sure that a new template is re-created if we delete it. So, if your criticism of me is that I'm not perfectly diplomatic 100% of the time, you will get absolutely no argument from me! I make no pretense of being perfect. When a user is as much of a pain in the ass as they have been, I'm not going to spend time being perfectly diplomatic with them. On the other hand when users are actually interested in working together for an actual solution, I'm more than happy to do so. Talk:Saint Sophia's Cathedral, Kiev for example. I get that you're an admin and I respect that, but I'm not really sure what your point is with all this. Finally, regarding M and my contact with them. My point is that I'm not going to go out of my way to have any contact with them. But as you just pointed out, I nominated a template for TFD. So are you suggesting that I should abstain from commenting on it at all since M has now commented and I said I wouldn't interact with them? Not sure what your point is or what you are trying to achieve. I have always and will always respect the advice and counsel, particularly of admins, so if you have actual advice, I'm all ears (well eyes). Have a good evening! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:05, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

BT Group copyright issue

You blanked the BT Group article earlier this week with a WP:COPYVIO template, but you don’t seem to have listed it at WP:Copyright problems. Are you planning to do that anytime soon? Fob.schools (talk) 13:31, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Fob.schools: this is what happens when I'm doing 12 things at once. I forgot to click save on that final step. Thanks for the message! Have just filed it. WP:TROUT to me. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

IMFDB

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet Movie Firearms Database (2nd nomination) you stated "My only COI is that I used to contribute to the Wiki. I haven't edited it in years." That does not entirely gel with the Administrators page at IMFDB which states that an account of your name is the "IMFDB Chief of Operations". SpinningSpark 11:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: It is a wiki... Anyone can edit it. That doesn't make it true. Look at my user history on that wiki. [2]. Last edit was 2015 my friend. Also, I abstained from the AFD so even if I DID have a major COI, what does it matter? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

If you had said nothing at the AfD it probably wouldn't matter. You made out at the AfD that you had just been an ordinary editor there. Your association was clearly rather more than that. Your user rights log shows you were an administrator and bureaucrat. And I can't imaging why the site would say you were Chief of Operations if you did not have some kind of responsibility there. Potentially, your statement could have influenced the close, though I doubt that it did. Still, its disingenuous of you to maintain you were not connected to the site. --SpinningSpark 18:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Spinningspark: I don't believe that I did say I was not connected to the site... At one point I was connected to the site. I no longer am, haven't been for sometime. I abstained to prevent any appearance of impropriety. That said, I could have and probably should have been more clear about my former role. I will concede that. Last night I made a single edit to the page to simply update the Alexa rank. Only did that because the page showed up in my watchlist. I will abstain from further edits to the page. In the event that the page is nominated again, I will make a more clear statement about my former COI. I don't feel the need to formally declare a COI though. I don't have any affiliation with the site anymore and don't plan to update the article anyway. If you feel I need to declare a COI, let me know. Happy to discuss further. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Chembox

We just had a discussion where we discussed that the modular design is important, and that we were not going to replace the box without that capability. You started that discussion (and I agreed that it is something to explore, but with constraints), but did not participate further to explore the concerns or propose solutions.

I disagree that an RfC that disqualifies arguments beforehand without a clear problem to solve are valid. That is up to the closing admin to decide which arguments are valid. It now almost appears as if you tried to oppose the concerns expressed in the previous discussion as ab initio not valid. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:30, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

lighthouse infobox

When you added the NRHP embedded infobox to St. Johns Light, you used the data for a different place -St. Johns River Light. One was built in 1954 and the other a century earlier. I've made the fixes. MB 01:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@MB: copy that. Thanks! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Fixing deprecated params

Here's another problematic edit: [3]. Will there ever be an end to it? My watchlist is inundated with your edits for weeks now and I rarely ever check the result cause I'm afraid of what I can find there. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: I am fixing well documented deprecations. If you don't like getting the changes in your watchlist, then don't follow the pages? I'm not sure what your point is... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

My point is that you are not fixing anything. In the best case, the resulting page will look completely the same. In all the other cases, something will be damaged or broken. There's nothing to be gained from this work. And your edits disturb a lot of people. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: you are in fact wrong. The parameters are deprecated. There is a well documented reason for removing deprecated parameters which I am happy to walk you through when you stop throwing around accusations. Additionally, your edits disturb a lot of people? You're the only person who is complaining. Have a nice day. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I remember seeing at least one other person complain the last time I visited your talk page. I'm not "throwing around accusations". Please point me to the reason. --Moscow Connection (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Well for starters you can take a look at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DeprecatedFixerBot 3. There was a bot approved to fix the majority of the deprecations. In short, having multiple supported parameters makes a template difficult to maintain. The format of the template has changed. As you can clearly see in the diff that you linked to: 1) Parameters are no longer capitalized. 2) No longer is the template going to parse the previous and next to try to find the year which is highly prone to errors. Now you provide those values separately. Does this change the way the template renders? No it doesn't. That is the entire point of properly deprecated parameters. Nothing should change, but once all the deprecations are fixed, the old parameters will be removed. [4], [5], etc. Another example of fixing deprecated parameters can be seen at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ZackBot 12. This is a completely different infobox but is the same idea, removing support for deprecated parameters. Hope that explains it. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

[6] ← I personally think that's too drastic. There are situations when you need to add just one parameter and you just write it from memory or even guess. I'm sure many people do that. Now they will have to do extra work cause their guesses won't work and they will have to go and read the documentation. (I do that sometimes. It's not lazyness, but time management.)
But okay... --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"No longer is the template going to parse the previous and next to try to find the year which is highly prone to errors."
— I don't think the templates parse or try to find anything anywhere. Why would they do it? The old templates are told what to write in the succession fields exactly. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

@Moscow Connection: ok well the templates have been updated and the transclusions all fixed. So the work is done. Sorry you disagree. In the future, raise those concerns on the template talk page, not an individual user's talk page. I'm simply carrying out the work that was requested by the template. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:40, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Links - please check

Hallo, in this edit you linked Woodland Fell as the source - but that's the wrong Woodland Fell, many miles away. Please always check your links to see that they go to the right places. I've now linked it to a newly-created redirect, Woodland Fell (County Durham), and added a hatnote at Woodland Fell, so all is now well, but please take care. There was probably a good reason why it wasn't linked in the previous version of the infobox - someone may well have realised that a plain link would be wrong but didn't take the trouble to find a way to make a useful link. Thanks. PamD 08:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

SLOW DOWN (again)

PLEASE slow down and preview your edits. You substed Template:Infobox song contest entry in that edit. It should not have been substed. Please inspect your edit history for additional instances of this error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Emergency

You have contacted us over IRC but we do not intervene with this kind of business because there are always at least few English Wikipedia admins who can deal with revdel/OS stuff, and emergency@WMF is in better position to deal with investigation. — regards, Revi 07:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@-revi: Thanks! One of the admins from that group jumped in and helped me. Appreciate the response. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Removing {{copyvio}} templates message

Zackmanno8, I'm posting here rather than replying on my talk page in response to the removing copyvio template message from BT Group you posted on my talk page, which was unnecessary wasn't it? The copyvio tag was not "removed" but MOVED to the history section which is where the copyvio is per the report - you will see the text is coming from that section. Also done per the comment on talk page by Gricehead. There is a hidden message above the copyvio "Please do not remove or change this Copyvio message until the issue is settled", whether that "change" part applies to this instance I don't know, although nothing was actually changed just moved to the correct place. Anyway, I have restored it to the original revision by you. Ideally, it should have been placed where the copyvio is rather than blanking the entire article (unless the entire article is copyright, but not in this case per the report). (by the way, you can remove this from your talk page or after you've replied) Steven (Editor) (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Steven (Editor): I appreciate that you feel that way, but you need to realize that you are brand new and have less than 5,000 edits... I've got 210,000... I don't mind you asking questions, but coming here and implying that you know more than me is kind of a joke. In big bold letters at the top of the notice it says Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent. Neither you, nor Gricehead are an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent. Please do not alter the page again until the issue has been addressed by someone with those titles. thanks. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:44, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@Steven (Editor): I engaged directly with Fram (talk · contribs) who pointed me at Diannaa (talk · contribs), who in turn has worked magic on the article to put it back in place, minus the copyvio History section. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox album editing error

I'm not sure what went wrong with your edit here, but you might want to check your contribution history to see if there were more like it. I fixed this one. Here's a link to about 20 articles that are likely to be similar. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: UGHHHHHHHHHH. Thanks. I'll figure out what the hell is going on. Why can't things just work?! lol. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Deprecated parameters

Hi Zackmann08. Thanks for all your swift work on singles. such as this fix. I wonder are you running a script? If so, would you consider also splitting out "recorded date" from "studio", as I just did after you here. It seems to be a common problem? Many thanks anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: all I am doing is inserting {{subst:Infobox single... }} at the start of the infobox. that does the rest. In this case the year and studio were both on the same line so the information was left unchanged. see here. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I see. But you seem to be replacing {{Infobox single... }} with {{Infobox song... }}? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: idea... Try taking a look at {{Infobox single}}. Had you done that before leaving a message accusing me of doing something wrong you would see that the two templates are in the process of being merged. Thus placing {{subst:Infobox single... }} on a page replaces it with {{Infobox song}}. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Dear Zackmann08, I have accused you of absolutely nothing. Or else I don't know what "Thanks for all your swift work" might mean in your language. I was just trying to ask if something was possible in your travels. It seems not. I'll leave you to your improvements. Very sorry to have disturbed you. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: didn't mean to jump down your throat... Just saying that's how it works. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Good luck in your future editing. Have a nice day. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Zackmann08 and thank you for your help at ANI. I need your insight about what you told me there (to take all threats seriously). I thought that it was enough to report such attacks at ANI, but you told me about the "IRC chat" and i don't really know it, could you please tell me more about that ? Thank you very much. BTW, no worries for the wrong warning ;-) Take care.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: yea I felt pretty stupid about that warning... So you can read more about IRC, its basically a chat app. But the important thing to read is WP:VIOLENCE. While that certainly looked like some kid just being a jerk, we should always take all threats seriously. That was my only point. Hopefully you never have to deal with that sort of bull shit again. Sorry for your troubles. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll remember your advices. Wish you a great rest of your day.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: back at ya! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Let's pause conversion

I want to try to fix these extra lines before converting any more articles to {{Infobox chemical}} —hike395 (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: sounds good. Part of the reason I'm doing it is to try to get more people to notice. lol. But yea works for me. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm going through the handful you've converted to see if I can detect a pattern. Most are OK, some are not. —hike395 (talk) 05:33, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: see User:Zackmann08/chembox-replace.js for a helper. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Solved it!

You can't put tracking categories beyond the end of a sub-infobox: it generates a new zero-height row in the main infobox. Given that we are using the "bordered" class, it shows up as an extra line.

We didn't see it in the test cases, because the tracking stuff was wrapping in {{main other}}. D'oh!

I'll fix (somehow). —hike395 (talk) 05:41, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: DUDEEEEE!!! FUCKING GENIUS!!! Nice catch. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: fixed. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sort of. We can pull the tracking categories out of the sub-infoboxes and put them into the main one, that's true. But the "Check for unknown parameters" module will leave a floating category, and hence an extra box. Still thinking about this. —hike395 (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: ah shit. Ok. Noted... But that only happens if there are unknown params right? So not too concerning. Do still want to try to fix it obviously. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I think your hack works even for "Check for unknown parameters". Lemme try. —hike395 (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it works. It's pretty ugly -- you have to stick all tracking categories onto the header1 of the sub-infoboxes. And the warning message with unknown parameters shows up in the header box! But it does work. —hike395 (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

One weird corner case: if you only feed bad parameters to a sub-infobox (with no good ones), then the entire infobox disappears and no error message is produced. —hike395 (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: Hmmm. I think we should leave it them. Having the error message show up in the infobox instead of the header is bad IMHO. I also don't like the hack the begin with. I'm going to do some more testing and see if I can't find a better solution. For now though, this only happens if you feed unknown parameters. And then, all that happens is you get an extra tiny line. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I already put your hack on all of the sub-templates. If you want to check it back, please feel free. —hike395 (talk) 06:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: Lol!! Ok tell ya what, for right now, I'm going to revert 1 of them and continue experimenting. Also going to ping a few people, post in a few places to see if we can get some expert opinions. I'll leave the remaining hacks in place tho. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: you got Discord or IRC? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

How about instead of leaving the extra line on some infoboxes, we leave a tiny gap on all of them? Look at the bottom of the Hazards section in Ammonia or Zinc oxide, tell me what you think. (Sorry, I don't have IRC or Discord set up). —hike395 (talk) 07:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: That might work. Tell ya what, do me a favor, don't make any more changes to {{Infobox chemical/hazards}} for a bit? I'm going to focus on that one for my testing. Also going to post on the WP:VP/T to see if I can get someone to find what we are missing. If all else fails, we will implement your solution. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:20, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Great job! I tried display:none, but not in combination with mergedrow .. you need both! —hike395 (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: Are you sure? I'm guessing you had a typo or something. Template:Infobox chemical/hazards/testcases. I removed mergedrow and it still works. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

D'oh! It's great that you got it to work! —hike395 (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: Team work buddy! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Double D'oh! Now the parameter warning error is suppressed! I think this only works for category tracking, not parameter error handling. —hike395 (talk) 07:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: you know what? Fuck this... UGHHHHHHHHH. Why did I not see that coming?! Can I suggest this? If you are using the template with unknown parameters, then you get an extra line. Solution? DON'T USE BAD PARAMS! How about that? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This time for sure?

OK, I think I've really solved it for real. See if you can find a problem with this. Everything outside of the sub-infobox, but all categories wrapped in a display:none div. The warning message shows up (I just tried it on your hazards testcase). —hike395 (talk) 07:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: Nope... tried this also. It doesn't help because the row has already been created. Look at Caesium fluoride. The reason is that I re-added {{main other}}. That's my bad. Care to add a post at WP:VP/T? You can probably do a better job explaining it than I. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I could post, sure. But why does {{main other}} eat the div? Because of parameter interpolation? Can we just ditch {{main other}} and use

{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:0}}|<div style="display:none;">[[Category:Blah blah]]</div>}}

? —hike395 (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: sorry you misunderstood. The fact that I had readded {{main other}} is why it LOOKED like it was fixed on the test cases page... If you remove that and implement the div hidden thing you will see it doesn't fix the issue. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Rats. OK. It's fine for now and it's getting late. I'll ask WP:VP/T tomorrow. See you later! —hike395 (talk) 08:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. And get on WP:Discord! Have a good night. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Really solved it, for real

Famous last words. I just needed some quiet time with Infobox, CSS, and Firefox's Inspector. It was just a matter of pushing the check and tracking categories into |below=, where I could directly manipulate the style of the <td> (setting padding and border to 0). Then it was just a matter of making sure we always had exactly one line at the bottom.

I checked your Hazard test case (with {{main other}} removed), the two testcase pages, Ammonia, and Zinc oxide. Everything looks good, and the error message shows up in a nice spot within the infobox.

I think we should now go and get consensus at WT:WikiProject Chemicals and Template talk:Chembox, and see if editors like the slightly different formatting (mostly bolding of the labels). This is your baby -- I think you should drive the discussion!

Thanks for looping me in -- it was fun to play with. —hike395 (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: Bravo!!! Well done. Thanks for the assist! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: would love your input on the TFD nomination. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

As I had feared, going to directly to TfD is considered aggressive and hasty by some, creating pushback. Hopefully the work we've put into it won't be wasted. It's far better to treat this as an rewrite of an existing template rather than a deletion (which often seems to provoke rage). —hike395 (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I made some mistakes and errors in judgement along the way and pissed some people off. I need to learn to slow down. I hope people will realize I meant well. Oh well. Turning off the computer for the night and walking away. Thanks again! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

If you're still reading this, please consider withdrawing the TfD tonight. It would be a sign of good faith to withdraw tonight rather tomorrow. —hike395 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Hike395: Going to try to salvage this. One question that I've gotten from a few people is what is the virtue of converting templates to use {{Infobox}} as a base. I know it is better, but I'm having a hard time putting it into words. Do you have any insight? Is there some page/policy that documents this? I want to be able to give a well reasoned explanation because right now I basically sound like "it's just better, trust me" which doesn't work. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Talking Tom and friends

Zackmann08, I'm sorry for threatening you to remove your work, I was just retaliating because you removed my edits on Talking Tom and Friends. Why did you remove my summary of The Yes Girl in Talking Tom and friends. Oreratile1207 (talk) 12:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Josh Freese Photo/Devo

Hi there, Josh Freese requested that I replace his infobox photo of him performing with Devo with a new photo him of just a head shot. I changed the photo, per his request, and I believe it was you who replaced the photo/Devo back up. Josh does not own the copyright to that photo and does not want any legal problems regarding it. I own the copyright of the head shot that I posted on Novemeber 30, 2018, and I am going to add it once again. Please do not put that photo/Devo up. Thank you so much, Penny Framstad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pennyframstad (talk • contribs) 01:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pennyframstad: you need to read WP:COI. Josh Freese does not need to own the copyright, it is already uploaded. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Zackmann, why are you insisting that this particular photo used in Josh Freeses infobox? Pennyframstad (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pennyframstad: because you are violating Wikipedia policy and have consistently failed to read WP:COI. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Zachmann, I just read WP:COL and I understand completely. I am not a paid wikipedia person but happen to know about the codes and making simple edits. I don't want any conflict with anyone on wiki and I know you are just adhering to the rules of this awesome medium. Would you be opposed to replacing Josh Freese's photo with Devo? I believe a more current photo would serve wikipedia better. Any thoughts on that or is the devo photo set in stone. Thanks for your consideration, Penny Pennyframstad (talk) 03:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Help Regarding Ingemar_Macarine

Hi,

I edited a page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ingemar_Macarine

The page showed these:

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

I would like to inform that I edited the page and I am not paid for it because I happily volunteer to edit his Wikipedia page because he does not know how to edit it.

Please let me know what are the steps to do so we could remove these:

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

Thank you in advance.

JeynerGil (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@JeynerGil: I have replied in the thread on your talk page. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Single -> Song

Hi Zackmann08, why are you replacing the template form single to song? Has there been a discussion about this anywhere? Ymnes (talk) 13:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ymnes: I am simply carrying out the task, I did not make the decision. If you look at {{Infobox single}} you will see that the template is being merged. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jc86035: can you shed some light on Ymnes's question? I don't know where or when that decision was made... Ymnes to be clear, I'm neutral on this decision... I'm just a task person here. The task was in need of being done so I'm tackling it. That being said, from what I can see, it make sense. The two templates are essentially the same so merging them certainly makes sense to me. Do you have an objection to the process or were you just curious why it was being done? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Ymnes, the merger was begun after this RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs from 2017. No visible content should be removed during the merger; if anything has disappeared because of it then it would be an error and would need to be fixed. Jc86035 (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ymnes: just to follow up on the info Jc86035 provided, I'd love to know what your concerns are. Is it just a curiosity or are you seeing issues? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. It's a clear story now. Ymnes (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Oreratile1207 spam

Wikipedians

I'm sorry but those people removed my edits of Sweet and Short. Oreratile1207 (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sam Sailor

Blah blah blah, listen Zackmann08 Sam removed my Sweet and Short edits yesterday, because the album was relezsed on Friday, but sorry if i harrased uncle Sam, I'll stop harassing editors Oreratile1207 (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Lotto

But lotto is Morale's song, why did u remove it, u don't even know the song but u remove it. Oreratile1207 (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Talking Tom and friends

Why did u remove my summary of Talking Tom and friends?, show me everything you've edited and I'll remove it, you unfair editor, it is the truth, I saw what happened, why don't u respect my edits?? Oreratile1207 (talk) 13:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Yandhi tracklist

Hello sir, how do I provide reliable source on something I want to be changed? Oreratile1207 (talk) 06:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Oreratile1207: You use a citation template such as {{cite web}}. Please consult WP:CITE. Also you need to watch the tone of some of your posts. Your message to me was fine, but a number of the post you have left on other user's talk page have been hostile and constitute WP:Personal attacks. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Devlins Creek and Template:Infobox river

Your recent edit converting the Devlins Creek article from a geobox to Template:Infobox river caused a red-linked image in the infobox. I'm not sure how this happened since there's no image in the article. It seems like you know a lot about this template -- would you mind fixing the red-linked image, File:(1)Devlins_Creek-1.jpg,_(1)Devlins_Creek.jpg, which appears in the infobox in that article? Cheers! - tucoxn\^talk 18:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Tucoxn: thanks for the note. This was due to a wikidata issue. I've resolved it. Let me know if you have any other questions! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much! - tucoxn\^talk 19:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Just wondering if instead of removing the wikidata support from Infobox river, might be better to use include the maxvals=1 option so that only one image is returned. -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@WOSlinker: if you can get it to work, I have zero issue with it being restored. I don't know enough about wikidata and it was breaking multiple pages so figured it was best to just remove it. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Bury the hatchet?

@DePiep: since I'm banned from your talk page, per the advice of Ad Orientem I'm posting this here. Wanted to attempt to bury the hatchet and move on. Mistakes were made and things were said. Not suggesting you and I be best buddies. Doubt that will ever happen, but I have no interested in dragging this on anymore. Too much other stuff in the world to care about. So I'm eager to move on. If you are willing, I'd actually like to just rewind the clock 2 weeks. Two weeks ago I came to you to ask for your input on something. In that process, some of my actions rubbed you the wrong way and a fight ensued. I'm not interested in who is to blame or any of that. I can appreciate how my repeated nomination of a template for TFD pissed you off and for that I really am sorry. Ironically, I actually forgot I had previously nominated that template. FWIW I had some serious health issues 2 years ago which led to my taking a lengthy break from editing. I truly had forgotten about that whole discussion. That isn't an excuse, I'm just relaying facts. Had I recalled that previous conversation, I would not have re-nominated the template.

We can go round in circles about who said what and which one of us failed to WP:AGF etc, etc. But at the end of the day, that will get us nowhere. So, I would truly like to bury the hatchet and believe it or not, work together. While you were away, I worked on a project that I'd love to get your feedback on. At this point I leave it up to you. I truly hope that we can move forward and work together. The choice is yours. Hope you are well. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:56, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Read this, thx. Will respond some way, later on. -DePiep (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: No pressure. I'm just over this. I really don't care who is at fault here. Call it both, call it neither. I don't care. I don't want either of us feeling like we have to tip toe around because of the other. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: would you have any interest in taking a look at a template I've been working on related to Chemicals? Would really value your feedback. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

My plan is: 1. reply re my talkpage, 2. talk elsewhere including {{Chembox}} (talk) (which is the correct name & place). -DePiep (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: not sure what you meant by correct name and place but ok. I'm still banned from your talk page so... Best of luck. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The ban does not deprive you of understanding nor communicating. Try to harder, I'd say. -DePiep (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: is there a reason you can just communicate like a normal person? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:57, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe that English is not DePiep's first language. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Preliminary reply: Zackmann, recently I asked & pinged you three (3) open questions. You did not respond to any one of them. So why challenge me on "can you communicate"? -DePiep (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@DePiep: Because as I indicated above, i felt it was better to move forward rather than background. Additionally, as I've said I'm banned from your page so I can't respond there. Anyway, I'm over this. Take care.--Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

MLB is not soccer

Can you please be a little more careful with your edits? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Coming Jobs War.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Coming Jobs War.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize. I accidentally blocked you for a few seconds. I meant to block another editor. I am sorry. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: not a problem, but is it possible to have that voided from my record? I don't like the fact that it now shows that I've been blocked. :-( --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

You have a block lasting less than one minute and were unblocked with the reason "error". No rational editor will ever hold that against you. It actually reflects poorly on me, and again, I apologize. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: so no way to void it? :-( --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I voided it by unblocking you immediately, by recording that it was an error, and by apologizing to you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cullen328: well thanks. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:02, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Olympic sailing articles

F.Y.I, it looks like you recently converted a template in about 20 articles and didn't quite get the first two parameters (e.g. ). I noticed that Category:Pages using Infobox Olympic event with invalid games text wasn't empty anymore. All fixed now. MB 02:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@MB: crud. Thanks for fixing that! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Photo of Andrew Vachss

Hi, Andrew Vachss asked me to add the photo onto his page. He sent me written permission, and I added the link to it when I added the photo. So, I think you did the mistake to delete it. Andrew has all rights on this photo, and he sent it me, with his permission. Let make his page complete, please. here is the text of his letter (I repeated it): Dear Comrade, Attached is a photo Mr. Vachss to which owns the copyright. You may use for wikipedia as you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek Mads (talk • contribs) 03:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Derek Mads: you need to read WP:COI. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Answer to your answer: But no, we haven't any conflict of interest. He is a writer, I am his reader, and I just help him to add public info - info about his new book and photo. That's all. I can't see what kind of interest and conflict here can be.

@Derek Mads: the subject of the article has requested that you edit the article. That is the conflict. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Oh, but it wasn't his iniciative, I asked him in Internet - why his wiki page hasn't a photo, and he answered, that he was bothered unclear rules ho to do that. So, I said I could do that. I took the first photo from his site, but someone from admins attacked me about a license, and I asked him to send me permission, for filling your rules. I said "he asked" in meaning "he doesn't mind me use this photo". And info about book, of course, is open info - I know the book is released, so I updated hi article. Hope, this explaining is clear enough for completing his page. Thanks before for your attention.

Derek Mads (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I always see you on my watchlist fixing deprecated params on song articles. Thanks a lot for the work you do because its important even if its boring to do! Thanks for it NØ 16:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@MaranoFan: Thank you!!! It is certainly time consuming but nice to know the work is appreciated. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Talking Tom and Friends "The Yes Girl"

Listen Zackmann08, i edited the plot of The Yes Girl but you reverted it, why did you do that and can't you respond? Oreratile1207 (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oreratile1207: as I have already told you, and has been told to you by multiple other editors, you are adding WP:UNSOURCED content that violates Wikipedia policy. I would like to echo advice that has already been given to you. Please do the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure before making any more edits. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Your RFBAG

Hello Zackmann08, your RFBAG nomination (Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/Zackmann08) has been closed as unsuccessful following the standard discussion period. Should you apply again in the future, please follow the noticeboard notification process to help gain participants. Without participants, a consensus is unable to be formed to lead to a successful result. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

File:The Darkness Beckons.jpg

Hi Zackmann08, I found a file File:The Darkness Beckons.jpg, recorded as uploaded by you which is not what the description claims it to be. Do you have any idea of what happened? (please ping with reply) Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 16:27, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: thanks for the message! This was part of an experimental script that I ran a few months ago that grabbed page covers from an API. It had a pretty darn good success rate but there were some errors where the cover uploaded on the API did not match the ISBN. I checked 99% of them but a few slipped through unchecked. This is one of then. I've removed the file from the article and placed a CSD tag on it. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, no problem then, except no file for the article. I will see if I can find one and overwrite. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 18:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Pbsouthwood: yea there are a LOT of book articles with no photos (Category:Books with missing cover). Trying to fill them in when time permits. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Done, Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Zachmann08, I need your help!

@Zackmann08:

Hi Zachmann08, can you help me with getting unblocked from Wiki Common? I am new to this whole thing and someone named Hedwig from Washington blocked me and deleted my photos. Not sure what I did wrong but I thought perhaps you could look at it and let me know how to move forward.

Thanks so much for considering, Pennyframstad (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Pennyframstad

@Pennyframstad: I left a message on your commons talk page. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Zackmann08,

Reviewer of the Year

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

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

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It Must Be Love (Labi Siffre song)

Hi Zackmann08. Did you mean to do this? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: nope. Fixed. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

And this, etc? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: not seeing what the problem is with that edit? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, really? Is it just me? I'm seeing "The La's singles chronology" in triplicate. And no audio sample. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: There is no audio sample being provided to the template. |file= doesn't have a value. Technically you can just remove that template entirely. What I was doing was just converting the template to use the correct template. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Ah I see, thanks. Would a 15 second sample be useful for this 2:31 song?Martinevans123 (talk) 18:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I'm the wrong person to ask about that. I have no involvement with the music project. I'm just working on the templates as a template editor. Sorry. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I see. I thought you might have an opinion, as you edited that page. No worries. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Time to let go

You are right. It's time to stop interacting 100% with that editor. I have done so after extending multiple olive branches and advice and being insulted and trolled every time. It's not you, it's him, but your combination of wanting to be helpful and being unable to ignore his trolling makes for a combustible relationship. He will shoot himself in the foot and get an indefinite block sometime soon. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I appreciate that. It is just infuriating that some people can't grow up and move on. How you can take a friendly smile as a "jab" is beyond me... Oh well, I'm walking away from the chemical project entirely. I appreciate the advice. You've called me out a number of times when I've screwed the pooch, including a WP:TROUT if memory serves. Your willingness to give me both positive and affirming feedback is greatly appreciated, as is your advice and counsel. So thank you. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Plip!

Remember, trout are delicious and beautiful creatures! Strive to collect them all; I don't receive as many as I probably should. (See, for example, my recent adventures at Template:Rfd2.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:50, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: true that. I like them with lemon and butter. :-) --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Did you say ":-)"??!?? How dare you. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: HAHH!!!! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: out of curiosity, since you are also a template person, have you looked at {{Infobox chemical}}? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't look at it with a ten-foot telescope. Sorry. (edited to add: OK, that was a bit rude. If it is broken, I'll help you fix it. Otherwise, I'm staying away. Too much drama.) – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: HA!!! No that wasn't rude. That was blunt and to the point. Well played sir, well played. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:44, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Castle Alcanede

I reverted your edit on Castle of Alcanede because inadvertently you replaced all content in your attempt to convert to Infobox. I have no problem with the Geobox conversion process, its just that you eliminated content and erroneously copied content from the Castle of Vila Viçosa into the article. ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 09:01, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zeorymer: thank you for the note. In the future, instead of using WP:ROLLBACK be sure to undo the edit with a comment. I saw your rollback and it had no explanation. You were right to revert my edit, but it needed an explanation. I'll get to work fixing the page right now. Thanks! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Re: BRFA

I apologize for the backlog that has developed over at BRFA and the length of time your approval request sat there. Unfortunately, most of the previously active BAG members are currently inactive, which makes it hard to get anything done. I haven't been active in the area recently because what little time I have for the project lately is immediately snatched up by my role on the Arbitration Committee. We really need an influx of new blood to keep BAG going and BRFAs being actioned quickly. Primefac was just appointed to BAG three days ago, so I'm hopeful that will help get things moving a bit more, but we could still use more new members. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: sorry, I didn't mean to undo YOUR edit. I understand, it is just frusturating. I also applied to join the BAG team in hopes of helping but go no support. Its all good. I'm moving on to other projects. No ill will. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I think a lot of that had to do with the request not being transcluded at the relevant noticeboards. No-one really knew it was going on. I would read the last paragraph at WP:BAG and try again if I were you. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Fear and Trembling.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Fear and Trembling.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I see that the image has been replaced in the article about the book. However, in looking at the reason the removing-editor noted, the file description page's source= is for a former differrent image, not just a larger version of the current. Could you please update the file description with the source of the current image? DMacks (talk) 02:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@DMacks: not really sure what's going on there. I fixed the image source. Seems to me the new image is much poorer quality but honestly, not something I know enough about to raise a stink. My goal was to give the article a photo for the book cover. If it has a photo, I don't really care if is the one I uploaded or not. Let me know if I need to fix anything else. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea either...just browsing some non-free categories. DMacks (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits to Brother Louie and Cancer

I was just running with using subst but it seems like it didn't fix the Misc to misc issue. Thank you so much for that! Cheers! snood1205^{(Say Hi! (talk))} 18:44, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@Snood1205: my pleasure! Thanks for taking the time to drop me a note. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:James Robert Smith (author).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:James Robert Smith (author).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fear and Trembling.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Fear and Trembling.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Book- and Filmcover

Hallo Zackmann,

you have inserted in article book cover (The Second Coming of Christ (Yogananda)).

I have not done this yet. How do you do that easiest? I want to do it for the following articles :

• Book -> God Talks with Arjuna: The Bhagavad Gita
• Film -> Awake: The Life of Yogananda (documentary)
• Film -> 3100: Run and Become

From Germany --Richard Reinhardt (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC) @Zackmann08:

Greetings !

Hello Zackmann08: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, ---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 19:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Working with projects on Infoboxes

There are some comments I want to make about what you may be running into at WikiProject Chemistry. PhilipTerryGraham it might be useful for you to be part of this too.

There are not many jobs in astrophysics so I worked for a number of years as a system programmer for a computer manufacturer. Coming from academics I was used to developing a project completely before presenting it to the larger group. However I learned another approach working in an engineering firm. At the end of meetings where we proposed to do or change something, the engineering manager would say "now we need to go socialize this". In a large firm with many projects and many interests it was important to get the informal support of many people within the organization before doing the work. It is the same here.

Projects put a lot of work early on in developing templates and continuous work in maintaining them. The editors who do this work are proud of it. You can see they feel insulted if an editor who likes working on templates comes to the project and imples their templates aren't good enough. (Philip, your documentation pointing out deficiencies in the existing starboxes was not a diplomatic move if you wanted support for those changes.) It is even worse if an editor presents a replacement without asking for their support (not help, but support) first.

Having a standard Infobox approach is a very good idea. Templates like Infobox person in various forms are used across multiple projects. It made sense that the efforts to standardize them was driven centrally by template editors, and discussions took place at TfD. But science project infoboxes are used only by one project. Discussions need to start taking place at the projects, "socializing", instead of at TfD, and before the templates are rewritten.

I would really like to see more science infoboxes follow the Infobox standard. That would help move data into Wikidata and help create articles at the smaller language wikipedias. There is support for translating infoboxes for languages who want to use them. {The term Infobox is coming into general use across the languages. See de:Vorlage:Infobox Stern and fr:Modèle:Infobox Étoile). I assume there other reasons too that have been discussed by the template editors. You can start by coming up with a good presentation for changing the chemical infoboxes to the Infobox format and asking for input on how best it can be done. I would be glad to help.

I like working alone at times, and I spend my technical time on Wikipedia fixing broken references (and sometimes the templates that lead to broken references). After a couple of years here I realized it was the perfect job in this environment. It overlaps no one else's work and I occasionally get thanked for it. Working on project templates is necessarily a group project. If you want interesting work where you can define the task, solution, and implementation yourself, project templates aren't going to be it. But it can be very rewarding working with a group. StarryGrandma (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I forgot the most important reason for using the Infobox structure, the improved performance provided by Module:Infobox. (It's been a few years since MediaWiki added Lua in 2013.) These template conversions have been going on for some years now and how the changes might affect template behavior must be pretty well understood. Can you briefly tell me what changes you had to make? From looking at talk page archives and RfCs there the chemistry project is well aware of the new module, but thinks the conversation would involve substantial changes. It looks to me that the conversion you did wouldn't change the template behavior and would be safe to convert to, but I am not an expert in this area. StarryGrandma (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@StarryGrandma: I appreciate the note. At the end of the day, the users who are part of the chemistry project do not WP:OWN the templates, despite what they claim. I spent time creating a template that conforms to Wikipedia standards (particularly WP:ACCESS which {{Chembox}} violates left and right) and doesn't break the existing transclusions. I tried on over a dozen different occasions to get feedback but members of the Chemistry project aren't even willing to look at the template. It is not that they don't like it, or have issues with it... They won't even bother to look at it. I'm done and am moving on. If they want to continue using that cluster of a template with its 100s of sub-templates maintained by 1 user, then so be it. I've got other projects that I can work on and am not willing to get burned out by a couple of pig-headed editors who refuse to even discuss making changes. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I tried today to raise the issue on the Chembox talk page, and I will continue tomorrow. Could you tell more about the WP:ACCESS violation (left and right)? I have some edits years ago with some of the chembox subtemplate, and every time I used "years" to figure out which subtemplate should be changed. Its just one big mess. Christian75 (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Christian75: respectfully, I'm done with this. I wish you best of luck in your efforts raising concerns on the talk page. If and when people are actually interested in discussing the merits of the template I will take part in the discussion. Until then, I'm just walking away and not playing any further part in the discussion. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Sorry to see you're getting burned out on this. I know how difficult it can be to fight against the collective inertia of a project that prefers the status quo. That doesn't mean the work you're doing is unimportant. I and others can see the benefits of the conversion to infobox form, but as StarryGrandma mentioned above, this will take a while to accomplish. People are often reluctant to change for what appears to be change's sake, and will have to be convinced of the benefits of said change. And when any concerns are brought up, we will have to address them until everyone is happy (or equally unhappy) with the changes to go ahead with the process. Hopefully, progress on this conversion will continue in your absence, and a consensus can eventually be reached to implement it. Thanks for your efforts on this. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 07:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Alabama–Clemson football rivalry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alabama–Clemson football rivalry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alabama–Clemson football rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Cobyan02069 (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm Back!

Been off on holiday for a week, but for anyone following my talk page who cares, I'm back to editing!!! Happy NYE to all. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Woodmere, Louisiana

Woodmere, Louisiana is the only article using {{Geobox}}. Vandalism is why. Do you still have a script lying around that could convert it easily? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95:  Done thanks for the note! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Boy in the Box

Hi, I wanted to ask if you knew anything about the theory listed on this article confirming relation between the child and a potential family. In the cited source here, there is no reference to a "certain match" to them, only the speculation that would require DNA testing. That's why I removed the information. Cheers, --GouramiWatcher^Talk 00:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gourami Watcher: can't say that I do. I was just trying to revert vandalism and I think your changes got caught in the mix. My bad. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Alternate Presidents.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Alternate Presidents.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

db notice

{{subst:db-reason-notice|1=Category:Pages using Infobox Speedway rider with unknown parameters|2={{Db-g6|rationale=Category was changed to [[:Pages using infobox speedway rider with unknown parameters]] so this is not used by the template}}} Gonnym (talk) 13:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: what is it you were trying to do here? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I blame twinkle :) It tried letting you know that I nominated Category:Pages using Infobox Speedway rider with unknown parameters for speedy deletion as the infobox template is not using it and instead using Category:Pages using infobox speedway rider with unknown parameters. --Gonnym (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: damit Twingle!!!! I've been there... :-p No worries mate! Thanks for the heads up. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Southern Football League league templates

Hi, thanks for converting the tables to the modern template. However, is it possible to make it 2 points for a win? For example at 1970–71 Southern Football League and others? The source indicates that these were the rules then. Thanks, Del_Usion23 (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I've worked it out myself :) Cheers, Del_Usion23 (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

1993–94 Belarusian First League

please don't convert these unless you are going to use meaningful team abbreviations. Frietjes (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes: is there a reason that there need to be "meaningful team abbreviations"? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

yes, otherwise it obfuscates the source. I have been working on these for several months, using consistent team abbreviations across the seasons. Frietjes (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I'll do my best, but pretty impossible to keep it consistent across every page that references the team... Happy to stop using sequential letters when I hit a conflict which is what I was doing, but expecting that I (or anyone else) will check other pages to see what abbreviation is used for a given team is a bit of a stretch. It is one thing when it is an IOC code or something. Not going to use "AME" for "United States"... But when the name is "1. FC Kaiserslautern"... I'll do my best. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

you have also been removing the hth information, which is not helpful. now I have to check all of your edits :( Frietjes (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I actually haven't been removing the hth information... [7], [8], [9], etc. But feel free to check my work. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

yes, you have see 1992 Belarusian First League, for example. it would be better if you stop. Frietjes (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Those hth weren't there in the original version... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1992_Belarusian_First_League&oldid=842965959 so that's why I was confused. I do now see that I missed parsing the footnote at the bottom of the table, but they weren't linked from the rows. Your concerns are noted. Thanks. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

so, I asked you to please stop, and you continue? am I supposed to roll back your edits? Frietjes (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes: there is nothing wrong with my edits, you don't own the pages and have no right to tell me to stop. So not sure what point you're trying to make here... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Zackmann08, I think you had better stop it, it seems you do not know how the Module works. And you do not know our footy project rules. Just let Frietjes do it alone. Our final goal is NOT JUST to clear converting fb templates tasks backlog. We are trying to make articles clearer and better, but you are making it worse Hhkohh (talk) 08:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree. You have already been told what is wrong with your edits. I would hate to see this end up at ANI. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

you don't own the pages and have no right to tell me to stop I thought we were friends, but it looks like I was mistaken. and, before your edits Atherton Collieries Joined 1982–83 NWCL Division Three, after your edits Atherton Collieries Did not join North West Counties League. who knows how many more of these were mangled by your edits. Frietjes (talk) 14:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Plastikspork and Hhkohh: I'm reverting my edits and will discontinue all involvement in the project. Sorry for any issues I caused, I genuinely was trying to help.

@Frietjes: as for "we were friends" you've honestly never really been that friendly. You've certainly helped out with technical issues which I greatly appreciate and you know how much I have thanked you each and every time. But you then basically blow me off as an annoyance and have an attitude of superiority and of making me feel like I'm so much less important than you that "friends" don't do. So please don't play this off like I've somehow insulted some great friendship. You came here and basically said "you aren't doing these conversions the way I want you to so stop". Had you actually pointed out the issues I would have been much more receptive. Either way, I'm discontinuing my involvement. Sorry for any issues I caused. Hope you know that I was trying to help. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Asturkian: regarding [10], this thread is why. I was asked to rollback my changes because I wasn't doing it the right way. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Zackmann08: Oh, but in this case there is not any problem about the abbreviations, because that letters are not going be shown in any way. Anyway, thank you for your explanation. Asturkian (talk) 20:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Asturkian: the letters are never shown in any way... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 20:56, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Re: now I have to check all of your edits I have reverted all ~1,200 of the changes I made "converting to use Module:Sports table" so you won't have to check anything. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

like 1956 Bolivian Primera División? still have to check them all ... Frietjes (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes: ok didn't go back far enough. I'll keep reverting. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

@Frietjes: btw, love how you are reverting ones that aren't broken... --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Zack!

I noticed that you did some corrections on my films page (The Netflix Original film XOXO). I was wondering if you could help me create my personal wiki page? I was the main producer on the film.

Any chance you could help?

)

Joe JoeRussell1@gmail.com (Filmbuffdude1 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC))

@Filmbuffdude1: first please read WP:COI as well as WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Otogi-zôshi.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Otogi-zôshi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)