Open main menu

User talk:Tbennert

Contents

June 2011Edit

Hello! I'm assuming you've popped over from the English Wikipedia, so you're probably familiar with the way this wiki works. I hope you like it here and decide to stay on! Here's a few links to help you adjust:

There's plenty to do here. For example, there are a lot of articles that don't exist yet, which you can bring over from the English Wikipedia and simplify. Do have a look around and see what you'd like to do. Thanks for joining us, and you know how to contact me if you need a hand. Gordonrox24 | Talk 21:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

New categories for years in ice hockeyEdit

Hi, Tbennert. I noticed that you created categories for 2015, 2016, and 2017 in ice hockey. Maybe you didn't know, but we need at least three entries in every category. That is explained at Wikipedia:Categories#Is there a need for the new category? Are you planning to add more to these categories in the near future (the next couple of days or so)? If not, we can delete them for now until there are at least three things for each. Let me know. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

They are however, date categories that belong to a series so generally should not be deleted for being populated too little. That being said they will be filled. -DJSasso (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Only certain year categories should be treated that way. Years for sports in general, yes. Years in specific sports, I'd disagree with, especially for future years. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
I looked at Category:Years in ice hockey for reference. It appears nearly every one of these has 1 or 2 categories. I am not sure why what I did is more wrong than the 78 already in existence. Please let me know the outcome because I expect to create the missing seasons.--Tbennert (talk) 00:44, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
If you can find articles we already have created to put in them that is a good outcome. If you are creating seasons to fill them that is even better as new content is best. But agreement on if they need 3 off the bat is probably not likely. The original idea behind the 3 rule was just to stop serial creators of massive category trees where the only thing in each category was the category above it. But like with all "rules" the spirit often gets forgotten as the people who came up with the plan move on etc. Personally I am ok with them only having 2 in them (in the case of year categories). I wouldn't delete them, and if I ever saw anyone try to delete them I would immediately make an article for it because it would be a silly deletion to break up a series. But you might have some admins who will delete the category. But I can safely tell you if its a hockey category I will definitely save the category by filling it if its nominated or deleted as that is the subject I most edit. -DJSasso (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. And thanks for the articles you've created to fill the categories. I was initially just making the NHL seasons and was going to come back to do some on the playoffs and Cup for the years I made. I did a quick go through and was only able to find a few already existing articles. I'll just wait until I have three articles before I create the other year articles. --Tbennert (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Downtown MRT LineEdit

Would you take a look at this change that you made to this article? It broke the syntax for the Stevens station, but I'm not sure what you meant to do. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing you meant the [[ in the table? Fixed that. If there was something else in the change you were referencing let me know. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was it. Thanks for fixing it. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Grammatical conflictEdit

Hey @Tbennert:! I've seen your recent change that an IP made on Coffee specifically on fiber. .. fibre.. whatever. I thank you for the correction you made(though not quite of a corr.). Well we all use different dialects of English ( like I personally use BrE) we spell it as fibre.

Away from that, the matter that didn't amuse me was how you posted a vandal notice on the IP's talk page. We are all men and we aren't perfect and each man needs to be corrected. I hope you've taken taken the message in a brotherly way. Cheers --Purple Lamborghini1738 19:45, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you are confusing two separate edits. Coffee was a vandal act - check the version history because I don't know how to link it. The IP that made the change to Cotton I left a welcome message for. As for the different types of English, I also left a note for the IP explaining that whichever English the article is already in, we leave it in that form of English. If you look at the cotton article you will notice it has the spelling "fiber" throughout the article. --Tbennert (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Found the language information - Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English--Tbennert (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh sorry for the confusion... I am really sorry. --Purple Lamborghini1738 15:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I am glad to see that as a new-ish editor you know not to give out vandal warnings lightly. And that you are making sure we have a welcoming atmosphere even with our IP editors. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New maintenance categoriesEdit

Hi, Tbennert. I see that you created some maintenance categories. Please categorize them and add the standard maintenance category setup things. Maintenance categories like that need some standard maintenance category setup -- they get some message boxes and other things. If you created these because you saw them on the wanted categories page, it's OK to leave them uncreated if you aren't prepared to do the full setup -- that's why I haven't created some of them myself, and I've been monitoring them for a long time. In fact, sometimes the better option is to change templates so that they don't generate these categories. If you don't want to take care of this, let me know and I can delete the categories again. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete them. I don't really care. --Tbennert (talk) 02:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Raising HopeEdit

I have restored your version, which needs a claim and explanation for notability. If claim is based on awards, the awards would need sources. Please do this asap to avoid further QDs. Cheers, Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

orphaned articlesEdit

Hey Tbennert: there are many articles orphaned but not tagged so. When an article is orphaned, what does that really mean? Angela Maureen (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello! You are correct about the many articles that are not tagged. Special:LonelyPages gives the complete list of orphaned articles, including those that are tagged. What orphan means is that the article is not included in any other article. As an example look at Barney Dreyfuss. On the left column under "Tools" click "What links here". You'll see no other articles have a link to him. (Actually now that I've linked him, you'll see my talk page).
There are a couple of important notes about orphan articles. First, because our encyclopedia is small we have quite a few orphan articles. Some editors don't like tagging orphan's because eventually the links will be made. They also think that maintenance categories are not utilized as often as on a larger wikipedia. I usually work on small-ish batches so I don't upset anyone with my tagging. Second, if there is at least one link, don't tag the article. Larger wikis want 3 links. We like more links, but one is enough to not be an orphan.
Before tagging I usually make a decent effort to de-orphan an article. If you are interested in how to do that, let me know. And of course, if you have any other questions, I'm happy to help with what I can. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 07:11, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

May 2017Edit

  Hello, Tbennert. When you revert a user's changes, like you did earlier, don't forget to leave the user a message on their talk page. You may find Template:User talk page warnings/table useful when doing this, to let them know that the change was considered inappropriate, and to direct them to the sandbox. Thank you. ««« SOME GADGET GEEK »»» (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting quick deletesEdit

Hi, Tbennert. When you tag a page for quick deletion, would you please notify the page's creator? The page can be deleted without that, but it's standard procedure and a courtesy to notify the creator. If you use Twinkle to request the deletion, it will do the notification automatically. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Allen crabbeEdit

The page you wrote, Allen crabbe, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. Tbennert (talk) 04:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

RollbackEdit

Hi Tbennert, you have been granted rollback rights, I would have granted them a long time ago if I had realised that you didn't have it. It will make reverting changes a lot easier. If you have any more requests or questions, don't hesitate to send me a message.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Based onEdit

Hi, I'm extremely surprised you were never told but on each and every article/template create you always need to add the template:based on to the articles talkpage otherwise they all could be deleted as copyright violations, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, just tend to forget when I'm working on several things. And to clarify - the template does not need to be added to every article. Only those that were based on another creative commons source. If you create a new article from scratch there is not a need for a based on template. Thanks for the reminder!--Tbennert (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah sorry I thought you were lazy as me and just copied everything from EN  , In that case ignore everything I just said lol and apologies for the unintentional offense, –Davey2010Talk 00:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Ha!ha! I do copy (and simplify) most of the time. And I just added the template where I should have.--Tbennert (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
Oh okay  , Ah okay thanks sorry I just didn't know if you knew about it that was all :), Anyway happy editing :), –Davey2010Talk 01:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Adding linksEdit

Hi, Tbennert. When you're adding those links, please check to be sure that the term isn't already linked in the article. You've introduced some duplicate links, and a term is usually linked only once in the text of an article (not counting links in infoboxes, tables, navboxes, etc.). Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

In case you're thinking about how to remove the duplicates, AWB can help with that. Let me know if you want some details about how. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Yes, can you show me how to resolve the duplicates? I had it set to just one link in the advanced find and search but it was trying to do several. And if you could also tell me how to count the changes? If it matters I usually only make a list for one or two categories at a time. Thanks --Tbennert (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Finding duplicatesEdit

OK, first I'll explain how AWB can find the duplicates. I don't promise that this is the best way, but it's a way I've found.

Whenever an article is loaded in AWB, it tells you if there are things that are linked multiple times. To find where, look at the bottom half of the AWB display, in the middle section, at the lower left corner in a box called "Multiple wiki-links:". If there aren't any things linked multiple times, that box doesn't appear.

If there are multiple links to municipality, click on "municipality" in the multiple wiki-links box. If it doesn't take you to a place in the article where a link is, click another time or two until it does. Now you should be at the first link, which you probably want to keep. Click again and AWB takes you to the next occurrence. Here, click the "Delink selection" button, which is just below the multiple wiki-links box. If there are still more, repeat clicking on Municipality and delinking until the term disappears from the multiple wiki-links box or you've unlinked all the ones you want to: at that point, the only term will be the first one in the article.

You can ignore multiple links that aren't in the text, such as links in infoboxes, navboxes, tables, etc., and probably also those that are in lists. You can also ignore them in articles for days and years (for example January 1 and 2017). That's because the reason for the single-link thing is that a person could follow the link the first time they see it in the article if they're interested, so there's no need for multiple links. However, in the day and year articles and similar ones, people don't read them from top to bottom, so a reader might not see the first place where the term is used.

Hope this makes sense. Let me know if you have any questions. I'll write up how to count shortly. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I've noticed the multilinks box but didn't realize about the "delink selection". I've been double clicking the paragraph in the "Your text" at the upper right to remove the change, which is okay but it removes any changes to the entire paragraph, not just the line, so this seems like a cleaner option. I thought some of the doubles I left in were really far apart in the article, as in several sections down, but looks like maybe not. Thanks --Tbennert (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Just realized, if you were looking at my edit summaries they say whatever number of times AWB tries to link, even if I make just one change. So at Santa Cruz del Seibo the summary says 6 but I only made 1 change. Sorry I'm taking up so much of your time with AWB stuff. Thanks --Tbennert (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
No problem, I'm glad to discuss or help with AWB -- I may ask you for some tips some time! Maybe your setting of changing only one occurrence worked that time? I assume you didn't manually undo any changes in that edit. Aside from that, I don't know why it said 6 times. How are you specifying what should be changed? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
The one time thing didn't work. I just double-clicked the paragraphs where it was duplicated. To specify the changes I'm making a rule for each word I'm wanting to link under Advanced. So Find municipality and Replace municipality but does not contain [[municipality. Then the same for incorporated and commune so they all run at the same time. At the bottom there is a box for number of times and it is set to 1. Same pattern worked for the other tasks I've tried but this one is not going as smoothly as I would like. --Tbennert (talk) 05:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Counting pages that contain a stringEdit

Here's how to count how many articles in a set would be changed. Load the articles you have in mind. In the bottom half of the AWB display, in the middle section, go to the Skip section. Click both "Contains" and "Doesn't contain", and in the text boxes for both, put your search string (maybe " municipality "?). Turn off all other options under search and replace, etc. so that articles are skipped only based on these two options. Then click start and let AWB run through the list of articles.

When the articles have all been skipped, go to the bottom of the AWB display, right-hand section, "Logs" tab. In the bottom box, click on "Skip Reason" to sort everything by whether it had or didn't have the string in question. Select all the ones that did have the string, right click on the selection, and click on "Add selected to page list". The pages that have the search string will be loaded and ready to process, and the number of pages will be displayed at the top of the display.

You just need to watch out for "gotchas", such as maybe the word "municipality" appearing in the middle of a link, or in a file name. You should be able to catch that as you process each article.

Hope that helps. As before, feel free to ask if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll give this a go. Will have to fiddle around to do multiple search terms, probably run the different lists and then remove duplicates. As for being able to provide a full count, I usually do smaller lists so this may not be practical. For instance, I'm not sure how many recursions to do for Category:Settlements so I go farther into the tree. I feel more comfortable that way in any case. Thanks again! --Tbennert (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

ThanksEdit

Hi, Just wanted to say thanks for simplifying most of the articles I've created, Obviously I did try the best I could but I will admit I'm not fantastic at it unlike you so thanks again for your help it's much appreciated :), Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 16:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Glad to help! For the most part the articles were good. I just separated some of the sentences to two. The only note I would give you is that I found quite a few comma's (,) where there should have been period/full stop's (.). Thanks for your new articles! --Tbennert (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah yeah I'm beyond hopeless when it comes to commas so that's something I unfortunately cannot fix, No worries - They're not amazing by any means but a start is better than none at all :), Thanks again, Happy editing :), –Davey2010Talk 19:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

New trends in discussionsEdit

I am not looking for a discussion. Perhaps the linked, good faith post discussion, will not feel like a waste of your time.
I do find the link relevant, based on something that I believe you wrote at "Simple Talk", within the last few hours.
Sju hav (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I did write it. I don't need a time-out. Sending me to read more of the endless writing doesn't help. It is not a discussion exhausting me, it is your constant posting about similar topics.--Tbennert (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
A shorter version than "endless", is this:
Glad to hear (you saying) that you don't need a time-out.
Feel free to let me know if any "Simple talk subjects" are "not exhausted", but need further attention. Sju hav (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

QD requestsEdit

Are you using a tool to add qd templates, or are you adding them manually? I ask because there's a syntax error in the template you added to House of Natoli. Here is the code you added:

{{qd|db|1=likely User:Alec Smithson; complex|editor=Tbennert|date=03:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)}}

The error is that you have duplicate arguments. The parameter "db" is written as the first unnamed parameter because it's the first parameter and has no label or number (not sure if "label" is the right term). However, your delete rationale is also written as the first parameter because it has "1=" before it. It's not causing a problem, but if you used a tool to add the request we should fix it. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:03, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm using Twinkle, but on my laptop which I don't normally use. In case it's not me needing an update issue, I chose "Custom rationale" at the top of the list.--Tbennert (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
That might be the reason. Most custom rationales wouldn't qualify for QD anyway, so maybe we fix the syntax issue or we disallow custom rationales. Thanks for the info. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism on your user pageEdit

I just reverted some vandalism on your user page. In case you didn't know, you can have your user page semi-protected so that IPs can't edit it. If you'd like that, just leave a note at WP:AN. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Asian MonthEdit

Hi. Thanks for your recent contributions to the Wikipedia Asian Month (irrelevant- three good size articles in a day seems absurd to me). Just letting you know that I rejected your Raj Kapoor article and your Dhyan Chand article due to the fact that in the text, it had not surpassed 3,000 bytes, which was one of the requirements. (Raj Kapoor count, Dhyan Chand count) I apologize that your submissions were not counted. You are always welcome to participate next year (I think Auntof6 is organizing again). Anyways, it's quite a shame. Zhangj1079 talk 03:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Zhangj1079: Um, I was thinking that if an article didn't meet the requirements, we could give the creator a chance to fix the issues. The rules only say that the article has to be created before the end of November, it doesn't say we have to judge based on that version. It looks like the rejection can be changed to accepting, so what do you think: can we give Tbennert a chance to expand the articles you rejected? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Oh yeah. Definitely. I'd be willing to do that. I'll judge again in one to two weeks, I suppose. Zhangj1079 talk 13:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
So, Tbennert, do you want to update the articles to meet the requirements? We have until the end of December to do the judging. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:35, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, definitely. I was paying more attention to the word counts, which was over even without the list type sentences (movies created, etc.) I fully intended to come back and do some simplifying and incoming links to the pages, but I thought I would have a bit of time for those clean-up items. Also @Zhang1079- I've written a lot of articles, so I can do more than three per day if I have no distractions (which this was 2 days in reality if you look at my time zone rather than UTC time). It's fine if you choose to reject them, but know that plenty of people can create several decent articles in a short amount of time. --Tbennert (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Cool. Drop one or both of us a note when you think they're ready. Also note that we have to judge by the end of December going by UTC time. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Will do. --Tbennert (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Tbennert. I see that two of your four articles, Irrawaddy River and Kaziranga National Park, have been approved. Are the others going to be ready for re-review before the end of the year? Remember that the judging period ends at the end of the year, universal time. Be sure to let us know if/when your other two articles are ready so that we don't miss the deadline. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Constitutional republicEdit

 

An editor has requested deletion of Constitutional republic, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2018/Constitutional republic and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much.-BRP ever 01:24, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Tbennert".