User talk:DFlhb/Archive 1

DFlhb, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi DFlhb! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi DFlhb! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 12:10, Wednesday, February 1, 2017 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

September 2022

Hello, I'm Mr.weedle. I noticed that in this edit to Amazon (company), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mr.weedle (talk) 16:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The removal was explained, and I did use an edit summary. I think this was a mistake, as I don't think this rollback matches the WP:ROLLBACKUSE criteria. DFlhb (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I do see that my removal of "self-driving car" in the categories was mistaken; I hadn't seen Zoox. I think my other edits stand. DFlhb (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I just realized I forgot to notify you, and I don't know if automated edits to talk pages automatically subscribe you to replies. So here we go: User:Mr.weedle DFlhb (talk) 19:30, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why you duplicated the history of the Mac 128k from the Macintosh page to that page. As a general rule, information should only be in one place on WP; other places should link to it. Now, it may well be the case that the information should be divided differently between the two pages, but literal duplication is never a good idea -- what if someone improves one copy but not the other, for example? --Macrakis (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I was about to remove the passage from the Macintosh article, where it doesn't belong (WP:DUE), and replace it with a WP:SUMMARY of everything I moved to Mac 128k. I was just in the process of writing that summary. Is it ok by you if I revert back? DFlhb (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense to me! --Macrakis (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Cool; done. DFlhb (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Requesting your assistance on iPhone article

Hi, your work on the Macintosh article has been really amazing so far, and it has really been cleaned up and updated well! I have been trying to clean up the iPhone article for a while now, and I had separated a super lengthy "Hardware" section into its own article, iPhone hardware, which is also equally outdated. That article could even be cleaned up, shortened, and transferred back to the main iPhone article. Could I request your assistance in cleaning up these articles, as much as you can. Even a little bit of help is super appreciated, thank you in advance! Theknine2 (talk) 11:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi friend; I'd be happy to help with those; I likely won't have much time the rest of this week, but I'll start with a few sections, and take a deeper look at it when I have time. DFlhb (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Do take as much time as you need. Theknine2 (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible copyright issue

your edit Triggered a report in CopyPatrol, the tool used to identify potential copyright violations. The text does appear to be copied from .com/blog/mac-os-x-installer this site. However, your edit summary says "(merged Installer)". That might mean you are merging text from an existing Wikipedia article something that is not typically detected by Copy Patrol.

I do have a couple of issues.

I don't see an article called "installer", although searching for that article brings me to Installation (computer programs). My cursory glance didn't identify the text in that article.

If you are merging tax from one article into another one that's permitted, but we do have some rules on how that should be done. Please note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia?

If you were doing a merge using an existing Wikipedia article could you follow the guidelines on how to properly attribute it. (Let me know if you need more help on how to do that.) If the information did not come from an existing Wikipedia article and came from .com/blog/mac-os-x-installer this site, it looks to me like it's a copyright issue and should be reverted. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi!

I merged Installer (macOS) into List_of_macOS_components#Installer. You're right that I should be more specific in attributing it in edit summaries, and usually I am. I incorrectly thought that article merges didn't require attribution, only duplication of content; I stand corrected, and I'll do that for the remaining merges.

Looking at Installer (macOS), it seems that the Wikipedia content predates the site you linked, so I don't believe there's a copyvio issue. DFlhb (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks to your suggestions, the article is now complete. You can now check it out at Early iPhone Processors. SMBMovieFan (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Just gave it a read. Nicely done! DFlhb (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I've made a few edits, feel free to review them or make further improvements. I've mostly replaced a few sources with better ones, and clarified the wording and added some detail.

And one comment: do make sure you stick to reliable sources as much as possible; TweakTown isn't used much on Wikipedia, and YouTube links should usually be avoided too. The good thing about Apple is that there's tons of commonly-seen-as-reliable blogs and news sites that cover most things.

Other than that, since I'm assuming this is your first article, nice job! DFlhb (talk) 19:39, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Carbon Copy Cloner icon.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Carbon Copy Cloner icon.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) 17:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your tireless work at Land. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 09:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks mate! Although I'm back at work, and tasks are piling up again, so I'm unlikely to be able to dedicate much time to Wikipedia for the next while. I'll keep watch on my watchlist, and might make minor edits here and there. DFlhb (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

It's ok to take a break from time to time, we're humans after all :) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 02:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Original Barnstar
		Superb work on the Mac (computer) and iPhone articles, thank you! Theknine2 (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't have done it without your help; thank you! DFlhb (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mac (computer)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mac (computer) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ProcrastinatingReader -- ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'll start taking a look at the Mac Pro issue you've highlighted. DFlhb (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the double-ping, but neglected to add, please note that there's currently a 72-hour 1RR in place on Aaron Maté. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 14:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Good day Tamzin! Noted; thanks very much.

BTW, what do you think of changing the wording of {{DS/alert}} from You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL (I'm interested in neither; I just edited a BLP that had an NPOV notice) to You have made an edit to a page related to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL? I'm not suggesting you're solely in charge of that wording, naturally, just interested in your thoughts. DFlhb (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for closure of RSN RfC of The Daily Dot

This is a courtesy note to notify you that the discussion Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RFC_(The_Daily_Dot) has been closed following your request at WP:RFCLOSE. I've updated RSP and the NPP source guide accordingly. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Nice close! And thanks for the notice. DFlhb (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Consensus can change

You cite that in the Trump talk page. But it's been less than 3 weeks since the last time the Abraham Accords was rejected. That's not what Consensus can change is about. In case you didn't know that, I'm pointing it out here. That discussion should not be repeated. Frankly, that editor is fresh off a long insistent repetitious thread on another topic. One might just as well say consensus can change overnight. On everything. We'd never get any work done around here. Happy editing. SPECIFICO talk 20:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I thought the last discussion was in July? It may be a little early to discuss again, but that doesn't seem egregious. If it was indeed 3 weeks ago then I agree. DFlhb (talk) 20:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. There are other articles for which it is clearly relevant, although the parts of it relating to Trump do not appear to describe it as a particularly significant accomplishment of him. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you're fine. The last discussion on this was in fact in July, not 3 weeks ago; I'm not sure where that number came from. And that last discussion wasn't even closed officially in any capacity, so opening up that discussion again because you think a change should be made is fine. It's how Wikipedia works - boldly make changes, get reverted, discuss. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Wrong month. SPECIFICO talk 21:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Link? PhotogenicScientist (talk) 14:04, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

DFIhb, I doubt you'll get a local consensus at Trump's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay So do I. Just withdrew my support for the Abrahms thing (not that I'm opposed to it, but there are higher priorities), and started a new discussion.

@SPECIFICO @PhotogenicScientist DFlhb (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Jiang Zemin

On 1 December 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Jiang Zemin, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you DFlhb (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:17, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and g'day! DFlhb (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Apology

Hello, I apologize for my comment and want to clarify that I have not been tracking your edits. When reading your first response, I remembered you from our discussions at Talk:Andrew Tate, particularly that your comments were regularly on the longer side. While writing a response, I skimmed through your edit history to find an example. It goes without saying that this is quite a deplorable thing to do, and I realized this minutes after posting the comment. I appreciate the retraction. Sorry again and happy editing. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 20:07, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words, and I'm myself sincerely sorry for how long my numerous comments were at the Tate talk page; that was my very first Wikipedia content "dispute" (I don't like that word much), and I don't think I went about it the right way. Similarly with the Cernovich talk page, I should have anticipated likely counterarguments and made my initial survey of sources more comprehensive (hatted of course), which would have allowed me to keep replies concise. Happy editing likewise. DFlhb (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

"comparing WP:RS to election deniers"

how did I do that? soibangla (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

User:Soibangla: Likely a misunderstanding: it seems you thought that when I said reliable sources define it as limiting an account's reach, that I meant Weiss; but I did mean WP:RS (who would be more objective than a former head of product whose company is being criticized). We can discuss any specifics on that talk page, but I'm simply wondering if this revert was merely intended to support the quote's inclusion, or if you also think it doesn't belong in Reactions? DFlhb (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla ping didn't work; just trying again in case you don't have the "Discussion tools" notifications beta enabled. DFlhb (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't compare WP:RS to election deniers soibangla (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

@Soibangla You compared "a journalist" to them, which I misunderstood as referring to the reliable sources I mentioned, rather than to Weiss, who I didn't bring up. I see this issue as a simple misunderstanding (on my side too), nothing more. DFlhb (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Kudos for approaching a very challenging task

At least 1 article improved: An apple with a bite taken out of it. Kudos for approaching a very challenging task! Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm flattered DFlhb (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

R for Respect! My head was spinning just looking at the article! Flibbertigibbets (talk) 03:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate article

Thank you for pointing out that MEMRI is not widely considered to be a reliable source, this was not something that I had previously been aware of. I've since found a more reliable source. In future, I'll make sure to consult this list: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources Jono1011 (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Do also consider whether this constitutes due weight: I researched the comment, and it came from a 2018 video where he explicitly proclaimed he was an atheist, and criticized both Christians and Muslims as being either "an absolute hypocrite [by] ignoring your own book, or [a] fanatic psychopath"; a far more mainstream sentiment than what the edit suggested. I strongly doubt that any attempts to link this to his recent conversion (or to ISIS) would be either due or appropriate in his BLP; the article seemed more like sensationalism to me. DFlhb (talk) 10:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it's helpful to see that these comments were made in 2018. If this content were to be included (and I can see a case for why it should not be included) I think it should be made clear that the comments were made in 2018. I also think it would be good to include a fuller quote. I've recently added this topic for discussion on Tate's talk page. Jono1011 (talk) 11:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, do you mind providing a source re: the video appearing in 2018, and at a time when Tate proclaimed he was an atheist. I've been struggling to track one down. Jono1011 (talk) 11:26, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Yup, done (on that talk page). DFlhb (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You have received the Teamwork Barnstar!

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		For your continued work on Andrew Tate, an article whose subject is highly controversial, and which is currently highly trafficked. Askarion ✉ 22:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thanks! DFlhb (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

HB

Howdy. It might help the RFC closer, if ya put your chosen option, at the top of your 'survey' entry. GoodDay (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Done. I made my views on all options explicit. The RFC is enough of a mess that it's now better to be comprehensive than concise. DFlhb (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

In that regard, there are still many participants in the discussion who have expressed views but have not recorded them as !votes in the Survey section. Whoever closes this is going to have a difficult task, but it's not our practice to weigh unrecorded !votes as if they expressed a defined preference for one of the alternatives. GoodDay, since you have taken the initiative to ping some of the participants, you would do WP as service by pinging the balance of participants over the past discussion, regardless of page section header. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: You'll have to point out these other editors to me. Before I can ping them. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:List of iPhone models

Template:List of iPhone models has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for this. I think I still had the tab open from when I made that earlier edit; I wish Wikipedia would warn you about that. Endwise (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Happened to me a few times! DFlhb (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Your input at Talk:iMovie

Hello, There's currently an unresolved content discussion at Talk:iMovie and your comment would be greatly appreciated. Thank you and happy New Year! Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to boldly fix that article up; it's pretty fun, and most WikiProject Apple articles are so bad that I've had a fair bit of practice. Feel free to help! DFlhb (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For this edit summary. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 05:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yummy! DFlhb (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Location

Yes, because the county (surrounding, which is called Ilfov) is large. Pipera is basically part of Bucharest, and belongs to a town which is suburbs. Moreover Pipera-Floreasca is alongside the Calea Victoriei, Magheru Bld and the Calea Dorobantilor, very expensive. It's where the new business center is being developed, full of office buildings. It's not the same to live in West Bronx, NYC or in Lower Manhattan. Well, he's not downtown but still. In a new area. .karellian-24 (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Then why not put it back to how it was before? See MOS:GEOLINK. DFlhb (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Cool, I just changed the second one (in the last paragraph), and unlinked Voluntari; that way there's detail, and we follow GEOLINK. DFlhb (talk) 20:20, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey

Nice work on software articles CactiStaccingCrane 16:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

😁 Thank you friend! DFlhb (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

We got this!

Let's help improve technology together. Do you have any sources (not books) that I can look through to help add information to the impact section? Thanks! MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 17:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sure! I'll post a list later; just need to go through my bookmarks. DFlhb (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Sounds good. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 17:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I also posted a lot of sources for education impact in the talk page, let me know if you think any of them are unreliable. MasterMatt12^{💬 ● Contributions} 17:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll try to help in anyway I can. I've just revised the lead to remove unnecessary clutter. CactiStaccingCrane 13:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Dear DFlhb,

I am currently topic-banned from “gender-related disputes” in culture wars, not sex-based/sexual violence. Thank you for reverting it though as I can see that you may have easily thought this.

Many thanks and no worries,

Scientelensia Scientelensia (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Scientelensia,

I remember seeing, on the article's talk page, sanctions notices for both the BLP and the "gender-related disputes" areas. But I can't find the latter anymore; either it got deleted, or I'm misremembering. Might be worth asking an admin, honestly? (For your sake, that is; so that you get it in writing that it's fine). Best, DFlhb (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Good plan. Scientelensia (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi DFlhb,

I noticed your edit on Rogue. Please note that redirects are WP:NOTBROKEN, there's no need to change it. I won't revert your edit, since we don't need another revision without any actual changes, but in the future, you know you can just leave them as they are. Kind regards, and happy editing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I'm aware of NOTBROKEN; the reason behind skipping these redirects is that when I check the {{annual readership}} for Mac (computer), it's roughly 20% lower than Macintosh; the drop occured abruptly after the article move. When I type "Mac" in the search box, Mac (computer) used to not even show up; now it's the 10th suggested result. I'm hoping that directly linking to the article will bump it up in the list. I don't believe this is an {{R with possibilities}}, so it seems fine to replace. Do let me know whether you agree or disagree with this reasoning. Best, DFlhb (talk) 13:14, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not that I disagree, but why would you like to see its position be bumped up? Or are you saying that "Mac" is a better shorthand for the line of computers instead of Macintosh? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm saying that when people typed "Mac", the correct page now ranks much lower than it used to, before the Oct '22 move. The search algorithm doesn't take into account redirects, and since everything linked to Macintosh, after the move, Mac (computer) incorrectly had no weight in the search rankings. DFlhb (talk) 15:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Ah, now I see your point. Makes sense! soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 16:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: History of the Macintosh

Hello DFlhb, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of History of the Macintosh, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Substantial content added by other users; G7 does not apply. I also don't understand the expanded rationale. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Your second edit was what I should have done. I also didn't know that an article entirely copied from another page, with no substantial edits by others afterwards, was ineligible for G7. Thanks DFlhb (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Speedy nomination

Hi, just wanted to apologize for the random notification. I was just correcting an error in the title that was at Talk:IMac (Apple silicon)), realized I forgot to uncheck notify creator and came back here to revert the message but it was already reverted. Happy editing! ASUKITE 17:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured; no worries at all. Cheers, DFlhb (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Weather/Color RfC on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

proposal to revise text on writing code

Please see Wikipedia talk:Large language models#writing code for my comments regarding revising the text on LLMs writing code. isaacl (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I had missed that. I'll take a look. DFlhb (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Brainstorming

I just recently found a website (https://elicit.org) that allows you to search a lot of research papers that unlike Google Scholar can answer your queries directly. For example, if you type in "What is the impact of creatine on cognition?", it would spits out a very short summary from the paper's abstract. I think you might found the website useful. CactiStaccingCrane 16:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks very useful. I'll check it out, thanks! DFlhb (talk) 16:31, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Precious

vital articles

Thank you for improving the quality of vital articles such as Land and Coffee and Technology, for going for GA for Mac (computer), for adding images such as File:Apple Rhapsody screenshot.png, for "groundbreaking infoboxes" on a "clean & nice" user page , - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2811 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

That's incredibly kind! Thank you very much. And those articles are only the beginning! DFlhb (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Snowball clause on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Eyferth study on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tornadoes of 2023 on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

How are you doing today, Mr. Bot? Well, I hope! No need to answer, just don't turn me into a paperclip. DFlhb (talk) 04:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jeff Robbin

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Jeff Robbin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jeff Robbin

The article Jeff Robbin you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Jeff Robbin for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello DFlhb,

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Thanks for the helpful information and good editing, I wanted to say that I saw that you had compiled a list of complaints regarding PoliticalPoint, and AEagleLionThing pointed out that you may want to open up a new section for them. I do not know what is necessary but it definitely seems like they were throwing wild accusations at me and mass pinging other editors to join in on their side, which does not sound like something beneficial to the Wiki. If you think they undertook rule violating behaviors then I suggest you warn them or report them to ANI if you have already done so previously. Bill Williams 22:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks and likewise. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:PoliticalPoint; I hadn't planned on submitting anything, but since both you and Dronebogus have suggested sanctions may be appropriate, I'll just present my diffs and let the community decide. DFlhb (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for contributing to the indictment of Donald Trump article and sharing your opinion on the sources, DFIhb. Even though I would prefer the former prosecutor's opinion to be retained, this seems the best what can we get. Also, it is great to see someone who loves to read FT. You have a taste for newspapers ;) . Thanks again and best wishes. 95.12.127.137 (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Very kind, and best wishes to you too. I've long believed that the FT is the best newspaper in existence by a country mile. DFlhb (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Media player 2022

The part about Groove Music/Media Player (2022) in the Windows Media Player article hopes that you can help update Groove Music is not exclusive to Windows 10. Windows 11 was also built in and was replaced by Media Player (2022) after 2022. And 2023 At that time, Media Player (2022) has also replaced Groove Music in Windows 10. I hope you can help rewrite part of the description in the Windows Media Player article that mentions Groove Music/Media Player (2022). 2401:E180:8800:F5B5:3C22:C096:500E:CC5E (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Talk page headers

FYI: I just happened to see an old thread in which the issue of talk page header neutrality arose. Please see this guideline. Since you seem to be a constructive thoughtful editor, I thought you'd like to see that. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm grateful for the compliment; I think the same of you. At the time, I didn't think the header met WP:TALKHEADPOV's definition of "non-neutral", since it described a problem rather than criticizing specific parts of the article (and thus implicitly, the editors who wrote them). But looking at the guideline again, you were right on this. DFlhb (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Building consensus

I think from all the content that keeps getting added to the draft page on large language models, most of the involved editors are more interested in getting their preferred wording into the guidance page than starting with a minimal page and building consensus for additions over time. I understand why this happens, since it's a lot more work to argue with others about why their favourite language should be omitted than it is to make your own additions and live with the changes by others. I don't personally feel it's a good way to build consensus for a draft so that it has the best chance of being approved, but of course it's possible it will work anyway. isaacl (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I hold all the involved editors in high esteem. Their approach is a good one in theory, and works well when the draft is about common sense practices and everyone roughly agrees. But for LLMs, instead of common sense, we have a half dozen equally tempting but mutually exclusive options.

BTW, I reverted my recent reply to that talk page, since I was wrong. An RfC wouldn't be convoluted if we draft it well, and we do need an RfC on the big questions. We can't propose a 2,500 word policy for adoption, pray that it passes, and then hope it somehow has enough legitimacy to be enforceable. People will just wikilawyer and say: "there was a consensus to have a policy, but there wasn't a consensus that it should say X rather than Y!" Hence RfCs are indeed needed; I think people had the right idea there. DFlhb (talk) 02:36, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It's expected that people have different views. But unless everyone works towards compromising on a consolidated view, the draft expands to hold everyone's favourite ideas, and that's how it becomes repetitive as well as overlapping with other guidance pages. That's not the end of the world for any one page, though it adds up across all of Wikipedia's guidance pages and makes them harder to grasp and modify. I appreciate your reverting your comment. isaacl (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

May 2023

Hello, I'm ZH8000. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to iOS version history have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Seems to be a WP:POV issue. ZH8000 (talk) 13:28, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I won't revert you, but please don't template me with a "vandalism" template for implementing local (see this, this and this) and non-local (see this) consensus, based on policy. WP:POV is not relevant to this issue. Thanks — DFlhb (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Opinion on iOS version history changes

Hi! I wanted to get your opinion on the changes I made to iOS version history. I removed a *lot* of cruft like build numbers & device codes along with repetitive release dates, summarized quite a few minor updates, and significantly reduced the post-expand include size (you can see that by viewing the page's source and scrolling down until you see "NewPP", i reduced it by i think close to 400,000 bytes), and additionally added a decent amount of new sources. I understand I reinstated the tables, but like I mentioned in my edit summary of your revert of my revert, I was never against the tables, I was one of the people who opposed the removal of them, due to the precent of Android version history and the fact that I was a significant contributor to the tables for a while. Obviously, yes, the tables included a lot of unnecessary / meticulous information, like listing a billion bug fixes when bug fixes aren't as notable as brand new changes (like the Lock Screen overhaul in iOS 16), but I underwent a significant effort over yesterday and today to reduce that quite significantly, and I was wondering if I did a decent job with the changes. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 04:59, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

If I were you I'd now focus on finding third-party, non-Apple-specific outlets and citing everything. The sourcing is there, though it may be hard to find. In my experience, using a search engine's date range tool helps. I'd try both general searches ("iOS 2.0.1 released") and site searches ("site:wsj.com", "site:theverge.com", etc) — DFlhb (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello again

Hi, it's Knowledgegatherer23 again. After our conversation earlier this morning, I've been doing some research about notability and when to create a new article, but I still have one question. How can I tell if an article I'm trying to create has been deleted before (I assume it will tell me but just in case).

Thanks, Knowledgegatherer23 (talk) 22:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

It should show up when you go to the exact title of the deleted article (for example, if you click on Adobe Photoshop version history, you should see a red notice that tells you it was deleted before). You can also check the Deletion log (here), by typing an article's name in the "Target" field. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 06:25, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

thanks Knowledgegatherer23 (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Just curious

What do you think how a featured article 10 years from now would look like, assuming that Wikipedia's overall quality just kept going up? CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean changes to FA criteria, or visualizations & interactivity allowed by MediaWiki improvements? Or something else?

Criteria seem alright. The quality of a FA will always depend on the effort & skill of its creator. The criteria formalize expectations, but won't ever be a mechanistic step-by-step that can guarantee a genuinely great article.

MediaWiki improvements could be akin to the difference between traditional textbooks and Gray's interactive "The Elements" app for iPad. Would be great! I expect the biggest changes will be along those lines, but I might have a different answer if you clarify what you mean. Today people are saying LLMs will be to search engines as PCs are to mainframes; I'm sure 5 years from now people will say "LLMs will kill encyclopedias" instead. Maybe. But once they're good enough to kill them, they'll be good enough to write them.

Keep in mind I only started editing last September and still don't have experience with FAC, since I want to grow my skills incrementally without outclassing them, Cf. second paragraph. But I understand the process.

Would be interested in your thoughts too on the same question. DFlhb (talk) 23:21, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think that the FA criteria would need to focus more on readability, because one big advantage of LLMs is to explain complex topics in an easy to understand way. Wikipedia has become extremely unreadable in certain topic areas (such as maths) and if the situation does not change fast enough, Wikipedia possibly would be superseded by these LLMs. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

FA or not, Wikipedia math articles were never the best resource when YouTube YouTube has great free lectures by Gilbert Strang, Walter Lewin, Salman Khan etc. So I don't think this'll matters.

I'm optimistic about LLMs, so I expect that within 5-10 years the hallucination problem will be solved, and that LLM's will be hooked into archive.org, Google Books and academic databases, and will be able to write great articles from scratch, making us editors obsolete. That'll enable us to effortlessly have ten versions of an article, each tailored to a different audience ("Simple English", high schooler, grad student, etc), which I think will take care of your concern. Maybe it's naive to expect LLMs to solve everything, but I still think this is most likely.

And re: chatbots fully replacing Wikipedia: unlikely. There'll always be demand for long-form general overviews, and the "Wikipedia rabbit hole" that drawn so many readers is something chatbots can't replace.

Hope this addresses your question DFlhb (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Saying that Wikipedia wouldn't be fully replaced by LLMs is like saying Britannica wouldn't be fully replaced by Wikipedia. Technically you're correct about that but Wikipedia would be like how Britannica is today: semi-popular for niche applications, when the primary site does not satisfy their purpose. I see that with a bunch of political infighting, decision paralysis and WMF drama, I fear that Wikipedia soon would be subsided by LLMs. It's funny that right now, Wikipedia cites Britannica as a reliable source, and soon in the future, LLMs will cite Wikipedia as a reliable source... CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, they'll likely eat up most of our traffic. But I don't think there's much we can do about that, with changes to WP:FACR or anything else. Mass-audience text content is inherently inferior to free, one-on-one, engaging, personalized tutoring. DFlhb (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

A tale of 2 million versions

Rather than whack each other with sticks, I think we might be able to come to some sort of agreement on the issue. Where do you stand on it? As for myself, I am broadly in favor of retaining articles that detail version histories and technical data; within that wheelhouse it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me whether they're in prose or in tables or in summarized lists or cute flower pots. The reason I am being, perhaps a pain in the ass, at WT:NOT, is simply that I don't think formatting and style guidance needs to be in a core content policy like WP:NOT which de facto serves the purpose of WP:NUKEITFROMORBIT. Whether it was intended to serve that purpose or not, the main way I see it being invoked is as an argument-stopper that defies all rebuttal. I mean, the language that exists there right now is currently being invoked as a basis for all kinds of expansive interpretations, so it seems like broadening it would just lead to pain. I don't disagree with you that prose is an improvement in most cases, though. What do you think? jp×g 09:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG You're right about "expansive interpretations", but it ultimately doesn't matter. Many of these tables likely have copyvio, and the choice is between letting this escalate into AfDs and rev-dels, or proactively removing the tables so they're still in the rev history & can be used to find sources & expand in prose. That's what WP:VG did; they removed tables or WP:BLAR'd, but rarely AfD'd. If this escalates, we won't be afforded that.

Another reason to remove tables proactively is that they induce lethargy and stunt article growth. No one copyedits old release notes, turns them into prose, or even checks for decade-old copyvio. A "clean break" is what WP:VG needed. No one turned these[1][2][3][4][5][6] into prose until the tables were gone.

My argument from first principles against these table is that they're only "useful" when verbatim, but they can't be verbatim. For iOS, the tables were "useful" but there was consensus against them. Now Evelyn trimmed them so the point where they're IMO "useless", with no benefit over prose. That's not a compromise worth risking the collateral damage that an extended dispute would lead to.

That's why I drew the line at tables.

My proposal is imperfect, because I want to preserve operating system compatibility tables like this, and tables of major versions like this. A list of only major versions could still be "expansively interpreted" to be A list of every version, so my counterproposal needs refinement, and I'm open to suggestions. DFlhb (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@JPxG well, any other ideas? Given how much support there was for a "clarification", I don't want my proposal to be the only one. DFlhb (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks & apologies!

Hey! First—great call on this edit [7]. I apologize if I had edit conflicted you there. I saw that page listed at WP:ANI, in which the editor who created the article was said to have created a POV-problematic article. For some reason, I didn't even think to go into the edit history—my plan was to tone down the lead and leave a note for that editor on the talk page with an explanation of some of the issues. Stupid mistake on my part—next time I'll be sure to check the history!--Jerome Frank Disciple 12:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh! Hadn't seen your edit prior to mine. No apology needed at all; what you did would've been necessary if it weren't for that IP editor. I tried rewriting it too, but then saw this and decided to save some time and just revert to a seemingly-good version. Cheers, and thanks for helping out on that article. DFlhb (talk) 13:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Thanks for your comment on WP:RSN. I was getting a bit annoyed by everthing. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Patience is always a virtue. I'm also not familiar with that particular dispute. DFlhb (talk) 12:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Usability Barnstar
		Nice work on redesigning the project banner shells! There's still work to be done (particularly with grouping projects by importance level), but the new look is a big step forward. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you!

We could start by grouping inactive WikiProjects into one line. Came across a few talk pages with 2+ inactive projects during testing; their banners are generic and basically pointless. Tho I gotta admit that merging anything else still feels a bit too radical for me. DFlhb (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Template editor

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Will be cautious. DFlhb (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

No good deed goes unpunished

Thanks for updating {{WikiProject Military history}}. It looks like the change caused now-erroneous uses of the template to appear in this list. The fix is to remove "|CAT" and the line break, I believe. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how the line break or non-recognized parameter could cause this. Could it be caused by an error in the template?

I'm also seeing a few errors in article talk namespace using the same tool (on the last page; appears to be no more than a dozen or two). Pages like Talk:Office of Inspectors General, Talk:USCGC Greenbrier (WAGL-214), and Talk:Sean Huze which also use line-breaks and pass-in incorrect parameters. DFlhb (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

It is probably something in the template, but I don't see it. This sort of error tends to happen when a span tag is started on one line, or at one indentation level, and then ended on another line. The problem seems to go away if you simply remove the offending unsupported parameter value; putting the whole MILHIST template on a single line on each page seems like a clean fix to me. Meanwhile, Category:Pages using WikiProject Military history with unknown parameters currently has 4,397 pages in it (and increasing as pages are null-edited by the servers following the template update); if you don't care to run through all of those, there is a bot that might be able to help. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:21, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem happens when there is a line break in the unsupported parameter. It is caused by the hidden error message wrapped in a span tag. This edit appears to fix the problem, and I doubt that it has any negative side effects. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Terrific! Thanks for tracking it down. DFlhb (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiProjectBannerShell

When articles are grouped under {{WikiProjectBannerShell}}, setting class=FA on the banner shell causes all the included templates to pick it up via {{WPBannerMeta}} but that doesn't appear to be the case with WikiProject Military history even though it is now using {{WPBannerMeta}}. If someone comes along and removes all the class=FA cards, then it will appear to MilHist as an unassessed article, and the MilHistBot will likely assess it as B class. Can we honour the {{WikiProjectBannerShell}} class parameter? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Not without opting-in to standard classes; the opt-out prevents inheriting class from the shell, for now anyway, so this is 'expected behaviour'. The JSON idea is IMO the way to deal with that. DFlhb (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)