This is an archive of past discussions with User:Butlerblog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
@Gonnym: Yeah... sometimes those get missed in the current version because I have not updated the unattended version to remove non-templated info (like the trailing "s"). I'm still working out some upgrades to better account for some of what's in the current maint cats. I think I can apply a quick fix exception for that type of entry though and either exclude if it has a trailing "s" or remove the "s". (It's almost always indicating a broad decade though, so removing the "s" is probably less attractive than ignoring it) ButlerBlog (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
Just leave the date if it fails the patterns I think. If it's later caught in other tracking, we can handle it more precisely. Gonnym (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Bad <br />-to-list conversion by bot
Converting <br /> tags in {{Infobox television episode}}|rtitle= to wikitext list format like the bot did here causes lint errors, because despite the documentation claiming that in this case The title is not styled, it is in fact enclosed in ''' tags, which get broken due to the list markup being multi-line. <br /> may not be considered kosher for this parameter, but I think we can safely assume people are still going to use it sometimes. I've switched the title to {{nowrap}} for now. Gamapamani (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
|rtitle= shouldn't be converted to a list. The module actually correctly handles bolding of titles in the format of episode1 <br> episode2Gonnym (talk) 07:38, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for just deleting my work. I changed the wasendorf so it's in the "hover" preview by being in the first sentence. done with wiki... Wikiisbiased65 (talk) 22:06, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
What you added was already stated in the lead section. Moving it would be fine, but saying the same thing twice in the lead section is redundant. Your work is not "deleted". You can find it in the edit history if you want to try to do it the right way. ButlerBlog (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Multiple film date templates
If your date bot can also convert multiple {{Film date}} usages into one, like I did here, it would be great. Full list of pages is here.
A few notes to take care:
If the second template uses |ref1= (and |ref2=, etc.) then those need to be the next numbering after the ones used in the first template.
If the second template uses |df=, remove it.
Seems there are some pages like Black Hawk Down (film) which have the location outside instead of in the 4th unnamed parameter. These should be moved inside when the merge happens.
It doesn't presently do that but I think it could be adjusted to clean up a good number of them. I'll give it a go. ButlerBlog (talk) 11:28, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
Started a limited run on this with just a basic fix (skipping the more complex patterns). I'll build on that to see if I can pick up some of the "care" notes you mentioned. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
@Gonnym: I have made it through a complete run with what I call "low hanging fruit" - the ones that the bot could easily pick up without major adjustments. Of what remains, much of it involves references that need to be accounted for, and there are some that, due to the nature of the search regex, are not actually improperly formatted. Those are where there are two separate infoboxes with {{film date}}, so they're actually separately listed. The search regex appears to pick those up. Altogether, there appears to be around 600 entries left. ButlerBlog (talk) 15:32, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
@NacreousPuma855:Yeowzza... this whole thing has gone off the rails. Yes, newsjunkie has a tendency to bludgeon discussion. However, you do not help yourself by doing the same. Her claim against you for personal attacks seem invalid, but you should make an effort to soften the tone. Make sure that you are WP:CIVIL regardless of whether the other party is or is not. Likewise, reverting because another party is edit warring against consensus is not a valid excuse to also edit war (3RR applies to all parties invovled - AND, any reverting can be considered edit warring - even 1RR). It seems your current block is limited in scope and is short - intended to stop further disruptive editing by any party while the dust settles. Hopefully, it's a teachable moment for you rather than a discouragement. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Incidentally, I did respond to the ANI thread, as well as an additional one that opened since the article you're having issues with is not the only problem. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Request for Removal
Hi Butlerblog, I just wanted you to remove the "Mark of the Beast" from the "Number of the Beast" article and maybe I can try to create a new one. you see the Mark of Beast is not 666 (The number of Beast), Wikipedia needs more reliable information. The Mark of the Beast is unknown and useen, the Mark is believed to be many things but it's still not 666. 666 is the name of the beast, the Mark is not the name. ⟨⟨Beastboy-X-Talk!⟩⟩06:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
@BeastBoy-X: Generally, discussions that are tightly related to content of an article (as this is) should take place on the article's talk page. But, I agree with your general premise and I'd support an article split. I doubt you'd get support for an outright deletion pending a new article, but a split might gain traction. However, the direction of a successful split would not be the way you've described it here. Your suggestion is very POV oriented. For example, some dispensationalists believe the mark is a visual and visible representation of the number. Whether that view is the "correct view" is not what encyclopedias determine. That would be POV. While our job is not necessarily to present "both sides" of an argument, it is to present information neutrally. So a successful split proposal would need to be focused just on "the mark is not necessarily the number - these are separate things". See WP:NPOV - especially this section: WP:BALANCE. ButlerBlog (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, you see l know the Book of Revelation, in fact it's my favourite book, I know it very well. The article forgot to mention the Pope, Pope Francis and Pope Benedict have a direct link to 666 because all Prophecies lead to Pope. You see:
Revelation 13:1 (KJV) And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. Blasphemy is calling your self God we see with the Pharisees:
John 10:33 (KJV) The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. I can tell you everything about the Prophecy and Pope but for short, on the pope's miter, it's written in Latin:
l know the Book of Revelation, in fact it's my favourite book, I know it very well. - That might actually be a reason for you to not work on the article. From what you've posted here, it would appear that you are interested in what we would classify as original research. We do not do original research here. What we write summarizes what is in secondary sources. You must have a reliable, citable source for what goes into the article - and in general, that must be a secondary source. We do not use primary sources to make interpretive claims. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't know if these still work but I'm sure they work. Read the book "EARTH'S FINAL WARNING" if you want to know, but I already know.
EARTH'S FINAL WARNING
September 11, 2001 (9/11)-Fortold as much as 100 years ago.
Free Book-World Crisis Foretold
Front page:In 1903, E.G. White, a humble Christian writer, wrote about what God had shown would happen in large cities near the close of earth's history:World Crisis Foretold free upon request. For the full story send for the 448 page book The Great Controversy, sending $5.00 for postage and handling.
You may request a beginning Bible and Health Course free. There is no obligation to you and no pressure tactics. Instead, you will find simple, understandable Bible truths which will help you come to a fuller understanding of truth and a more meaningful life.
-----------------
The Great Controversy: ed., 1636, vol.2, pp. 198-200; Arthur P.Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church (New York: Charles Scribner's sons, 1882), lecture 1, par. 1; C.F.Rey, Romance of the Portuguese in Abyssinia (London: F.H. and G. Witherley, 1929), pp. 59, 253-297.
