Zackmann08

User	Talk	Awards	Contacts	Notes	Templates/Tools	Bookmarks	My Sandbox

---

Statement regarding your 2018 block

Hello Zackmann08,

Please feel free to share this statement with any editor who mentions your block log. I blocked you for 12 seconds on December 6, 2018. This was completely a misclick error on my part and I had intended to block another editor. I apologized to you back then and I apologize to you again today. I feel bad that this still bothers you. If policy allowed me to remove all evidence of the block, I would, but that is not possible. You were entirely blameless and the error was entirely mine. Any editor who has any questions about this can ask me on my talk page. You are an excellent and highly productive editor and I appreciate your contributions. Warm regards. Cullen328 (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

@WikiOriginal-9, Primefac, Jonesey95, Hike395, Gonnym, Jessicapierce, GreenLipstickLesbian, Joy, JMF, Phuzion, and Johnuniq: Rather then spamming a bunch of people's talk pages, I figured I would post this here with a shoutout to the editors I have worked with the most the past few months. I wish each of you a very happy holiday season! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! I hope you are able to enjoy some time with friends and family, eat lots of good food and generally be happy and merry. Thanks for all the help with various projects and tasks this year. I look forward to working with each of you more in the new year! -- Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:47, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

What a kind message, Zack - I wish absolutely the same for you. :) Jessicapierce (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

And to you as well! Primefac (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

and to you and yours. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, and happy holidays to you as well, Zack! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 23:32, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, and happy holidays all! Johnuniq (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

I plead guilty and throw myself upon the mercy of the court. Happy holidays. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, likewise :D --Joy (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Module:TemplatePar

In your current unknown run fix, did you encounter usages of Module:TemplatePar? I wonder if those using it are actually using the extra features it has or are using it just like the Check for... modules. Gonnym (talk) 11:06, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Also I noticed that Template:Infobox station has both Check for unknown parameters and Module:Parameter validation any idea why? Gonnym (talk) 11:11, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Never come across TemplatePar before... I did notice the parameter validation in {{Infobox station}}. No clue why it is using both though... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:26, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Country topics

Hello. You're all over my watchlist adding this navbox with the edit summary "adding missing navbox per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL". I don't understand. How is it "per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL"? That hasn't got anything to do with requiring navboxes to be added to an article. You are aware of this ArbCom decision? DeCausa (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional. Are you confusing navboxes (bottom of article) with infoboxes (top of article)? – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Not sure I follow. Why would a navbox be added to an article because of BDIRECTIONAL is my question. All that BIDIRECTIONAL says is if a navbox is included in an article then a link to that article should be shown in the template. It's not a reason to add a navbox to an article as far as I can see unless I'm missing something. DeCausa (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

So I'm completely lost. You linked to an ArbCon decision about Infoboxes from 13 years ago. Not sure what that has to do with anything... I am working on merging sidebars and navboxes per TFDs. Part of that discussion involved making sure that the navbox is included on every article that it links to per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. If I have added it to an article that you feel it doesn't belong to, you are free to revert my edit... But complaining that I'm all over [your] watchlist isn't really a valid complaint... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:49, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

It's quite a simple question. i'm not sure why you would be confused. And I'm not complaining about you being all over my watchlist. I mentioned that because that's what draw my attention to you doing a a mass edit. What I'm trying to work out is why BIDRECTIONAL (per you edit summary) is a reason to add a navbox to an article. Is that what your edit summary saying? Just to spell it out: if an article doesn't have a navbpx it won't appear as a link in the country topics template as far as I know and BIDIRECTIONAL would be irrelevant. Or is that not right? Somehow the article can be named in the template but the navbox not be in the article. I didn't think that could be so but maybe I'm wrong. DeCausa (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

As you say, it is quite simple...

1. Why did you link to an ArbCon about an Infobox?
2. If an article is linked to from a navbox, it should almost always have that navbox in the page. There are rare instances where that doesn't apply. For example one of the navboxes I did yesterday for some country topics had a link to World War II in a heading because there were multiple country-specific links to WWII articles. I made the executive decision that it did not warrant inclusion in the WWII article (sorry I don't remember which of the 10+ templates I did yesterday that was...)

If there are any specific instances where I added a navbox to an article that you disagree with, you are, once again, free to revert that addition. You are also free to bring up the specific edit here for me to review my process. But thus far your messages really seem to just be complaining that your watchlist is full of changes. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh forget it. I'm not complaining. You haven't my question. No idea why. DeCausa (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

You haven't my question?? You mean I haven't answered your question?? I'm honestly not sure what the question was... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I've phrased it 3 different ways in this thread already. I'll just make it as paired down as I can. Are you saying that you are adding navboxes to articles where that article is already (i.e. before you added the navbox) linked to a country topics template? I didn't think that could be the scenario because I thought adding the navbox is the means by which the link is created. But am I wrong and the link has previously been created without adding the navbox? DeCausa (talk) 19:38, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I am adding the navbox in cases where the navbox in question links to the article in question, per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. So for example in this edit. Turkish Riviera is linked to from the {{Turkey topics}} navbox, therefore the navbox should be on that article. I swear I am trying to understand your issue... Perhaps you can show me a diff where you are seeing confusion? It may well be that I am wrong here I'm just not understanding your objection... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't know how else to express it. I'm just going to leave it. Thank you. (I thought I would get a yes/no answer to my questions in my last post). DeCausa (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm also seeing a bunch of these edits on my watchlist. What I think DeCausa is saying is that WP:BIDIRECTIONAL says that if an article has a navbox, it needs to be linked in that navbox. It does not say the reverse: that all articles in a navbox need to have the navbox. So, when you're adding these infoboxes you need a different reason than "per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL" because that page doesn't support your action. Does that make sense? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:28, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Exactly! I'm glad you intervened because I thought I was losing my mind! DeCausa (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

That actually does make sense... DeCausa I'm sorry I wasn't following your logic, I now get what you were trying to say. The ed17 that is much clearer.

To be clear, do you each disagree with the fact that these navboxes should be added to all these articles or is it just that my edit summary is not really a valid reason.

To be clear, either position is valid, just trying to understand if I should:

1. Stop adding them
2. Continue adding them but use a clearer edit summary

Would value both your inputs. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

My main point was that the edit summary didn't make sense. I'm generally neutral about whether they should be added - that's ultimately a matter of WP:CONSENSUS. The guideline says that "The use of navigation templates is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include navboxes ... is ultimately determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article" I linked to the Arbcom decision in my first post because that is the source of that principle (as illustrated from when it was introduced into the guideline here). As secondary point, I just wanted to make clear that there is no automatic necessity in introducing the navbox. As I say I have no particular view on each article but, because of that principle it doesn't seem appropriate for navboxes to be introduced through a mass edit exercise. But I'm not so bothered about that - as I say it was mainly the illogicality of the edit summary that I was querying. DeCausa (talk) 00:09, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. For context, one of the issues raised at the multiple TFDs for merging 'Culture of COUNTRY' templates with 'COUNTRY topics' templates is that there are many pages listed in the navboxes that do not have the navbox. It was specifically discussed at the TFDs that when merging the navboxes needed to be added to the relevant pages and WP:BIDIRECTIONAL was cited multiple times. That is why I am doing this and why I used that as the edit summary. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:13, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@DeCausa: moving forward I think what I am going to do is stick to adding the navbox only to those articles from which I remove the sidebar from. For example, this edit. That way no info is lost, but I'm not adding it to pages where that info wasn't previously. Hopefully that can be a good compromise. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:57, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I think that makes sense. Of course, the navbox could be added elsewhere as well. but that would be WP:BOLD and the edit summary should give a reason for it that's not BIDRECTIONAL. DeCausa (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Regex for removing unknown infobox parameters

What regex do you use to remove unknown parameters from infoboxes? I need to do this for this category (Páginas usando Info/Software com parâmetros desconhecidos) on ptwiki. TGPX (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

So this varies wildly depending on what I am removing... But as a good starting point you can try ^\s*\|\s*(FOO|BAR)\s*=.*$\n. Hope that helps! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 15:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that didn't work in my case. TGPX (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

It seems the issue isn't the regex, but rather that JWB doesn't execute it. Anyway, thanks for your patience. TGPX (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

did you include the mgi flags on your regex? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:53, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Ah, that would be it. No, I didn't include the mgi flags. Thanks! 😅 TGPX (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

My pleasure! hope it works for ya. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Napoleonic Wars

I might have not noticed this when you put it on my talk page but I had a look, found a few harv errors and resolved them. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you are referring to but you recent spat of disruptive editing and reverting legit warnings with no response doesn't entice me to want to help you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:19, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Sidebar games events templates

Way back in September 2017, you converted some templates such as {{AthleticsAt2011AllAfricaGames}} to use {{sidebar games events}}. While I was updating some image links, I came across a few other templates that could do with converting.

• {{1999AthleticsAAG}}  Done
• {{2003AthleticsAAG}}  Done
• {{2007AthleticsAAG}}  Done
• {{2013WorldArcheryChampionships}}  Done
• {{2015WorldArcheryChampionships}}  Done
• {{2017WorldArcheryChampionships}}  Done
• {{2021WorldArcheryChampionships}}  Done
• {{2023WorldArcheryChampionships}}  Done
• {{2022 European Archery Championships}}  Done
• {{2024 European Archery Championships}}  Done
• {{Archery at the 2021 Islamic Solidarity Games}}  Done
• {{2015FILLugeWorldChampionships}}  Done
• {{2016FILLugeWorldChampionships}}  Done
• {{2017FILLugeWorldChampionships}}  Done
• {{2019FILLugeWorldChampionships}}  Done
• {{2015FIBTWorldChampionships}}  Done
• {{2016IBSFWorldChampionships}}  Done
• {{2017IBSFWorldChampionships}}  Done
• {{2019IBSFWorldChampionships}}  Done
• {{ArtisticGymnasticsAt2013MediterraneanGames}}  Done
• {{2013EuropeanDivingChampionships}}  Done
• {{Futsal at the 2017 SEA Games}}  Done
• {{Billiards and snooker at the 2017 SEA Games}}  Done
• {{Indoor hockey at the 2017 SEA Games}}  Done

Just wondering if you would be willing to do these as well? No worries though, if you've got other editing you would prefer to do. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

How the heck are those still around!? That was a lifetime ago, before my 6 year wikibreak. I'll have to remember how I converted them, but shouldn't be a problem. Let me wrap up a few other projects and I'd be happy to take those on! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:35, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@WOSlinker: got about half of em done. Will tackle the rest later. Out of curiosity what is the purpose of this edit? Never seen that done before. Is that some MOS I'm not familiar with??? To be clear, no objection to it! Just curious what the purpose/goal is of removing the link to the image? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 00:29, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Because the image is just decorative and is also licensed as public domain (no need for attribution), there is no need to link back to the file page. So, it's just neater to remove that link. -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Gotcha. There should be a way to inject that in Module:Sidebar games events so that it is true for all images in the template. Let me look into that tomorrow? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 08:07, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

You would have to be careful as not all images used are always public domain. -- WOSlinker (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@WOSlinker: finally got to all these. Let me know if you find anymore! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:35, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

The regex

I can't figure out where exactly to put the \n? in regex on JWB (I've never actually done this before). I tried to put it on the Regex 101 flag thing but that just removes everything on the page instead of the just the template. Do you know where to put it so it works? HurricaneZeta alt (talk) 17:17, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

So the regex I use is \{\{(Not a forum)[^\}]*\}\}\n? with mgi flags. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:30, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Where do you place the regex? In the box that says "flag" or in the replace fields? HurricaneZeta^C 18:11, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

The regex goes in the "replace" field, the "with" field you leave blank (ensure no spaces are in it either!) and the mgi goes in the flag field. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:47, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

That worked, thanks!! HurricaneZeta alt (talk) 20:24, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:Culture of Wales

The TfD closed for the alternative plan not the proposed. With @Nederlandse Leeuw proposing Culture in Wales be converted to a navbox instead? Convert from sidebar into footer navbox Template:Culture of Wales. DankJae 01:05, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

@DankJae: that's my bad. That TFD got confusing AF and I just flat misunderstood the closure. Thank you for catching my mistake and reverting it! Nice job making it into a navbox by the way. Keep up the good work. - Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:11, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Filing SPI reports

Hi there, when you file a new SPI report, can you please use Twinkle or the form that's at WP:SPI? These tools will automate it so that you don't accidentally leave out important parts of the template. Regarding the kind of disruptive editing on Tylor Chase that you were reporting, you don't need to take that kind of thing to SPI. WP:AIV can handle basic disruption fine, and usually much faster. -- asilvering (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Asilvering so help me out... I actually did use WP:TWINKLE. So what went wrong/what did I do wrong? Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:43, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Huh. Good question. I wonder if it is some kind of bug that triggered because you entered the username as "User:Username" instead of just "Username"? -- asilvering (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

When I previewed it in the Twinkle modal, it showed up with an error when I didn't use the User: prefix... I'll confess it has been a LONG time since I filed an WP:SPI so I may not have done it right. Sorry for adding work to your plate... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:37, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

No need to apologize! And I wish I could answer your question about Twinkle. I find the form at WP:SPI to be really easy so I just use that. -- asilvering (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

I'll use that in the future! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:26, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Module:DartsRankings/data/WSDT Players

Hello Zackmann08. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Module:DartsRankings/data/WSDT Players, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A discussion was started at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_December_22#Module:DartsRankings/data/WSDT_Players yesterday; please add to that discussion. Thank you. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:49, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Phantomsteve while I get that, it is the literally definition of a WP:T5. What is the point of pushing through a full TFD for an unused submodule? - Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:05, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Revealing IPs of TA on an AIV report

Please don't post the underlying IP of a TA on an AIV report or anywhere else. You are trusted with the IP permission to view IPs to make judgements about vandals, but that does not permit you to reveal those IPs to anyone else. I have revdel'd your disclosure, please note that doing this again may result in your IP viewer permission being revoked. Thanks Mfield (Oi!) 05:47, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mfield: Thank you for taking the time to leave me a note here. I did not realize that was an issue. I have unfortunately done this before (and seen many other do it) and never been advised that was against policy. I appreciate your guidance on this mater and assure you it won't happen again. Help me so I do better next time, if I know the TA is a repeat offender on the same IP, as was the case here, is there certain verbiage I should use in my report to make it easier for you and the other admins or is simply saying repeat offender from the same IP self explanatory. Thank you again. Also, I think you need to remove the offending comment of mine and revdel an additional revision or two as it is currently still displayed on the page... Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:54, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes you should not be referring directly to the IP, as you say a reference to using the same IP is enough as patrolling admins can see the IPs. Mfield (Oi!) 05:55, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mfield: One final thing, just so I understand... This report of an IP is ok, because it is an IP range and not connecting an editor account directly with an IP? Or am I missing something. Again, just trying to better understand so I don't make this mistake ever again. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:58, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

No i am saying that the knowledge of any information is for your own use only in making an conclusion, and you should not reveal any of it to anyone else. So in a report it is OK to say - "See IP" or "Based on the underlying IP" or similar but never to disclose the actual IP you have been trusted to view. IP ranges are difficult. I would personally never disclose a /64 only one as that points directly to one user/household. Easier and better to just say "See/block the /40" as the admin knows the underlying IP that you can see also. Mfield (Oi!) 06:02, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Mfield: Got it. Thanks again for taking the time to educate me and for the revdel of the offending edits. Won't happen again! Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:03, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

To my understanding, that report is fine, since it does not connect the IP with any temporary accounts (directly or indirectly). jlwoodwa (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Jlwoodwa there was a (now revdeled) report of mine that was NOT fine as it did link a specific TA with a specific IP. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 07:04, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm specifically saying that Special:Diff/1329123110 was fine. jlwoodwa (talk) 08:09, 24 December 2025 (UTC)