User talk:Naypta/2020/May

Ben Vereen page

Hi Naypta,

I did in fact leave an edit summary for the changes I made to the Ben Vereen page (removal of duplicated information). I note that the edit has been cancelled.

Freya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.0.124 (talk) 15:29, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@92.4.0.124: Hi there - apologies for the confusion. There is a slight issue with the welcome template I left you in that it only talks about removing content without an explanation and not without a sufficient reason to do so - I'd actually brought this up very recently on the template page, and am waiting to see what community consensus is to do about it. To clarify, the reason I reverted your edit was that you'd removed information from the lead of the article that was relevant and helpful to an at-a-glance understanding of the article below. The lead of the article is designed to concisely and accurately summarise its contents, including "any prominent controversies". You can read more about what the contents of a Wikipedia lead should be here if you're interested.

Thanks very much for your editing, and I hope having this one reverted doesn't put you off - enthusiasm is definitely what we look for, and you did the right thing in trying to fix something! Keep being bold :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the clarification. Given the dates of the allegations and the indication below of Mr Vereen's apology, I assumed that the content had been placed in the lead position by a user as an attempt to smear.

ABS CBN

Hi Naptya!

I edited one section on ABS CBN Corporation's section and I saw that my edit was removed. I just want to ask if there's anything wrong with it or there was something missing in context of the paragraph/summary I did about the franchise of ABS CBN. Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIZ*ONEI (talk • contribs) 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@WIZ*ONEI: Hi there! No, there wasn't anything wrong with your contribution - thanks for adding it! I wasn't trying to remove it, I just merged it into the separate section for the 2020 broadcast rights removal on the page. If there was anything you think I missed, you can look at the old revision here, and feel free to add it back in to the new section :) All the best! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Naypta. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Symbiose (web desktop)

Hello Naypta. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Symbiose (web desktop), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 can only apply to individual websites or other web content, not software that is embedded in a web browser. Thank you. SoWhy 07:28, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Hi, thanks very much for your CSD work, it's really appreciated! Has there ever been any consensus specifically on what counts as "web content" versus "software embedded in a web browser" in which case? I've not seen consensus on that, and speaking from the perspective of a programmer, there's no difference whatsoever between an OS that operates in-browser, and, for instance, Twitter or Facebook's in-browser progressive web applications. Regardless, I'm happy to PROD the article rather than CSD if you think it'd be more appropriate. Thanks again! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it's a problem that came up often enough to discuss. However, a software does not stop being a software just because it's running online or based on web techology, does it? While not strictly correct, the "web content" part of A7 does link to Wikipedia:Notability (web) which mentions examples for "web content" being blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals, i.e. individually created content and does not include web-delivered content (like Netflix shows). This makes sense since this part of A7 was historically added to handle individual web sites and stuff like this (first added with this edit in 2006 based on this discussion) and this has not changed since then (as far as I am aware). So while somebody's Wordpress-based website can be covered by A7, Wordpress itself would not. I hope that makes sense. Regards SoWhy 09:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@SoWhy: I can see what you're saying for sure. Taking a look at WP:NWEB, though, we also see Any content accessed via the internet and engaged with primarily through a web browser is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline, which would seem to indicate the contrary. I suppose the difference for me is about the subject of the article; an article on WordPress, the platform, probably wouldn't be describable as "web content" for the purposes of A7 to my mind because it's conceivably possible to detach it from the web, whereas something like this software is fundamentally only accessible via the Internet. There's no context beyond its existence as a website. The point you make about Netflix shows is absolutely a valid one, without doubt; however, I'd argue that's not engaged with primarily through a web browser, as it is not necessary to its nature that it is accessed through a browser, whereas here, it is. Admittedly this might not make quite as much sense written down as it does in my head though! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Following that logic, would you consider Google Docs web content even though it's basically Microsoft Word but written in Javascript and only available online (if there were no App-versions of it)? Nowadays, more than back in 2006, more and more applications that were traditionally coded for desktops may be instead developed as web applications (Chrome OS is basically just that). But that fact alone should not lead to applications becoming available for A7 that would otherwise - if they had been coded to run on a classical OS - not be eligible. That said, I might be wrong of course. I'll start a discussion at WT:CSD to seek more input. Regards SoWhy 09:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

@SoWhy: You make an excellent point about Google Docs - and I tend to agree that that maybe ought not to be A7able. However, I think under our current definition per NWEB it is, so perhaps that needs changing. I was just about to suggest a discussion at WT:NWEB, but CSD will do perfectly well too - I'll hop over there once you've made the discussion. Thanks so much, I really appreciate your hard work Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Naypta, thank you for restoring the Script Installer to working order after the original version went unmaintained. You've made scripts easy to handle again, and I really appreciate it. — Newslinger talk 20:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Wow, that's very kind of you Newslinger - my first barnstar! Thank you very much, I greatly appreciate it! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 21:01, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It will be your first of many, I'm sure. I've also added a message box to the top of User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller to direct others to your fork, as it was previously unclear that the original version is not working. — Newslinger talk 21:03, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Socialist self-management (Yugoslavia)

Good morning,

It really should be a separate article and I am expanding the article with more sources. Thank you for the heads up.

All the best. – PidgeCopetti (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Thanks very much, Rich Smith! It was a pleasure to help you out; if you need anything else, please feel free to ask :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Query request

Hi, thanks for your work on the other SQL query. I was wondering if you knew how to create a list of templates with over x amount of transclusions that either aren't protected or only have semi-protection (preferably with separate queries). Anarchyte (talk • work) 16:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: you're very welcome! Doing that might be a slightly greater challenge, as I suspect that the query will end up having to scan a huge number of database rows, but I can certainly have a crack at it. I'll ping you with the results either way :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:25, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: - I bring good news! Lists are here for you, and the Quarry queries are linked too, so you can modify or re-run them as you like. The separate bits are transcludable (User:Naypta/Templates over 500 uses/Unprotected and User:Naypta/Templates over 500 uses/Semi-protected) so they can be pulled elsewhere or loaded separately if need be, and if it's a recurring thing I could set up a bot to update them if it'd be helpful. Hope it's all useful either way! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Wow what an excellent-looking pie! Almost as excellent as your help on the iirc chat about references. Thanks! WikiMacaroons (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, WikiMacaroons! Pleasure to chat with you earlier - if you need any more help, you know where to come :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

I hav added the founder's image is it okay Mariyaibrahim (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Or it is looking ugly please guide me

Mariyaibrahim (talk) 09:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

🌟 for your contribution at Karwan-I-Islami Mariyaibrahim (talk) 10:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Changing multiple links on Wikipedia

Thank you so much for your helpful response to my query about whether it is possible to change links to a new domain name in a simple procedure.

I will stop correcting the links manually and keep my fingers crossed that someone with more power and skills than I have can do it. Stephanie (Oxford) (talk) 10:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

thank you for reverting vandalism

Randall finsterwald (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A Walrus For You!!!

	walrus
	Thank you for reverting vandalism. I used this as a substitution for the goat Randall finsterwald (talk) 13:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Dear Naypta; Thank you so much for your amazingly prompt and effective assistance while you were manning the Help Desk today! Your technical assistance with hiding the {{user septuagenarian}} category was most helpful and is very much appreciated. Thank you also for all your other contributions to our encyclopaedia. With kind regards; Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(become old-fashioned!) 22:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pdebee: Thank you - it's a pleasure to help out! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for helping out! Cassiopeia(talk) 08:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Cassiopeia: No problem at all, happy to help - thank you very much for the barnstar! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Contentmodel change request

Hi there! Would you mind performing a Special:ChangeContentModel on User:Naypta/userpage.css from CSS to SanitizedCSS? I'd like to use it to style my userpage, but it (for good reason!) needs to be a sanitised CSS page first to do that. Cheers! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:38, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Beyond the power of admins. I can see the page to do it. I can push the buttons. And then everything goes horribly, horribly wrong - a whole screen of red messages. Try using {{edit interface-protected}} on its talk page. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 10:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Cabayi You mean to say you don't like a whole screen of red messages? Thanks for trying - I thought I'd request an admin to look at it rather than an interface editor because the page for me says "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Template editors". I'll get an inteditor to look at it in which case, cheers :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Messing with other folks JS & CSS was further restricted about 18 months ago. Sounds like one of the media-wiki messages needs updating to reflect that. Cabayi (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The message comes from MediaWiki:Badaccess-group1 or MediaWiki:Badaccess-group2. It looks like the choice of user groups fed to that message (from where?) is wrong. Any idea MSGJ? Cabayi (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

What did the screen of red messages say? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry MSGJ, I should have been clearer there. The screen of red messages I got when I tried changing the content model of Naypta's CSS is pretty much what I should have expected. The problem lies in the message Naypta got, either MediaWiki:Badaccess-group1 or MediaWiki:Badaccess-group2, which pointed to "Administrators, Template editors" as the people who would be able to help.

For changes to JS & CSS in userspace it should point to Interface Admins. Maybe it should do so for every type of page - I don't know as it's not something I've tried doing before.

The problem looks like an omission from when the IA group was established. I can see the message comes from one of those two MediaWiki templates, but not where they're called from. I thought you might have a better idea where the problem lies. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

(general reply to all comments):

1. There's two separate permissions required here. One is editcontentmodel, which is required to change the content model of any page, and is in fact granted only to template editors and administrators. The is editusercss, which is required to edit CSS pages in another user's userspace (you can't change the content model of a page you can't edit). This is granted only to interface administrators. The software said "you have to be a template editor or administrator" because it checked the first requirement, and then bailed before even asking you what page you were trying to change the content model of, and thus before it could check the second requirement.
2. Ignoring global interface editors and stewards (both of which are global groups, and thus never reflected in The action you have requested is limited to ... messages), the actual technical requirements to implement this request are "interface administrator (or Napyta) AND (administrator OR template editor)", which is of course far too complicated for the software to represent.

   On the English Wikipedia, all interface admins are administrators, so that boils down to "Naypta if he's a template editor or administrator, OR interface administrators", but the software can't know that's the case.

3. I don't think it's feasible to resolve this, either on-wiki or with a phab task, because of the complexity I just wrote about.
4. Finally, none of this was necessary, because you could have created a Sanitized-CSS-content-model page in your userspace without any interface admin intervention by first creating it the template namespace as a subpage of Template:TemplateStyles sandbox, and then moving it into your userspace

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Pppery. This makes for an interesting read (and I didn't think of using the TemplateStyles sandbox, d'oh!), but I'm not sure I agree with you that the complexity present there is sufficient to make the issue that's been uncovered here a WONTFIX. Indeed, I'd argue that rather than "complexity", this is an incredibly simple user role check. Hell, all it'd need to do would be to have a pretty error on Special:ChangeContentModel if you try to change a page you can't change because of a editusercss restriction - or, equally, on other wikis, if the page was protected and you weren't able to edit it for that reason. It'd take a change to MediaWiki, yes, but I'd think that change is worth implementing. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 07:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

If I were to try to change the content model of a CSS page in your userspace, I would get that error. The problem is that Special:ChangeContentModel complains that you aren't allowed to change content models because you aren't an administrator or template editor before even asking you which page you want to change the content model of, so it's not feasible for the software to guess what you are trying to do and show the right error message. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

@Pppery: Well yeah, I don't think anyone's asking for it to have some kind of premonition of what you want to ask it to do before you've asked it to do it But a more helpful error than a whole screen of red messages once you've put in the name of the page you're trying to change the content model of would be useful. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		I don't know if 'frequently help new users' is meant to mean 'frequently help me' but have this anyway JustLucas (talk) 19:16, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much

Thank you for changing the links for the Oxfordshire Blue Plaques Board. You have saved me a really tedious job. I thought that there ought to be a better way. Stephanie (Oxford) (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Priya Bhat-Patel

Dear Naypta, I was just reviewing this submission at Priya Bhat-Patel, I am caught in between few issues. It doesn't prove enough references, I tried googling, nothing there; also I felt it is like Too soon, but because of a claim in the lead, I tagged it with notability. Could you re-review it and add more to my experience. Thanks. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 08:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@AaqibAnjum: Hey, thanks for reaching out! I've taken a look through and I've been able to find some more sources, specifically citing her as being the first Indian American woman to be on the council, which I think is a credible claim of notability. She doesn't meet WP:NPOLITICIAN, clearly, because she's not yet been elected to the senate, but I do think she scrapes WP:GNG, as there are several independent reliable sources which discuss her at some length. I've updated the article to match that - I'd appreciate your thoughts on the changes! If you still think it's not sufficiently sourced, we can take it to AfD and see what consensus is there. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:56, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

You did a good job. AfD is not cleanup. Let's see if there are improvements made or not. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 11:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The Rolla Daily News

I'd like to see a wider discussion on whether to delete The Rolla Daily News, based on the proposed guidelines WP:NMEDIA (under "Newspapers, magazines and journals," #2 and #3) and particularly WP:NEWSNOTE, second bullet. It's my understanding that this is a newspaper of record and primary local news source for a community; I have no doubt that the local library/ies and historical society/ies would have significant coverage of this paper and its predecessor titles (e.g. in books, articles and manuscripts about local history). It's the nature of local news media that there are generally few, if any, reliable secondary sources available online that report on these institutions -- as it is newsmedia themselves that would normally fulfill this role for any other sort of commercial enterprise, and papers are often wary to promote themselves in news copy, and rarely eager to promote their competitors. Accordingly I'm removing the PROD template. It's been a while since I've done this, so if I'm not following the correct procedure, please let me know and apologies for any errors. _``` t b w i l l i e _{`</sub> $1.25 <sub>`} 23:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

100 words of thanks

Hello Wikipedia editing friendo, with this being my 100th edit on Wikipedia, and the amount of help, guidance, and tutelage you’ve shown me while many of them were made, I wanted to use it to add 100 words of thanks to your talk page. I’ve already given you a barnstar but you complained you hadn’t earned it enough, so I’m not giving you another one of those. You get this instead. I’m at 75 words now and honestly it might start to look like filler at this point. See you at a thousand. Signature not counted. JustLucas (they/them) (talk) 09:53, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Feedback Request Service bot

Hi, I just got a message on my talk page that I had been unsubscribed from the feedback request service because I hadn't made any edits to the English wikipedia in three years. Since this is incorrect and I've made edits as recently as today, I'm notifying you here.--Jahaza (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

See WT:Feedback request service#Notice. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@Jahaza: Hey, thanks for the note. Johnuniq helpfully links above to the note making this point on the FRS talk page, but I'll note it here too: a very small percentage of the people who receive that message will have been people who had a rename of their username, and still had the old username on the FRS list, and had the old username talk page redirecting to their new username. There's a small note of this in the message that went out, but it's not perhaps as prominent as it could have been, and I'm sorry for any confusion.

Check if your new username is subscribed to the FRS by looking at the list over here, and if it's not, please do subscribe to anything you're interested in! Normal service should resume in the coming days.

All the best, Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Charli D'Amelio

May I remove the talk page request and your reply to it? This is just more of the same social media hangers-on making bogus claims about being some social media celeb's boyfriend, best friend, or in this case, sister. Meters (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@Meters: Go ahead, I've no particular attachment to it! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

The new frsdone parameter

I think that this edit has confused Legobot, which isn't expecting the |frsdone=yes parameter. Specifically, it's realised that more than thirty days have elapsed since 01:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC), so it wants to delist the RfC. It has successfully removed it from WP:RFC/MEDIA but was unable to remove the {{rfc}} from Talk:Limp Bizkit because it cannot parse the parameters, and its continued presence results in edit summaries like this and this. It also keeps the page in Category:Wikipedia requests for comment. Removing the parameter makes Legobot happy again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Ugh, I was assuming that it would ignore other parameters... maybe it assumes rfcid will be the last param? Either way, thanks for letting me know - I'll change up Yapperbot so it uses a JSON file with the IDs rather than the frsdone param. I'll also run an AWB run through to get rid of the existing frsdone params on the few RfCs that Yapperbot's done so far in the trial. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

come to think of it, it's probably also a good idea to document this behaviour on {{rfc}}... Let's hope nobody ever has to add another parameter! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 08:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@Redrose64: All done. Thanks very much for letting me know, once again! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)