User talk:Nick Moyes/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10


NGC articles

Hi Nick,

thank you for your useful comments! I will update the "NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database" references for my NGC articles with more specific links, as you suggested.

All best,

Felix558 (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries, Felix. You clearly know your subject, so I was really hoping my feedback didn't come across as overly-critical or off-putting for a new editor.  I do hope you enjoy your time contributing here. Any problems, just ask us at the Teahouse. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

(Axel Timmermann) article

Thanks for reviewing my new page and giving suggestions as how to make it better. I really appreciate your feedback. Have a great day, mate! ₪RicknAsia₪ 04:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Possibility of providing your input on a Peer Review for Regine Velasquez's entry

Hi Nick,

I'm writing to ask whether you would consider having a look at the article. I'm aware that you've been involved with a few PRs before. I've given it a major rewrite and complete overhaul. I began working on the article late October when it looked like this and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for potentially FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. I would very much appreciate a fresh set of eyes and happily address any concerns you may have.

Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 13:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying, Pseud 14. I've added a few hasty suggestions to Wikipedia:Peer review/Regine Velasquez/archive1. I apologise they're a bit curt-sounding. You've not done a bad job, but I hope my feedback might steer you into ways to strip down a lot of the unnecessary content, as I think it's really much too long-winded as it stands. I din't find any gross errors apart from the vast amount of over-linking you've included. Hope this helps you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Required vs desired

Hi, Nick Moyes. Thank you for your edits to the new article Women in Red. I was wondering about this edit where you state that changing edits from red to blue is "required". Can you please rationalize that? Required seems like an overstatement. Thank you again. Ping me back. Having fun! Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 06:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for raising that - I think you're right. In trying to remove the ambiguous use of the word 'desired' (which could wrongly have suggested a lustful approach to notable women), I'd not intended to mean that pages on notable women were essential (i.e. required). I've shortened the lead to: Women in Red is a WikiProject within that site, focusing effort to create articles about notable women that do not currently exist there. I hope this sounds a lot better than either of the previous versions. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Creeping Willow has been accepted

Creeping Willow, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

NikolaiHo☎️ 03:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)


Teahouse Bug

Nick, In response to your inquiryJava Bug, the system I am using is:

  • Linux Mint 18 Sarah
  • firefox 55.0.2+linuxmint1+sonya amd64

Regards,

Paul Flint — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flintiii (talk • contribs) 13:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Nick Moyes, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
  • Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

  • If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

  • A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
  • Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I do find myself wondering

just what "helping to ring chicks" refers to? Wikipedians do have inquiring minds. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Carptrash.  Good question! The Wikipedia answer is bird ringing, but if it'll allow me to post it, here's a little video I made showing a bit of what we get up to in our peregrine falcon conservation project: https://youtu(DOT)be/HjcHdUnVQ9I.
I'm glad we could help you at the Teahouse today - I had to make a quick guess at the best headings for you. That, I think, was the key issue - far too much text before the first heading, because the contents box is automatically created and positioned after the lead, and oriot to the first heading. Regards, 22:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Nick Moyes (talk)
" because the contents box is automatically created and positioned after the lead" I shall try to remember this, it could be useful. Also, if you will pardon me and no disrespect intended, my imaginary version of "chick ringing" was more interesting. Carptrash (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear, Einar, I shall never be able to think of that phrase in the same way again! ("LOL", as they say these days, or "HI" as we used to say in my ham radio days). Your question prompted me to consider adding a few more wikilinks to my user page. I've just meandered my way across yours, which I found both enlightening and challenging! Regards Nick Moyes (talk)
"Enlightening and challenging" are both nice compliments, thank you. When I started at wikipedia an editor told me that there was no place for humor here. I have made it a primary goal of mine to prove him (had to be a "him") wrong. Carptrash (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Reviewing an article's eligibilty using the automatic translator

Hi Nick,

I think that what you've suggested to do in relation to the page about me is a good idea; before I open up a discussion on Wikipedia's Articles for Deletion page, I'll leave it to your discretion to review the sources on my article; however, I read the notability guidelines, and I believe that I do actually qualify for Wikipedia notability, based on what I read there (I certainly hope, at least). In any case, please let me know what the outcome is, if only for peace of mind, since as the date of this message, the article has been up for almost a week and may be vulnerable to deletion.

Thanks for your help and advice,

Dr8ator (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not going to rush on any WP:AFD submission, as my impression is that you've acted very responsibly here. Recently I put forward an article there which I suspected would be retained, but sometimes testing the waters and seeking consensus is itself a worthwhile exercise. Please do not feel under any obligation whatsoever, but should you wish to spell out the criteria under which you feel you meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for musicians you may do so. I genuinely try to be a neutral observer here - I'm very happy to defend an article's retention, but am just as OK in proposing it for deletion if I think it fails. It's nothing personal - just an attempt to apply our guidelines equitably. Kind regards (and seasonal greetings) from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you so much in helping the community in changing {{int:savearticle}} to {{int:publishchanges}} all over the help and Wikipedia namespaces. Moxy (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick, for your comments on my wiki draft "Patients' and public involvement" (which title I plan to change to keep up)

I appreciate all you've done and shall hope to address the whole thing again within a month.

It's my first wiki entry, so please forgive signs of naivety; the same applies in this response. The subject is very important and I would be devastated if the entry were deleted without warning as you imply sometimes happens!

Season's greetings, Nick, and many thanks again - Eric Eric Deeson (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome, Eric. It took me a whole year before I felt I knew enough to create my first article - and that's a really hard task to achieve straight off. I'd urge you to find the evidence that supports our concept of Notability by means of references that show PPI is a signficant NHS/healthcare inititiative, and just stick to reporting in a neutral manner, based purely on this sources, no matter what you know personally. I'm just working on stripping out a bit more for you, and removing some the emboldening which we don't use in article (even though I quite like keywords being highlighted), and hope you can add to it before someone does think it's worth putting up for a deletion discussion. (That can be quite upsetting when you know something is important)
In future, might I recommend that you either work up any new article in your own personal sandbox (there's a link at top of page), or create it as a draft, in readiness for submitting to Articles for Creation. I'm working on another UK governemnt initiative right now (see Draft:National_Pollinator_Strategy) It's a total mess at the moment; I started with putting in the references and am now slowly assembling the contents based on those. It'll only get deleted if a) it sits in draft form, untouched by me for 6 months or more, or b) if I paste in coyright violoation material that someone spots and takes a dislkie to. (I actually do paste in little bits of copyvio stuff from articles, but then immediately redo them in my own, neutral words immediately afterwards!) I hope this helps, and that you enjoy your journey here, contributing to the worlds greatest free encyclopaedia.
Let me know if you have problems renaming the article, and I'll try to assist. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Nick, for your friendly, understanding and helpful encouragement. I especially like the idea of drafting a new article away from wiki itself, using the sandbox or (I assume you mean) Word. Surely the latter, and presumably the former, means people like you can't contribute to the growth of the thing? So I hope you'll allow me to continue to work where I currently am.

One point, if I may: I used the term "health / care" to cover "medical care, public health, and social care" (as noted in the second line). You have changed it to "healthcare" which covers only medical care. So I shall revert if that's OK.

Last, you imply that changing the title is not straight forward (understandably). I'd like you, therefore, to change it to "Public involvement (PI) in health / care research", please. The new terminology is sanctioned by use by NIHR and INVOLVE, the two main responsible bodies in the UK.

Apologies for the non-encyclopedic style: PI is my third full-time career (as a post-retirement volunteer) and it and its many problems excite me hugely! I'll try to hide my passion and bubbles in future!

Thanks again for what you've done and are doing, Nick, and best wishes for great 2018. Eric Deeson (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi again Eric. Nice to hear from you. Please don't feel I was telling you how to work in future. And it was fine to revert my use of 'healthcare'.  You are right -working in Word would be very off-wiki. Working in a sandbox is often the best way to draft something at your leisure. Even a sandbox is publicly viewable. No other editor would normally work on it, though you can invite others to contribute if you wished. Regarding the title change, may I suggest you put the proposal on the article's talk page? Give it a week or so for input or consensus from others to be sought. (I'd suggest you use 'and' instead of '/'). Then give me another shout and I'll move it for you if you wish. On a different note, you might be interested in this article: Mental health inequality which also needs wikifying and turning away from being like an essay. Have a great 2018. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:11, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Patrols

Hi, respected Nick Moyes, I asked you few days ago something regarding patrols in Teahouse. You talked something about bots. I didn't understand it then. Can you please again make me understand about that thing. My doubt is that my statistic page shows that I have Zero patrols, but I have edited many random articles and corrected many typos, as I am a Random page patroller and typo patroller. You can reply on my talk page. Souravdas1998 (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Nick Moyes (talk)

Hello

Can you help me learn about Wikipedia and also help me with my family articles I don’t want to violthe coi but many people here have not been kind unfortunately every word matters in these kind of articles I have an art history background thanks for your patience Flamingoflorida (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Flamingoflorida. I'm always happy to help any editor if I can, providing they're willing to listen and learn. That's why I now help out at the Teahouse. Problem is, my friend, I don't see that you are willing to do that. In your case I urge you to CEASE ALL EDITING of articles. Your task, should you choose to accept it, is to go back and read and act on all the advice I and others have given you. Read the guidelines; read the policies - that's not an impossible mission. Your account will self-destruct if you do not (though not necessarily in 10 seconds!) You now know that I personally think you should be topic-banned or blocked from editing completely as you are a major and very irritating disruption to the voluntary efforts of numerous editors here, who you have annoyed immensely by your actions and failure to listen to guidance or to the wishes of the community here. Step back from all editing and learn how to behave here. See WP:HELP as a good starting point.
Of course, if you have a particular question on how to undertake a specific technical task, I or my fellow editors at the Teahouse will be happy to point you to the right guidelines or instructions for you to follow and act on. However, I'm not prepared to be at your beck and call to hone up a load of articles to meet your personal interests. So don't even think about leaving me loads of waffle about what minor changes you want making to another Reconati-related article so as to polish up your wealthy family's image here on Wikipedia. It pains me to sound so unhelpful and blunt to any editor, but you've disgraced yourself enough in that respect for me not to want to assist you in anything other than technical editing matters. I trust this is clear. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

What does the wealth of the family have to do with anything we did not ask for any public articles and have never promoted here we only want if there must be an article that it is clear neutral and that is completely accurate disgrace is a very strong word. I find that people ideas about wealth bias everything so many things stay that would be removed in any other article.Flamingoflorida (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaargh! What did I just ask! No, don't answer that. Just don't! Nick Moyes (talk)

Teahouse

Thank you for your creative message of Christmas cheer! Blessings of the season on you and yours; and a heartfelt thanks for all you do at Teahouse. John from Idegon (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you John. I'm very new to helping out there, but am finding it a really great way to assist new editors and to learn from even more experienced editors how best to work with Wikipedia. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

For your enjoyment

Hello NM. I too enjoyed User:Nick Moyes/The Night Before Wikimas. You might enjoy File:4th Wiseman.jpg that was created by the very same Carptrash whose talk page post lead me to your creative poem. It was part of my Xmas card a couple years ago. Thanks for the smile and enjoy the rest of your 20187. MarnetteD|Talk 02:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, MarnetteD. enjoy the rest of your 2018.? Ye gads, that's worrying. So little time left for editing!!! Glad you liked the poem. and thanks for your posts here. I might well use that image. Nick Moyes (talk) 02:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Gadzooks where is my proofreader. Oh that is right I gave them the rest of the year off :-) Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 03:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays
From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol

Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail.

So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 02:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
This is a couple days late but I thought you might enjoy it as well. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Atsme. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Caroline Todd (Green Wing), and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Atsme📞📧 15:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

New Year's resolution: Write more articles for Women in Red!

Welcome to Women in Red's January 2018 worldwide online editathons.



New: "Prisoners"

New: "Fashion designers"

New: "Geofocus: Great Britain and Ireland"


Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)


--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC) via MassMessaging

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Nick Moyes, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.


If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Cruz del Campo article

Hello, they are not identical articles one is about of a pilgrim route ending in that building and the other of a wayside cross i mean of a building in itself--ILoveCaracas (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Ok, my apologies if that's the case. Feel free to revert me then, but do please put a disambiguation notice at the top of both pages, and make sure the leads are very clear. Do you need help to do that? Nick Moyes (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

i dont how to disambigute. Thanks for that--ILoveCaracas (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, happy to help. It's rather late right now and I got a bit side-tracked tonight. So if I forget to come back and sort it out in the next few days (I early next year!), feel free to give me a shout here again. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! bro. i hope you spend a awesome 2018, you deserve it--ILoveCaracas (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Defiant Women's and Hardcore Championship

What is your deal with the Defiant Women's and Hardcore Championship can you take the deletion tag out and will put to redirect to the defint wrestling page back again???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCorageone1 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

There's no "deal" as you call it. I'm just new page reviewing, and had encountered three out of many other non-notable pages which I feel serve only to promote some entertainment company or other. There is far too much abuse of Wikipedia of this sort, whether for BLPs, companies or events, so I propose to let the AFD run its course. I haven't checked your page, but if you have a WP:COI or receive payment for putting this stuff together, I hope you've declared it. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Defiant titles

Can i put the titles as redirect page and remove this delete discussion??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCorageone1 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheCorageone1. Forgive me, I'm a little busy right now to reply to your question with an explanation, having just received quite unacceptable abuse from an editor, possibly linked to this matter. (User:86.154.214.255) So I'm busy ensuring that they (and of course any registered user account linked to it) are blocked from editing Wikipedia. So I think no, for now, until this matter is resolved. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

so when you finished can you do what i asked??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheCorageone1 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

It would save time if you were kind enough to answer a direct question for me: As a result of these three recent WP:AFD proposals, have you in any way been involved in sending or encouraging an offensive and abusive message to be sent to me? I don't take kindly to such actions and would rather deal with it quickly now, and with a lower-level warning, than have to ask an admin to investigate. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk)

Yes and you deserve it for talking crap. Don't worry. It's off my chest now and I'm gone. Admins are all ruleswankers with no common sense. Goodbye.

OK, I appreciate your honesty, but an apology from you for being so unbelievably aggressive and utterly offensive towards me might have been nice. Oh, and by the way, I'm not an admin - just a volunteer who thinks this place is worth keeping in a good state. Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise but this site is the problem because it is in downward spiral and likes of you waste your time. It is an atrocious site with unreliable content, some of it dangerous nonsense, and it is dominated by said ruleswankers who cannot see wood for trees. Rules, rules and more rules. Anyone who is in is in and anyone else including the readers just don't count. The site should be shut down.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.214.255 (talk) 00:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Says the person who creates articles which others have to put up for deletion because they're so worthless! Oh dear. Just for the record, and because of your comments above I'm formally linking your account (User:TheCorageone1) with (User:86.154.214.255), both of which have now received highest level warnings for your behaviour. You're lucky - others would not take your attitude so lightly. ANY further infringement of Wiki rules will see both accounts put forward for indefinite blocking, with new account creation barred.  Nick Moyes (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)  
Nick, for what it's worth, I had a CU do some digging and there is no conclusive link to match the user with the IP. So... I think someone is taking advantage of TheCorageone1's confusion. Primefac (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Well said!

Sometimes, a response at the Help Desk or elsewhere on Wikipedia really adds value to my knowledge, as did this edit of yours. The analogy you draw is very nice – I'll use it somewhere in the future. Thanks, Lourdes 05:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that feedback, Lourdes. Likewise, I'm also learning a lot whilst trying to help out, too. Happy New Year, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Follow Up on Building BloQs

Hi Nick Moyes, I made some changes to Building BloQs. I added some sources and info per your suggestion and wonder if you have any further recommendations? Thanks for your help!Spaceinflator (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I think it looks Ok. It's got some good sources, though you've not used tham as effectively as you might to create a neutral-sounding article. But I'd suggest leaving it for now. Sometimes  less is more. Regards, and Happy New Year Nick Moyes (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Hélio Gelli Pereira

Hi Nick, you kindly suggested improvements to a new article Hélio Gelli Pereira. I have added lots more inline citations, and was wondering if you could review it, and if you think the issues have been fixed, then remove the notice from the top of the article. Alternatively, I'd greatly welcome your advice for improvement.

Thank you! GilbertoSilvaFan (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you,  GilbertoSilvaFan - it was a joy to read about such an interesting scientist. I've removed the flag calling for inline citations, as you've addressed that nicely. Ive also added a few redlinks to other senior scientists likely to be notable. Could you sort out the first two wikilinks to Brazilian and British? These currently point to disambuguation pages. One final thing, could I urge you to consider submitting your new article to DidYouKnow?. I can envisage some great hooks fir Wikipedia's Main Page.
Something like: Did you know that ... the scientist who first isolated the common cold virus was described as having an "infectious good nature"?
Editors have seven days from the point of creation to submit a DYK. (It can take a bit of work to follow the guidelines if you've not done it before, but I think he deserves it!) Kind regards from the UK, and Happy New Year. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again for the lovely feedback and help! Thanks also for adding the redlinks. I have fixed the disambiguation links and also listed a DYK nomination. Kind regards also from the UK! Happy new year. GilbertoSilvaFan (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
You're very welcome! Have you done DYK before? If not it can be daunting to meet all the criteria at first go, but worth it. Regards Nick Moyes (talk)

David Hutchings Article

Thank you for your reply

I will be grateful of any guidance you can offer.

I will read the articles that you have suggested.

It appears that you have a full time job trying to explain what an encyclopaedia is.

I imagine that the my first step is to create an account.

J Hutchings86.149.196.103 (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, hello - your best approach is definitely to register for a user account. You do not have to use your real name. However you might later need to declare any potential 'conflict of interest' in any article you create. There are useful links on this page which might be helpful: Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Let me know when you've done that, and maybe you might find our interactive tour at The Wikipedia Adventure of some interest to get you started. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Hi Nick, and happy new year! I hope you and your family had a wonderful Christmas! To kick off the new year, I just wanted to say I'm sorry for the way I treated you. My responses were combative and insulting, and I just wanted to say I'm sorry and I will not do it again. I will let it go because it was past, and I will just continue editing on here. If it is not too late to do this, I just wanted to say thank you for showing me how to use the Handbook of Texas as a repeated citation. I never did so when you showed me how to use it, and I just felt like now is the time to leave a thank you note on your talk page. I haven't edited on here in a while, but in the meantime I will create my user page. When I am done, I will contact you so you can see it. Thank you for taking the time to read this message, and happy new year! Regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Happy New Year to you too! To be frank, you haven't come across as combative or insulting towards me in any way at all, though I did get the impression you did manage to upset another editor. I didn't spend any time delving in to that issue, so maybe stuff you did passed me by! I did also see you were reaching out to them - and that really is the way to go. I wish you all the best yourself, both in your editing and in your dealings with other editors. Sometimes the latter can be a lot harder than the former, and writing in plain text is never an easy thing to do. Thanks for your message, and kind regards from the UK. Oh, and I learned something new, too, as I didn't know anything about the Handbook of Texas template until I saw your question, and tried to work out how best to help. That's half the fun of editing here . . . learning new stuff and helping others! Nick Moyes (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you for writing me back! I am so relieved that I wasn't combative or insulting to you, and I really appreciate you saying I was reaching out to them, and you do learn something new everyday! I do want to help you and other editors, and I will continue to leave any questions I may have on your talk page. Cheers! Kind regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank you for providing the feedback that you did on my first article! I will begin working on editing the piece and implement your advice. Thanks again for the information and Happy New Year! Esmarin (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Grace Morley Page

Hello Nick,

I see you have removed the work that I have done on Grace McCann Moreley's page. I am an employee of SFMOMA, the institution she founded, and used only valid well researched sources to update a bio which, in our opinion, does not in its current state give her nearly the credit she deserves. She is a classic early feminist hero, often erased by the men around her and thus I am deeply bothered by the reverting of her page. If I did not follow instructions to edit properly please let me know, as it is crucial that her legacy be well explained and preserved.

-juststella

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grace_Morley&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juststella (talk • contribs) 18:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello Juststella - I know nothing of this page. Having checked its history, I only visited in March 2017 to correct one minor spelling error. So I think you've made a mistake in assuming I was involved in this article. However, as both a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red and having a 30 year professional WP:GLAM background myself, I support your desire to see this page enhanced. Unfortunately, you appear to have gone about doing this in a way not acceptable to Wikipedia, as it appears you added copyrighted content straight from the SFMOMA website. Even if you are an employee, or even if you wrote it, you cannot do that unless the content was legally released into the public domain under a Creative Commons licence, usually with a clear statement on its webpage. My advice to you is as follows:
  • Chat to Sriba Kwadjovie about use or release of SFMOMA intellectual property (that's their job!)
  • Chat to other SFMOMA colleagues about the right ways to contribute to Wikipedia (many of them already do: try Clara Hatcher, Communications Manager, or Stella Lochman, associate for public dialogue - they ought to know.)
  • Chat to and seek assistance from local GLAM-Wikipedians in the SF area: See this page and subpages
  • Consider rewriting all sources you use in your own words. see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing
  • Always cite the sources you have used.
  • Learn the ways of editing here (I see you have been given some useful links on your Talk Page to help you)
  • Consider joining the Women In Red project to help support the creation or improvement of articles on women.
  • Create your userpage and add a few lines about yourself and your interests there. We tend to trust those editors who declare their interests, involvement and any conflicts of interest.
  • Don't edit articles with which you're directly involved. See this page
  • Ask one of us for assistance at the Teahouse

I hope you find some of this helpful. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Account issue

Hello Nick,

Sorry to be disturbing you with this issue but I've seen that you claimed that I offended you but I didn't and I don't that IP and I've seen the edit history and the guy who did it, did it at 1 a.m. and at that time I was sleeping, and I only discovered this issue this evening, and also to prove that this was another person, as you may know, I only edited Defiant Wrestling and looking at this IP's contributions, here, he edited in 2009, so which also prooves that is not my IP and my IP is this one 192.71.244.20, and the one SPAs you saw on the AfD.

So listen, I am telling the truth I do not intend on to lie to you, that person that claimed to be me, is nothing but an imposter, so please note that this (192.71.244.20), is my IP, everything that comes from another IP, isn't me, now believe in what you want I am telling the truth, now do what you want with it.

I'm sorry for the inconvenience and for this whole situation because someone must be using my account, to do that, I don't why that guy did that, but what it's done, it's done. Again sorry for this whole situation.

TheCorageone1 (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you TheCorageone1. My apologies for taking a while to respond to you. I remain of the view that you have not acted in good faith in your editing of articles relating to Defiant Wrestling, and that you have clearly edited these from at least two accounts. I also believe that, because of the timing and nature of responses of unsigned edits and responses left by you and the anonymous IP address (86.154.214.255), it was quite reasonable for me to conclude you were in some way involved in the foul-mouthed and potentially deeply offensive remarks left on my talk page immediately after I WP:AFD-ed your three articles. I don't understand your comment about being in bed by 1am - we are both in the same time GMT zone and all comments were made well before then. I am also aware of your other comment you left to the admin who closed the Defiant Wrestling AFD. However, as at this time I have no conclusive proof that you directly made those responses to me, and that a possibility does exist that someone took advantage of the situation you created to abuse me, I am prepared to assume good faith and remove the final warnings from your page and from the related IP address. I shall however continue to monitor edits you make to these topics and other pages, and will have no hesitation in taking action if you behave in bad faith in the future. My advice to you would be to take a break from editing pages relating to Defiant Wrestling and to declare on your user page whether or not you have any conflict of interest or are connected with these promotions. If you do have one, you must cease from editing these page completely and, if you aren't, I would simply suggest you have become too obsessed with the topic and should move away and work on other areas.
I would also advise you in future to do all your editing only from your registered account, and to declare your IP address (192.71.244.20) as an alternative account only gfor minor or accidental editing. See WP:MULTIPLE. You can do this by deploying Template:User alternative account. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, but it wasn't me who made those really offensive comments, like I told you, I asked you why you nomiated it and all but I was never oing to the point of that guy of offending and mistreating for no reason, I'm not involved with that and at the time that Ip made that comment was at 1am, at 1am I was sleeping and I only got aware of that offensive messages, in the evening of the next day after I saw your comments on that on the Defiant talk page.

Also, I had to explain the admin my reason, on the closing admin's talk page because of that IP, listen I didn't offend you and I don't have any reasons to do so, that was another IP who pretended to be me. Also, I am not connected with Defiant, I am only a guy who likes Defiant but if you want me to move on Defiant, I move on. Also, how can I use that template in way to avoid this kind of issues? TheCorageone1 (talk) 14:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Goodness, TheCorageone1! I am trying to close this issue in your favour. 'So please don't compound the issue by lying to me or to Spartaz. I am quite happy to apologise to any editor - including yourself - if I have unfairly accused them of bad behaviour. There are unsigned edits from you on my talk page history at 23:08 and 23:16 showing you were awake and responding to me shortly after unsigned offensive comments were left at 23:02 from the IP address. You were clearly not asleep at the time, and you made a further 30 edits to Defiant Wrestling up until 01:11 the next morning, so I suggest you don't labour the point - my presumption of good faith in your favour only stretches so far. (You will see I have now deleted the warning I left on your talk page - don't dig any deeper).

Regarding using the template, I've looked at its applications and I don't quite thing it's the right way of being open about your editing. Until the end of last month you were using both your registered account and your IP address to create articles, and it looked like you were two separate people, and that's not a good thing to be doing. I suggest you simply add a line to your user page at User:TheCorageone1 to state: "I very occasionally make minor edits when not logged on as User:192.71.244.20" Then at User:192.71.244.20 you should create the user page with an edit that states: "I normally edit as User:TheCorageone1, but may make occasional edits from this account when not logged on". (I can do this for you if it helps.) After that, I'd suggest you restrict your editing to just your registered account. I hope this helps you and we can draw a line under this matter, and that you can find less contentious and less promotional work to do in the year ahead. I shall be watching. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, like told you belive what you want I had to say what I to say, but also if you except either being me or not, ok, also I don't want to talk about this, I'm trying to move on and you know what let's try to move one, we already do not have anything to say about this issueTheCorageone1 (talk) 13:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

GMO, etc. topics

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. 

In addition to the discretionary sanctions described above the Arbitration Committee has also imposed a restriction which states that you cannot make more than one revert on the same page in the same 24 hour period on all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, or agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to certain exemptions.

As the template says, this is just letting you know about the restrictions in these topics, not implying wrongdoing. I usually post this when people begin editing articles in the general topic so they don't get tripped up by the editing restrictions. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this, but it makes a lot of sense for this topic. Just trying to save an article from WP:AFD and now seem to have got carried away with improving it far more than I really need to! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:49, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Kingofaces43. Would you care to cast your eye over all the sources I have placed in the Talk page of New Breeding Techniquesand mark those you don't accept please? At first sight you do appear to have rather stormed in and struck a lot of content based on things like WP:CRYSTAL, despite government agency WP:RS being used to state clearly when things are likely to happen in a rapidly developing field of regulatory change. I think a little bit of positive feedback and guidance from you would have been welcome first, rather than just blanking large sections which I had, in good faith, adequately referenced, but where you could have simply identified where references needed to be stronger. I'm quite happy to walk away from this article and leave it to others. I accept, despite being a professional biologist, that this is not my area of expertise. But I'll be frank, placing a discretionary notice on an article and then clearing out large sections within an hour of doing so is quite bad form on your part - it's hardly yet at the centre of any debate, and there's nothing phoney or WP:POV in any of the edits I've made. I might politely suggest that your actions in striking content in a quite heavy handed way without even having the courtesy so say you are going to do this is quite possibly liable to create the kind of annoyed, irritable editor that you, via the application of discretionary sanctions template, hope to avoid. In future, please help editors first by steering them on their Talk pages - though perhaps you had planned to do this afterwards - I hope so, as I'm always happy to listen, discuss and learn. Oh, and your !vote at WP:AFD on this subject would be appreciated, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there was just a lot to sort through at the article, largely in part due to the issues I outlined at the AfD not really of your own making. I'll clear a few things up though.
First, the article was not placed under discretionary sanctions by me. I was alerting you to them since you were new to the topic as I already stated (they were imposed on the topic a few years ago). I also did not blanket revert your edits, but instead took the time to go through each paragraph to have an edit summary for each of them. I also posted this note on the article talk page, and I've been working on a update there too. As for the other links, the main thing to do is propose content tied to a source because a source can be reliable for some things, and not for others (e.g., keeping the Argentina source).
As for POV, I didn't accuse you of anything of the such. I mentioned a few things where either the sources or text had POV issues, but that was a WP:WEIGHT issue with the content. As an example we don't give much weight to conspiracy theory ideas like Monsanto controlling the food chain through patents (a lot of misunderstandings from the public there too). Your description of that particular viewpoint just fell into WP:FRINGE territory to warrant mention. I didn't know what your particular viewpoints were on the issue, nor did they ever come up.
As for the AfD vote, the issue boils down to new breeding techniques being a hybrid of a neologism and just a qualifier for current-age techniques (which I've rehashed a few times already there). There's always going to be new "new" techniques coming out, which makes the article title unencyclopedic. Since it looks like you're more than just familiar with museum curation, a good example might be the field of preservation of specimens. Say a bunch of new techniques suddenly came out for keeping dermestid beetles out of animal skins, insect collections, etc. Someone writing a review article on museum curation might group those under a new techniques heading to denote a sudden shift in tactics even though they're not related by much else other than when they became popular. If there's another sudden change 50 years later, then the newer techniques might be grouped under a new techniques heading and the previous "new" techniques just listed amongst the other old ones. That's somewhat equivalent to what's going on in the language the literature is using for these breeding techniques.
The ambiguity and recentness of trying to classify these new breeding techniques makes it almost impossible write an enclycopedic article under the current article title. Maybe those scientists will clear things up in years to come, but right now, the nature of that real-world discussion is a bit too messy to easily treat under a single article. That's where a lot of your frustration is ultimately coming from through the edits I made. It's just a hard topic to write about in the many articles we already have related to the topic much less merge them into one article and make it coherent. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

For always being so nice and welcoming to new users at the Teahouse. Enjoy! –FlyingAce✈hello 15:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

My user page

Hi Nick! I told you I would contact you when I finished my user page. I am all done, now. Please come check out my user page then ping me back and tell me what you think! Kind regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States Colman2000 (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Colman2000. Looks like you've been busy! I won't say its a great userpage, because there are rather too many pointless Infoboxes there like 'owning a TV'. But, you're a young person, and I'm just an old grump with teenage kids! They love sticking stuff on their walls, and when I was at Uni doing my degree, I had all sorts of stuff cut out of magazines on display on my door facing into the corridor of our residence. Your page is a bit like that, and that's fine for now. Looking back, I guess it was a tad naff, though. As you mature as a Wikipedia editor, you'll no doubt want to trim those down a bit and help others see you are earnest in all you do here. (but please don't take that the wrong way - people change as they gain experience and how they wish to present themselves). It probably was helpful to give an indication of your youth (lucky you!). I guess most editors are likely to spot that and 'cut you some slack' if you foul up with any editing, as I think you folk say. But I do have a two questions: 1) can you really justify the infobox that states you're an expert in Geography? At your age that sounds rather unlikely - so maybe find you could consider one that suggests 'interest' rather than 'expertise', or perhaps join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography and use their membership infobox. 2) What do you mean by the phrase "I will feel free to do so" - you might want to think how that sentence actually comes across.
Finally, I should apologise to you - I did see your earlier post, but spotted you had received a reply to the same question (from the Teahouse, I think it was). I probably ought to nip back and delete the text you asked about as I think it was copyright. All the best from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Help with some edits

Hi Nick. Colman2000 here. I am still working on my user page, but I just wanted to come and ask for some help. When you have the time, will you please show me how to do these?

First off, in the article of Blackfoot, Texas, I am going to add the history section to the article. I read WP:Close paraphrasing, and it seems pretty confusing. I am absolutely going to paraphrase this section. I will not write it word for word, and I don't even plan on doing that, so please don't think I will, because I am not. Here is what it shows on its article in the Handbook of Texas:

(Note: text deleted - accidental copyright infringement; Question answered elsewhere by another editor)Nick Moyes (talk)

This is what I am going to add to the History section of the article, but I will not write it word for word. How do you think I should paraphrase this so that it doesn't look like I wrote it word for word?

Also, in the article of Mendoza, Texas, I was given a warning on my talk page that I did not fully source the Geography section of that article. I contacted the user who gave me the warning and they said that this was the edit that caused their warning, and that only part of this section I added was sourced. Will you please look over this edit and tell me what I did not source, and tell me how I should source it? Afterwards, I will kindly be glad to source that.

Thank you for taking the time to read this message. After reading these, please tell me how you think I should do these as best you can, and I will gladly do these. Thanks! Kind regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Colman2000: I think the problem is you were being far too accurate in your attempt to locate the town. The other editor was probably right to challenge this. 158.2 miles? That's one heck of an accurate figure. From which point to which point? Assuming that these locations were pertinent to the article, I would probably have said something shorter and more vague like The nearest major city is Austin, some 25 miles to the north, and San Antonio lies some 75 miles to the southwest.Then I'd add a reference that a user could check. Maybe a link to Google or Bing maps would be the best way Take a look at this page on the Mont Blanc massif that I built almost from scratch a couple of years ago. You'll see I not only included references to maps in the Geography section, I also added an External Links section with three separate mapping portals to demonstrate its location. Admittedly, it is a much vaster area, but you get the idea. I hope this helps you a bit. regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: I thank you for telling me that Google and Bing maps are good sources. I saw the article about the Mont Blanc massif and I saw the External links section of the article, but where in the Geography section should I look at as an example for how to link Google or Bing maps in that section of an article? Also, which external links on that article should I look at for the separate mapping portals to demonstrate where Mendoza, Texas is located? Please let me know ASAP, because I want to extend the article of Mendoza, Texas further more and make sure that everything I add is sourced. Thank you! From Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Your help in my edits

Hi Nick, thank you for writing me back! I think using Google or Bing Maps is the best way to cite the distances from Mendoza to both Austin and San Antonio. I looked at the article you made, and I will certainly reference it and add external links to it.

Regarding my user page, I find that the userbox saying I "owned a TV" is kind of pointless, so I just removed it from there. I wanted to add some off-Wiki interests, and it shows what I love to do when I am not on Wikipedia, such as shows I love to watch and want to participate on.

With the two questions you asked me, I can justify that I am an expert in Geography because I have loved Geography since I was a kid. I got introduced to it from Postcards from Buster, and I have fell in love with it ever since. My friends called me the "king of geography" when I was in elementary school. Ask me a question about any state in the United States or any country in the world, I can immediately tell you the name of the capital or the largest city in the state or country. I have a huge liking for it, and I call myself an expert on it. But if you want me to change it to something I'm interested in, I will do just that. Also, I may be busy with school, so why I wrote "I will feel free to do so," meant that I will try to answer it when I can. I may be busy with school, so then I will get to their question when I can. If I should remove it, I will do just that, because that doesn't really make sense.

I did get a reply from the Teahouse about what I wrote on the last post I added to your talk page, and I respect that you removed it, because I agree that I copied it without getting permission first. That was my fault, and I will not do it again.

Either way, thank you for writing, and I will do all that you wrote. Regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States Colman2000 (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there. It's your choice, what you leave in, not mine. I just wanted to make an observation. It's great you love Geography - you do what you feel comfortable with. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Notes and References.

Hi Nick. I just added the Google Maps reference on Mendoza, Texas, and it was a success! I used it as both a reference and a note, and it worked! Will you please check to make sure I did it right, and if it looks good? Thank you so much for your help, and I understood what you wrote at the Teahouse. I just needed to get more help, and I really appreciate it. Thank you so much, and cheers! Colman2000 (talk) 17:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Well done! You'll see I've just put the Notes a bit higher up as per MOS:ORDER. I've tweaked the wording of the note, and have removed the coordinates from the main text as they're already in the infobox and I don't think you need them twice. I haven't checked your distances - I trust you have! But at least David's concerns about being unsourced can now be confirmed by reference to the external link. Hope that's it now! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you so much! I agree that maybe I shouldn't use the coordinates in the Geography section since they are in the infobox and shouldn't be used twice. Finally the info I added to the article is not unsourced anymore, and I think the article looks perfect! I now see the external link as it is confirmed, and I will do this more often in articles I will expand and new articles I will add to Wikipedia from scratch. Thank you so much for your help, and I really appreciate it! A big cheers to you! Kind regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: Thank you for giving me a notice for the message I left on your talk page. I think you are a HUGE help and I think that I am becoming a better editor on here! You are a great helper and I thank you so much! I will let you know about any new articles I create, and I will continue to leave any questions I may have on your talk page. Thank you, and have a great day! I wish you the best of luck in new edits you make. Cheers again! Colman2000 (talk) 02:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Help me

Thank you but no thank you. All i asked was your advice but you just criticized me. May be i will get someone help me do it someday may be not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patpatrick (talk • contribs) 14:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. I gave you genuine advice, as you requested via the 'helpme' template. It was only after I had written that first paragraph of help that I felt I should see what editing you had been doing, and whether I could help further. That was when I realised you appeared to have been playing the system and had recreated an article that, twice before, had been deleted. Only when I looked at that article (Kifanga, did I realise it shouldn't have been recreated again. Hence my CSD. We have a saying here about not putting your head above the parapet if you don't want trouble - I fear you have done just that. Sorry I couldn't give you what you wanted - help, plus a free webpage. If you are connected with the website you have been trying to promote, you should admit this by following our policy on declaring a conflict of interest. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

So what do you suggest that i should do now.There are more references that i can include and each and every time i have tried to follow all the guidelines.The rules states that the editor should not just look for notability in the referenced sources only but also in other sources not included in the article. Tell me if you are not being inconsiderate and biased.And in addition i asked for your advice but nothing came through. So am asking again what am i doing wrong every single time i write an article or make an edit which is very factual by the way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patpatrick (talk • contribs) 14:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong: I am not being inconsiderate and biased.
I suggest you stop trying to make a promotional article about Kifanga. Find something else better to so, if I were to be blunt.
To answer your last question, go and learnt eh difference between VERIFIABILITY (i.e. being factual - which you are being, you've got that bit right), and NOTABILITY - whether what you are writing about in a factual way meets our bar of being significant enough to merit a page on Wikipedia. Understand that, and you'll understand what you're doing wrong. I can say it no simpler than that, my friend.
The problem you have is (as I've already told you in general terms) we only want articles about significant (i.e. notable) topics. You haven't demonstrated how Kifanga meets our general criteria or our notability criteria for websites, which you can read here: WP:WEBSITE. Do that, and the article stays! Simples.
Feel free to leave me a few urls which you think shows the website has been written about in depth by independent sources, and I'll tell you my view of them. Nobody doubts Kifanga exists. It's just that you've not shown any evidence it's notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia. That's your job, and I fear it's a futile one with those sources. You are free to dispute the speedy deletion, and give evidence to support your rationale. But, as its been deleted twice before, and your current sources are very poor, I don't fancy your chances much. Sorry. Nick Moyes (talk)

It is easy to hate and being biased but it is difficult to do what's right. This is how the whole scheme of things works. All good things are difficult to achieve; and bad things are very easy to get. Everyone has their own days. One day I will be an editor. You're so unfair. Thanks for your time anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patpatrick (talk • contribs) 16:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time

To read through my contribution to National Immunisation Program Schedule

Pratat (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:National Pollinator Strategy concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:National Pollinator Strategy, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Template names in hidden text

Re: this edit, is there a reason that you change the hidden text in sandbox templates? It seems to cause more trouble than it fixes, since editors copying over a change from the sandbox often forget to fix the hidden text and it ends up in the non-sandbox version. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, when I encountered this version that you were developing and had deployed on various users' pages, I was unable to determine where it had come from because the hidden text gave a misleading pathway. So I corrected it. That seems reasonable. How is it being used nowadays? If it's not being directly substituted, can the sandbox subpage now be deleted if it's not getting used? I'm unclear why you say that numerous editors are copying over a change from the sandbox to the main version, anyway. Providing it isnt being directly deployed on user pages, its ok to remove the hudden text, but then the sandbox content must not look like an active, deployable template, which it does at the moment.  'Nick Moyes (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the thoughts. Yeah, it was being deployed as a test while we were having the big VPR discussion on the new welcome template, but I don't think it's being deployed now. It's somewhat being used as a place to demonstrate edit requests, thus the issues with the hidden text being accidentally copied over when those requests are implemented. I'm also using it currently as somewhat of a record of what I believe the consensus version of the template should be, since the live version includes an edit that has not been discussed and that I don't think is an improvement. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sdkb: I didn't see any past evidence of the hiddent text being wrongly copied over, but accept it's a future risk. So, if you do plan on keeping the page, but not deploying it, the solution seems to be to make it abundantly clear on that page that it's only there for testing/reference, and also that you remove the documentation link and anything else that makes it look 'functional'. Does that make sense? Cheers, and stay safe. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of that! For future reference, I just discovered that {{Sandbox other}} exists, which allows for differentiation between a sandbox and non-sandbox version of a template, and might be useful for this. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

thanks for your advice regarding the need to use a Creative Commons license on the page/s I'm creating for Wikipedia's ‘List of South African women artists’. At present there IS a page on her on Wikipedia's ‘List of South African artists’. So that should answer any doubts as to her ‘notability’. But that page contains several distortions, and some incorrect ‘facts’. Rather than trying ‘to set the record straight’, I prefer to create a page on ‘List of South African women artists’. Mainly because I believe that more women than guys would have an interest in visiting such a page, (and visiting art galleries!); and buying prints or paintings. AND most of all, alerting female readers to the impending publication of her memoirs ‘A Brush with Life’, of which I have recently completed the editing and formatting. And to those who cite a potential ‘conflict of interest’ in my creating this fresh page, I can assure them that anyone reading my Introduction to these memoirs will soon realise that it is NO hagiography! Now, unlike you, I have no official document to prove that I was sole beneficiary of her Will (after making disbursements to her daughter). And I realise that it would be quite a hassle to prove, over a quarter century after her death, my entitlement. But it’s a risk I’m prepared to take… Dave Desmond DeSoto 383 (talk) 08:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by, DeSoto 383. The only advice I can really give is to keep everything open. So, make sure your Wikipedia userpage clarifies who you are, and the relationship to someone you are trying to edit an article about and, on Wikimedia Commons, explicitly state your image rights ownership as the son of the artist. You could point to that book as evidence of the relationship, I guess. May I counsel against trying to add any personal life information based on any book you have produced, but to cite only independent published sources that have written abut her. Built in to Wikipedia is a general dislike of seeing family members/employees etc write about the people they know. We, all of us, tend to filter out the less positive, and want to enhance the positive about people we know or love, and that makes us not the best people to write about them in a neutral, encyclopaedic manner. So, be clear in your relationship, and avoid any accusation using Wikipedia to promote a forthcoming book (though adding it in 'Further reading' is fine. I'm not sure I can offer
I have just found the article you refer to (Nerine Desmond)), though I note you have already edited as User:David Desmond up until last year. You may be aware that we do not permit more than one account to edit at once, so I presume you have forgotten your password and cannot access it (though I see there is an email associated with it, so you can request a password reminder). My suggestion - again, for openness - is to clearly state the connection between those two accounts, and permanently abandon one of them.
I hope some of this helps, and seeing your posts on the other account, it's worth me pointing out that Wikimedia Commons is run completely separately from Wikipedia, so questions asked on one platform about the other one are liable to go unanswered. All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Apology

I’ll accept it just this once!!!! Lol! Still so subtle and suttle! Lol. Galendalia (talk) 09:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Yet another Barnstar for your collection!

The Barnstar of Integrity
When I look through everything you have done, said, and said again (and again) (and again) and all the help you give to everyone, I felt you deserve this for just being you and a stand up guy! Thanks for all of your contributions over the years! Galendalia (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Galendalia: Hey - I don't know what to say. Thank you. I do make mistakes, too; but I hide them ever so well! TTFN, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: You deserve it man! TTFN (p.s. yes you do hide them well lol) Galendalia (talk) 10:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Personal info in User pages

Hi Nick, I see what did at a user page just now. I come across this frequently and it is most often clear a juvenile. Should revdel be the appropriate action? If so, I will start requesting it. Thanks in advance. S0091 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi, S0091. Yes, good question. It certainly is. In the edits you've just seen, there's not only a bit too much sharing of personal contact details, but also a little bit too much of social chit-chat, so I will keep a watch on that new editor and of those who interact with her. Revdel is effective to protect minors as it hides those details (and in this instance, their revealing edit summary) from view. That said, any other admin can access deleted content, so sometimes judgement is needed whether to go for oversight, too. Here's my approach (though formal advice is available at WP:REVDELREQUEST):
  • The quick, no nonsense approach, is to email an oversight request to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Oversight Great for serious breaches of privacy - but not necessarily the speediest. Provide a DIFF and your reasons for requesting oversight.
  • For a simple RevDel, avoid going directly to an admin like myself and saying publicly on their userpage (nor indeed at WP:AN)"Hey, you wanna go and revdel this chick's personal email and the hot selfie she's just posted!" That'll only draw attention to the issue! Be subtle. The admin may be in bed, asleep, anyway.
  • Prior to getting admin rights myself, I concluded that first finding a currently active admin was essential. (I'd look at WP:ANI/WP:AN/or WP:TH for recent edits by admins. (Easy if you have the 'admin highlighter' script enabled, so each admin signature is highlighted in turquoise. Get it if you haven't done so already!)
  • I'd drop a note on their talk page, simply asking "Revdel request: Are you able to make a revdel of personal information right now if I were to email you the details?" If I got a quick, positive reply back, I'd send a diff of the edit, explaining my concerns. If not, I'd ask a second admin. After that, I'd give up and directly email Oversight.
How does all that sound? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the guidance Nick. Yep, sounds good. S0091 (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
@S0091: Just to let you know, I requested full 'oversight' at 00:00 UTC and received the following reply a couple of hours later: "We appreciate you bringing this to our attention. A member of the Oversight team has suppressed the information in question. Thanks for the vigilance and please let us know of any other edits needing suppression that you see in the future." So it could be argued that going to an administrator first is not really necessary if one feels the published info needs fully oversighting anyway (meaning that not even an admin can now view the content). Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Please contact me

Hey can you “email me” please? I have a sensitive question for you. Thank you Nick. GalendaliaChat Me Up 05:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Galendalia: Feel free to email me. yourself. I may not necessarily reply by email, but I won't reveal anything you say. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
​ I don’t see that option for you. GalendaliaChat Me Up 06:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
You should see it half way down on the far left hand side of the page. Nick Moyes (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Thank you for your assistance,I hope you forgive my ambiguity. Good luck on mountains; may your eyelashes never freeze.

Willthewanderer (talk) 11:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for removing my email address and personal info! Actually, it was an e-mail that I was not using anymore, but thanks anyway! Happy editing, Dani Hart (Talk) 14:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Admin's Barnstar
For dealing with :Shadowblade08‎ with patience, forbearance, and as much gentleness as possible under the circumstances. --Deep fried okra User talk:Deepfriedokra 00:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, Deepfriedokra. That means a lot - my first unblock review, too. I hate seeing young kids implode like that when they have the potential to become great editors. Maybe they will, one day in the future. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Hi Nick I'm sorry in typing letters in all capital and I'll never do it again and I'm new so thank you now I know how to type — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANKHEEE DADDY (talk • contribs) 20:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

No worries, ANKHEEE DADDY, - so long as you listen and act on the advice of experienced editors, you'll be OK. If you're not sure - just ask. We all take things seriously here, and it can be a bit of a learning curve. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok Nick I will listen and follow the rules on Wikipedia ANKHEEE DADDY (talk) 20:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Nick how are you ANKHEEE DADDY (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, ANKHEEE DADDY. I'm fine - thanks for asking. How is your own Wikipedia Adventure going? When you've a moment, I wonder if I could ask you to think about reducing the amount of anime/manga-related content on your userpage, if that's OK, please? Or, at the very least, please don't add any more. A little bit is OK, but other editors might feel you are not really using your user page in the way we expect. i.e. related to Wikipedia editing, and building the encyclopaedia. Any problems, just drop a note at the Teahouse. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok Nick I will do it now and my adventure is awesome ANKHEEE DADDY (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Nick How are you doing I took out two anime/manga 

ANKHEEE DADDY (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok ANKHEEE DADDY (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Shadowblade08 other account

Suggest also block User:Askdjfh as that is a second account that Shadowblade created. David notMD (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@David notMD: thanks David. Yes, I put an indefinite block on that account at the same time. I see no reason for a 'test account' to be left open for a new user who has managed to cause such disruption and irritation amongst other editors in such a short space of time. Hopefully, when and if they return, they will show greater maturity and listen to what other editors are telling them is the way to behave. I was, however, concerned about their allegation of the f-word being used against them, but I saw no diffs to support this. Did you? Quite a bit of personal detail has now been oversighted, so I can't really investigate that any further I don't think. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
At no point did I see any responder to Shadowblade08 express hate, or anger, or use curse words, and no one was sending porn. Mostly it was answer questions and trying to provide guidance toward proper Wikipedia behavior. I do not believe this person's parents were using the account, as all postings were in line with what a 12 year old would do. David notMD (talk) 11:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
A bit of detective work: At F word, Shadowblade08 left a talk comment about finding the word "Fuck" to be an article, and had also come across images of nude people in various articles. So, nothing actually sent to Shadowblade08. David notMD (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks, David notMD, I suspected it was all imaginary. I'd found the edit you dug up. It all makes sense now. Hey ho; back to the coal face... Nick Moyes (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

holic

Okay, I stopped being addicted here, now I am a Wikiholic at the Simple English Wikipedia (1000 edits in 19 days!) Yikes! lol --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:54, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Thegooduser: Wow. Not sure if that's good or bad news. Our loss is their gain, I suppose. Brill! Just so long as it doesn't impact your real world achievements and grades, I'm OK. All the best (and don't breathe on any old folk), Nick Moyes (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Never edit Wikipedia while doing your law homework cause that got me a 2/12 --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 00:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Doh! You daft ******! You'll not do that again, I hope? (and don't say I didn't warn you!) Nick Moyes (talk) 06:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Well it's hard... Wikipedia is more interesting than school... --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
I can't not go on Wikipedia, damn it, I need to stop but can't. Oh well, it's my fault I found Wikipedia --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 18:05, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Thegooduser: LOL! Just don't let it get in the way of too much school work - that comes first, as we've discussed previously. Take care, Nick Moyes (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I am in law class right now as I am writing this... lol --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 18:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Sh#t, I am failing all my assignments --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 18:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nick_Moyes/Archive_4&oldid=1212148535"