User talk:Nihlus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Brocicle (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for Rollback

Please see my query on your request here. Thank you, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

RuPaul's Drag Race

I have reverted you edits since you added HIGHS and LOWs without giving any RS secondary sources. The closing statement is very clear that without these sources, specific to each claim, that stating HIGH and LOW is OR. No such cites were given at your edits.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you're misconstruing Wikipedia policy on WP:VERIFY. You didn't cite one single claim of HIGH or LOW. Not one. Anyone can claim anything without verification — without a timestamp and a quote, we're just taking your subjective, POV word that someone somewhere in the episode said something someone might construe as saying someone's chances of continuing were high or low. That is not how VERIFY works. As the closer said, claims based on the episodes "very fact dependent on what exactly was said."
"Even as to relying on the show itself is a primary source, which we could rely upon. Of course we have to be very careful in such a case not to do WP:OR." Without providing cites, you absolutely are doing your own personal OR of people's chances.
After I reverted to status quo, you, per [{WP:BRD]] are supposed to discuss the issue on the article's talk page, where discussion is currently active. Instead you are edit-warring. I think it's time for an RfC to clarify unequivocally that you cannot make footnote-less claims based on your own subjective interpretations. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice to editors at RuPaul's Drag Race that an RfC on sourcing and citing has begun at Talk:RuPaul's Drag Race#Request for comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Paul Denyer

You reverted my edits regarding HIS GENDER. HE is LEGALLY only recognised as MALE and SHOULD NOT be referred to as FEMALE.

Until such time that HE has undergone treatment and be GRANTED PERMISSION BY PRISON AUTHORITIES to LEGALLY be identified as "PAULA" HIS information SHOULD REMAIN ACCURATE AND LEGALLY CORRECT TO REFLECT HIS LEGALLY, BIOLOGICALLY AND PHYSICALLY CORRECT GENDER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.53.45.140 (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


SINCE YOU HAVE REVERTED THIS TWICE, YOU SEEM TO A)NOT CARE ABOUT HIS LEGALLY RECOGNISED GENDER AND B)HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT FOR HIS VICTIMS.

DO I HAVE TO GET A COPY OF HIS PRISON RECORDS TO PROVE THAT HE IS STILL LEGALLY MALE AND NOT RECOGNISED AS FEMALE BY ANYONE OTHER THAN HIMSELF? 202.53.45.140 (talk) 11:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Nihlus Kryik. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback should never be used to edit war.
  • If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
  • Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 07:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Alex ShihTalk 07:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Walt Disney

I'm on editing now. Please wait, i don't do any disruptive things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BPL2007 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Please block me

I want you to please block me so I can't make any more edits here, it's clearly what's best for everyone here. Please don't ask any questions, just do it. -- Grouches101 (Send a note then scram!! P.S. Have a rotten day!!!!) 23:37, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

James Lauritaitis

It is well known that his mother is a powerlifter, which is commonly available in articles, on his father's Wikipedia page, and in his father's autobiography. Having a specific citation would just be clutter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:7CC4:FA00:8465:4E9B:8782:8278 (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

About M.A. Baby's page

Hello! I think you made a mistake. on biographies of living people any unsourced material needs to be removed immediately according to the rules. which is what I did for M.A. Baby's page. there was no source (Well, there was one but it was a link to a random website which wasn't talking about M.A. Baby) and it had a mountain of text. so I fixed it by removing the unsourced stuff, and than adding some stuff with a source. (also, it was impressive how quickly you reverted the edit haha)

Kingxander123 (talk) 04:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Kingxander123

Thanks for letting me know. I reverted my edit. nihlus kryik (talk) 04:37, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

House System at Caltech (Lloyd House)

Hi Nihlus,

I recently added a slogan to the Caltech House System page for Lloyd House as "Lloyd sucks". It was reverted for vandalism. The slogan of Lloyd House is actually "Lloyd sucks". I am a former member of Lloyd House and know this to be true. You can also see a reference to it in this published document from 1983: http://caltechcampuspubs.library.caltech.edu/2414/1/1983_02_17_01.pdf

Can you please put the change back and put something on the page to note that this is correct? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4A04:86D0:2893:4DE0:DC74:AF0B (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, can you find something more recent that verifies this? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Johnny Gaudreau

Why do you keep reverting my edits to Johnny Gaudreau?

GoFlamesGo (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)GoFlamesGo GoFlamesGo (talk) 01:15, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Both of you need to take this content dispute to the article's talk page and stop edit warring on the article. Failure to do this will result in blocking - please please don't edit war, you two. Discuss the issue in dispute. :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:17, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
These are BLP violations. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:18, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
How do you get to the article's talk page? What does BLP mean?

GoFlamesGo (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)GoFlamesGo

You can do so by opening the article and clicking on the "Talk" tab near the top. Or you can simply enter "Talk:[Name of page]" into the search and Wikipedia will take you there. You can also just click here to go there. Thanks for taking this to the article's talk page and discussing the issue at hand :-). I don't want to see you blocked over something such as this :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
"BLP" refers to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. In a nutshell, articles that are biographies of living people undergo much more strict scrutiny than most others. Everything you add needs to be referenced by a reliable source. Unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial or negative - is to be removed on-sight. If people add that kind of content to BLP articles repeatedly, they can be blocked. That's the policy in a TL;DR. I highly recommend that you give it a read so that you're familiar with it and don't inadvertently cause BLP violations :-) I wish you the best of luck with your discussion regarding the content on Johnny Gaudreau :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:38, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoFlamesGo (talk • contribs) 01:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Nihlus Kryik - You're right; I apologize for the mistake on my part. I somehow managed to read the content differently than what it actually stated. Reading it again, it's definitely controversial. I've removed the full protection as well as the content in question. Please do not hesitate to message me on my talk page if you still have questions or concerns regarding this situation, and I'll be happy to answer them. Thank you for providing a follow-up to my messages and for letting me know that I was derping and incorrect with my assessment :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 02:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
No harm done. But thank you for your comments. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 02:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
You may not have done it directly, but I'd like to thank you for inspiring me to change my signature. Critique is optional. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

A request

Please merge and combine Islamic Azad University Medical Branch of Tehran and Islamic Azad University Dental Branch of Tehran in one page titled Tehran Islamic Azad University of Medical Sciences — Preceding unsigned comment added by For7always (talk • contribs) 11:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

The Not Hounder

I appreciated it that you discussed my concerns with me at ani even if we don't see eye to eye. SlightSmile 15:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Mohammad Reza Mokhber Dezfouli

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I undid your reinstatement of the BLP-prod for Mohammad Reza Mokhber Dezfouli. Actually the IP editor added a reference. Clearly the sourcing of the article can't be considered adequate, but in borderline cases such as this, the article is no longer eligible for BLP-prod. The article should either be nominated for AFD or improved to an acceptable standard. Judging from the university page, he is most likely notable, so it may be worth fixing the article. Regards, decltype (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

@Decltype: I am new to the area of BLP & AfD, so thanks for letting me know. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Question

Please check the information from https://www.immigration.go.ug/content/visas-and-passes Hong Kong is not in the visa free list which is not the same information in visa requirement of Hong Kong citizen. Please check and reply.182.239.83.151 (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Procedural question about rfc's

Just a small question. You opened the rfc and alerted some people involved in the discussion. However, the discussion was going on for quite a while. Shouldn't all editors on the talk page and the archive who discussed this be alerted to the rfc? PizzaMan (♨♨) 06:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@PizzaMan: I tried to get all editors that were actively editing the page and involved in the discussion on the talk page. Let me go back and double check and notify anyone I might have missed. Thanks! — nihlus kryik  (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I have notifed DESiegel, Agentxorange, and Zellfaze. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 08:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
You're welcome and thank you. Since I'm involved in discussing the topic i felt it was inappropriate for me to do it. I'm sure there's some WP: policy that some people in this discussion would hold against me. By the way, are you the person to also close the rfc? PizzaMan (♨♨) 20:20, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
@PizzaMan: It's not a requirement that I close it, but it's not forbidden since I am not really participating or voting. Normally RfCs are left up for 30 days, but I believe this will go stale sooner than that. If it does, I can look to call it. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 20:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

"Inappropriate"

Just to leaving it here in a different and just something minor. Regarding to the other discussion as you said that I was inappropriate, I just wanted to know how. I have always been respectful and literally no one has ever called me "inappropriate" here in my Wikipedia life. And I am sure no swear words were states and I am sure I know my text language? :| Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: The only thing I stated was inappropriate was Meow's notifying you and not the user she was reporting. I did not comment on the merits of the report or the conduct of those involved. Please reread what I stated. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 09:53, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh sorry then and yes I can't read :P. I really just want to be out of any trouble of some sort. Just literally ignore this (weird) discussion now, pretend this never happened and have a great day. :) Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

altleft

"As for the 'alt-left,' researchers who study extremist groups say there is no such thing."

well they exist and they date back to 2015 they existed before trump and hannity talked crap please read all of the links https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2015/08/18/proposal-for-an-alternative-left/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AlternativeLeft/ https://www.facebook.com/alternativeleft/ https://altleftjournal.wordpress.com/ http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.co.il/2016/09/a-proposal-for-alt-left-political.html https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2016/10/26/liberal-race-realism-precursor-to-the-alt-left/ http://altleft.com/2015/11/14/a-clockwork-greenshirt-introducing-the-alt-left/ https://web.archive.org/web/20151119073815/http://altleft.com 2001:8003:117E:6D00:59BA:76FB:8BC8:BECD (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Westworld RFC

Why was the RFC on the Westworld talk page closed so suddenly? The discussion was still active, the last post being only a mere 25 minutes before your own closure. An explanation would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. -- AlexTW 10:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The last vote was almost three days ago. I began preparing the closure before that last comment. In addition, there is no time frame in which a close must or cannot be performed. It was headed to no consensus rather quickly, and would not have benefited from further discussion. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Nevertheless, there was a large amount of ongoing discussion within the past three days in respect to those votes, with twenty contributions to the talk page within that timespan. If these discussions continued, then a compromise may have resulted between the editors of either side, and a consensus eventually formed. Please link me to the respective page that I need to go to to have this close reverted, so that the discussions may continue. Cheers. -- AlexTW 10:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
That is a wildly optimistic viewpoint. Your vote essentially won by default as a deferral to policy, so I hardly understand your race to revert it. WP:RFC states: "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be." There is absolutely no way a consensus would have been reached that would have gone against policy. Further discussion is a waste of other's time at this point, as displayed by your recent header listing all the discussions already had. The discussions regarding Bernard are encouraged to continue and have not been closed. Focus on those instead of filibustering the process. Thanks. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Better to be positive and assume good faith than to prematurely put a stopper on any form of consensus forming. Simply because my view on the topic has the ability to stand due to the "no consensus" vote, I am still able to understand that discussion was still actively going, and should be allowed to proceed to do so. I'll find the place to appeal for its reopening myself, in that case. Cheers. -- AlexTW 10:50, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I came here to ask the same thing. I believe the closure was in good faith, but it shouldn't have happened. WP:ANRFC states that The default length of a formal request for comment is 30 days (opened on or before 26 July 2017); if consensus becomes clear before that and discussion has slowed, then it may be closed early. There was obviously no clear consensus and the discussion was still ongoing, with a lower pace as expected. In addition, the issue in question at the RfC concerns the interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines and if no clear answer is given, it is very likely that the content dispute will perpetuate, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid. This RfC should be closed by an administrator, who has a complete understanding of the Wikipedia guidelines that are under discussion, like WP:SPOILER, WP:TVCAST, WP:OSE and WP:UNDUE. -- Radiphus 11:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I will point both of you to WP:CLOSE. Specifically, this part:

Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review:

  1. if the poll was close or even favored an outcome opposite the closure, if the closure was made on the basis of policy. Policies and guidelines are usually followed in the absence of a compelling reason otherwise, or an overwhelming consensus otherwise, and can only be changed by amending the policy itself.
  2. if the complaint is that the closer is not an admin.

This is hardly a contentious close as the policy regarding the topic has been discussed to death at this point. Consensus was never going to be achieved to overrule policy, and that RfC was not the appropriate place to do so. In addition, discussion was not ongoing. In the last three days, one comment was made, and it was by neither of you. Further discussion should take place on the side discussions that were opened up as that is where you will be able to reach consensus. Also, the fact that I am not an administrator does not mean I do not understand policy, so I ask that you refrain from making such personal attacks about me going forward, Radiphus. Thanks. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I have reverted the closure. As the editor who began the discussion, and who has commented on it multiple times, it is wholly inappropriate for you to attempt to close it, even in the case that consensus is exceedingly clear, which it isn't. TimothyJosephWood 13:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
And I reverted that as inappropriate. I was not involved as I did not express an opinion on it and opened the RfC as a neutral third party. Please stop being disruptive Timothyjosephwood. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

S.L. Benfica

The "most successful" claim is sourced. See sources #104, #105, #106. SLBedit (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Left you a new message on my talk page. SLBedit (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For digging deep and finding a treasure trove in the logs that helped us immeasurably tonight. Thanks very much. :-) Katietalk 03:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

ATT

Dear Nihlus.

Can you be more specific about what 'promotional material' you mean? The ATT is an exams body, so explaining what exams it offers seems reasonable.

At the moment, you keep replacing the new accurate information with the old inaccurate information, which is no good to anyone.

I would appreciate your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.13.110.164 (talk) 14:18, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It is clear you have a conflict of interest with that company and should not be editing the article directly. Please see WP:COIEDIT. You should be proposing changes on the talk page with {{request edit}}, allowing another user without a COI to assess the proposed changes and implement them if necessary or appropriate. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Reverting my edit

Did you not see what an admin already stated about something like this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is the section for your review, where admin Swarm made it clear that commenting after the close was not some violation. Furthermore, my comment was an intermediate edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Flyer22 Reborn: I don't see anything giving permission nor do I care. I've seen you consistently add remarks into closed discussions. You should have been reverted those times too as it completely undermines the point of closing discussions. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
In addition, GoldenRing stated "I disagree that TPO is that simple. Editing closed discussions is clearly disruptive, which TPO describes as a 'borderline case'." So don't take what Swarm says as some blanket approval to do whatever you want with closed discussions. Those edits are disruptive. Period. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 Comment: Flyer22 Reborn's edit was 2 minutes after the close, so it could have been {{edit conflict}}, and ideally it should clarified as such. No one cares about the last word anyway. Alex ShihTalk 17:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
Had it been a one-off, I would have ignored it. It was a culmination of constant disregard for policy that put it over the edge. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
But surely, Flyer22 Reborn, you realize that it was an asshole remark--"we both know that you do not understand that policy." I have worked with you, and will be happy to continue to work with you, but shit, that's not OK. Drmies (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Niteshift36 Edit warring again

I saw you warning on Niteshift36's talk page and he is doing the same again at the Lakewood Church page after your warning. I did not revert the last edit as his comments seem he will just revert and attack me like other editors and I am not trying to edit war. Most other editors are working on the smaller edits on the Joel talk page but I do not believe he is communicating or working in good faith on it. Not sure what else to do next as myself and others are trying to go over the references and adjust the language that fits the references and is balanced. Thank you. ContentEditman (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Your recent OAbot edit to American Revolutionary War

Re: this edit...the CiteSeerX links you added to American Revolutionary War are in error, giving anyone who clicks on them the following message at the CiteSeerX website:

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

So. The link provided does not give the reader access to a open-source version of the article. If you have added CiteSeerX links to other JSTOR articles they will all need to be checked and possibly removed. Shearonink (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I did some more digging on that CiteSeerX link page. There is a pdf linkage up at the top but I am concerned that the link is clearly delineated as being for an Economics class at a university. Can WP really use this linkage when it was not posted for public use but rather for use in a college classroom? Shearonink (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
@Shearonink: You have to get it on the CiteSeerX page. I see no restrictions on what can be linked on WP:OABOT. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Sock alert

Does User:MarkGiordano5 seem familiar? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@BilCat: Thanks! Reported. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Unprotection...

Hi, Nihlus, I think you have a wrong perspective about the precise premises of use of blocks and/or page protection.All through-out the history of the article the lone edit-warring seems to be to revert TInsan's edits .And in a many-vs-one situation, we gen. rely on the block tools.Page protection(esp. sysop protect) are only designed to be used in many-vs-many disputes, since it has a huge collateral damage that no damn user without the mops will be able to edit the article. It would be also prudential for you (despite your shiny user-box) to know that Utcurcsh, Bishonen, CBomb, SpacemanSpiff et al are highly experienced and long-standing contributors.Also, that he has been indeffed, it would be interesting to keep an eye on the future edits on the article. Winged Blades Godric 03:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC) Winged Blades Godric 03:24, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: WP:PP disagrees:

Under the protection policy, an alternative approach is available as administrators have the discretion to temporarily fully protect an article to end an ongoing edit war. This approach may be better suited to multi-party disputes and contentious content as talk page consensus becomes a requirement for implementation of requested edits.

I'm not big on precedent ruling when policy is clear. Also, it was more complicated than the one-sided narrative you spin as you also had Shinnosukeandme and Shrikanthv involved as well. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Well, I do not know why you quoted me the policy.Did you miss the word Multi-party--in your self-quoted chunk?Even Shinnosukeandme was reverting TInsan's edit selectively.Rather than just skimming through the page history, number of involved contributors and additions and deletions of bytes, it would be certaintly helpful if you go through the edits by the warring parties and comprehensively evaluate the situation before making a request at RFPP.Regards:)Winged Blades Godric 12:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they did not put as much effort into evaluating the situation as you did, and I resent the implication. And until you stop ignoring policy, please stay off of my talk page with your condescension. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Long Place Names

Hi Nihlus.

The issue I had on the List of long place names page is that someone seemed to have replaced a legitimate place name complete with linkage, Taumatawhakatangihangakoauauotamateaturipukakapikimaungahoronukupokaiwhenuakitanatahu, with "[ilikenoodlesandcheese]]." I simply went to the history and clicked undo, as shown here. If I was in error doing so, I apologise.

96.48.219.13 (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

No, were you correct in fixing it. I hit a button on accident and that caused my revert. Thanks! — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

YellowAnt (software) - speedy deletion declined

Hi, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination ofYellowAnt (software) because software, even if used in website building, is specifically excluded from WP:A7. Perhaps consider a WP:AFD nomination? Just Chilling (talk) 01:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Just Chilling: That's the closest one I could find. Is there any CSD criteria for software? If not, why? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Creative works, which include software, are not speediable so there is no other criteria. Speedy deletion was devised as a method of quickly and efficiently ridding the encyclopaedia of the clear nonsenses that are regularly created. However, since it is deletion without consensus the instructions are that "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." My understanding is that creative works are regarded has having some importance or significance (even when not notable) so they were excluded from speedy deletion. In the case of this software I think that, in any case, it meets the criteria of a "credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." HTH. Just Chilling (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Niteshift36 Edit warring again2

Sorry to bother you again but seems he is up to the same thing at Lakewood Church and is not even participating on the talk page at Joel Osteen on this. I and other editors seem to be following the rules and all he does is its either his way or no way. ContentEditman (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

And now hes doing the same at Joel Osteen as well since the protection was lifted. ContentEditman (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

He just Undid your edit at Lakewood Church and is edit warring again at Joel Osteen. Is there some place else I should report his behavior? I don't want to keep bugging you if this is much. Thanks ContentEditman (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

ContentEditman, WP:AN3 is the place to discuss edit wars. Primefac (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
ContentEditman, I have reported him at WP:ANEW. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

that commie thing

I can't remember if you saw this from the beginning; there's an SPI and a list of IPs at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Letscasks. I've revdeleted a lot of those edits. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thanks. He was a fun one. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

For thanking me. I smiled. -- Begoon 10:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Update to wiki page

Hello Nihlus Kryil I noticed that you changed the information on ( Law enforcement in New York City ) for the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority Police with the updated info ( MTA Bridges and Tunnels ), can you also make the same correction on this page ( List of law enforcement agencies in New York ) Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:7083:8100:7856:514A:2466:9205 (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Inquiry About Recent Dispute

Hello, I am reaching out to you about a recent dispute you were involved in on the administrator’s noticeboard for edit warring. From my understanding, you reported user Nitshift36 for edit warring on both the Lakewood Church and Joel Osteen articles. I am writing an in-depth article about the management of Wikipedia and I would love to interview you for my story. Would you be willing to talk to me more about this situation? --Investigativereporter (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

No. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 03:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

ATT

Hello Nihlus, I hope all is well.

I have stripped the ATT page down to the bare bones. We have to keep some info about the exams on the page because the ATT is an examinations body.

Bets, ATT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.13.110.164 (talk) 14:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

===============================================================

Dear Nihlus, You just removed my comment a few minutes ago regarding Dr. Mardy Ireland. I am not an editor. I am not a Wikipedia Editor. I do not know how to link articles together or any of the other suggestions that Wiki said for this article. I do remember reading this quote about Dr. Ireland so I thought it would make the article better. If you wish to disagree with the quote, that's fine I guess, after all you are an editor, I guess. On the other hand, the facts are the facts and I imagine she would be humble or embarrassed to see the quote posted here.

Also, I do not know how to create my own paragraph, so I created this paragrath within the ATT. I imagine that broke some rules too. Feel free to delete this after you read it, if necessary or if you like.

Thanks

Grateful for the star you sent, Blue Whale is a terrible page on a depressing subject so I was getting fed up until you sent it. It's kind of you to notice. Mramoeba (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Nihlus Kryik, hope you're well. Thank you for reconsidering your !vote at Ansh's Rfa. As I believe you were offended by the barrage of comments against your !vote (of which one was mine), I offer my apologies. Look forward to see you around. Warmly. Lourdes 00:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Breitbart News

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

My mistake

I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't made a point or anything. I was simply noting that I was making a point, which was entirely irrelevant for what to do with this author. The Breitbart News page has a history of this type of dispute. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Nihlus, thank you for your comments at my RfA. I hope that I'll be able to answer your concerns with my actions rather than my words (well, more of my words, I guess). Cheers, ansh666 23:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

BRD and Dallas

Since Texan44 updated a block of text in the Dallas article rather than adding it from whole cloth, it would seem like the bold action per WP:BRD is the removal. Putting old data back seems like a bad idea; any objection to letting the new text stand as the status quo while discussion goes on at the talk page? —C.Fred (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Status quo ante I consider the bold action to be whatever is directly challenged as that is where the line is drawn between competing revisions. That being said, I don’t care deeply one way or another. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 23:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I invited Texan44 to start talk page discussion about it, and he hasn't. So, if it's not that big a concern to him, it isn't to me either. —C.Fred (talk) 23:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

MOS:DATERANGE

Thanks for the information. Let me know when you have created the proposed re-categorisation. It will be interesting to see if those that supported it last time to be "MOS compliment" support it this time, or whether they were supporting it because they preferred the style ccyy-yy. -- PBS (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

My most recent question at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NihlusBOT is not to be difficult, but because your answer will protect you from someone objecting later. For that you need to explain how you are going to meet the process (eg I presume that my Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_23#Redate.2Frename_all_subcategories_and_sub-subcategories_that_contain_a_date_range_per_MOS:DATERANGE once agreed covers the procedural request aspect), but you need to explain what you will be doing to the sub-categories to meet the process as well as the changes to the articles (for example will you be leaving a redirect behind as is done in a small minority of the examples in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 18#Year ranges in politician categories (eg Category:Members of the Parliament of Northern Ireland 1921–1925). -- PBS (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
In this case I do not think there are sub-subcategories where their parent will be renamed in this process when changing categories of English MPs, but if you intend to do a lot more of these date range categories in the future, you need to think about the ordering of the changes you make, so that you do not orphan any categories. -- PBS (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes. Let me know if you need any assistance with reverting any of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 18#Year ranges in politician categories -- PBS (talk) 08:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tulle massacre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tulle massacre. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Bodice ripping bots

Could you please tell your bot and InternetArchiveBot to get a room if they want to fiddle with each other's edits? (for context, see here) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:48, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to have those diffs. EEng 14:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Well in this case, big strapping NihlusBOT has noticed that Cyberbot III has been exposing himself without a closing </sup> tag to cover his modesty, which has led to some dirty jobs with separatist femnism. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333 and EEng: Is the conversation below the political scandal I should have expected with such indecency? – Nihlus (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Family Guy lead, redux

Please see Talk:Family guy#Participant survey, about resolving questions not resolved in the earlier RfC.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  17:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:University of Notre Dame

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:University of Notre Dame. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tension headache

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tension headache. Legobot (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

delinting

Just out of curiosity -- do the lint errors actually cause any problems other than their error messages? It seems odd to be making corrections on talk pages. On the other hand, if I were linting the site to debug in the Wikimedia-created HTML, I'd be completely annoyed to have to sift through lots of unhelpful error messages to find the one or two that might actually matter... --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 04:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jpgordon: As far as I understand it, these misnested tag errors cause issues with Parsoid, which supports the VisualEditor. It's what translates wikitext to HTML and vice-versa. I believe it is going to be downgraded to low priority soon, but, yes, it is annoying to have to go through 200,000 errors to find the important ones. :) – Nihlus (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
This is not true. The high priority errors it was supposed to catch have to do with HTML4 tidy, which is entirely unrelated to Parsoid and VisualEditor. See mw:Parsing/Replacing Tidy for some more details. Legoktm (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Because people have articles watchlisted, which includes the talkpages, when ever the bot edits a signature, it alerts the watchers, who then take a look. Currently this must be wasting a lot of people's time. The signatures I've been alerted to are over a year old, and would likely be archived soon anyway. Might it be a better use of people's time to wait until whatever possible error is going to be caused is caused, and then fix it. Less disruption all round I would think. Creating 200,000 watchlist alerts just for a handful of "possible" errors does not look to me like a useful use of time, nor does it seem very collegiate considering the amount of people's time that is currently being diverted to check into these edits. SilkTork ✔Tea time 06:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I am not the purveyor of this change; a member of WMF is. I am just handling the task for them. On top of that, bot edits can be hidden from view within the watchlist, and those that do not want to hide bot edits can learn what it is doing with one look and ignore the rest. – Nihlus (talk) 07:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I've left a note. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@SilkTork: That's... not what I intended you to do, as there are alternatives to this very minor inconvenience which I pointed out above. In addition, this is a one time run that is about 70% complete. – Nihlus (talk) 07:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to register a protest that people were being disturbed by this bot action for very little value. I think it is worthwhile to let tech folks know that this action is creating a disturbance which seems to hold little value for the level of disruption. You pointed out to me that you were not the originator of this action, so I went to the originator. I'm not sure my protest will have any consequence, but I felt I needed to raise it anyway. I'm sorry that this has somehow alarmed you, that was not my intention, and I apologise. SilkTork ✔Tea time 07:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Jeez, have WMF never heard of backward compatibility? Pretty much any browser displays the HTML properly, why can't Visual Editor do it? Raymond Chen would have simply identified the error cases and written code to work around them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: That's past my paygrade and understanding. I do know, however, that people have been extremely sloppy with their tags up until this point. Perhaps the community should uniformly voice its opinion on the matter via RfC or something, but I hesitate to have people who don't understand the coding behind it make a decision such as that (even under advisory RfCs, which seem to be a thing now). – Nihlus (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I added a note above that this has nothing to do with VisualEditor - high priority lint issues have to do with tidy. If you take a look at mw:Parsing/Replacing Tidy I think you'll find that the current behavior is broken enough to necessitate a change. Legoktm (talk) 07:18, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The Sheffield Private School

The information I put was true, apart from the motto, which, btw, is 'Learners of today, leading tommorow'. Former Sheffielder KS (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dismissal of James Comey. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call

This volunteer roll call is sent to you because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at dispute resolution noticeboard. If you are still interested in assisting at DRN and are willing to do so by either handling at least one case per month, or by helping at administrative and coordination tasks on monthly (at least) basis, please add your username here. Volunteers who do not add their username on the roll call list will be removed from the volunteers list after November 15, 2017 unless it is chosen to have them retained for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. In case you are removed from the volunteers list, you may re-add your username at any time. However please do so only if you can and are willing to participate as described above.
Either ways, I would like to thank you for your participation and assistance at DRN so far, and wish that you will continue contributing to the encyclopedia and assisting when available.
The DRN coordinator, Kostas20142 (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bukhara

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bukhara. Legobot (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Metascore in the lead

Hi Nihlus, I appreciate your interest in the ME article and won't start an edit war. A few things, though:

  • WP:OTHER is not a good argument.
  • The ME2 metascore is certainly more notable to warrant a mention in the lead.

I won't revert your edit because it's a minor issue, but I'm just wondering why you insist in having it. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:55, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm actually preparing the article for a FA run (hopefully in time for its 10th anniversary), so I am tightening the screws on different parts that might be problematic. Since we have an article that is formatted similarly, I'm taking pieces from that where I can. I don't necessarily care about that sentence too deeply, so I've removed it for now. Nihlus 21:04, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Since you are not a significant contributor to the article, you should consult the article's main editors before nominating it (as per the FAC rules). I am the main editor of the article since I improved it to GA status last year, so please let me know if you plan to make substantial changes. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Eh, I am not big on this WP:OWNership mentality you're displaying, despite what that page says about good articles. I also don't like being called an insignificant contributor as if my edits now or in the future won't matter. I will do what I need to do in order to improve the article. If the time comes I make a substantial change, feel free to point it out then. Thanks. Nihlus 21:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
You are welcome to nominate it for FA and I'm not saying your edits won't matter; I'm just saying it is recommended that you consult regular editors to avoid problems in the FAC process. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Psychokinesis

Sorry, I misunderstood the instructions. I followed 'Current requests for edits to a protected page'. AVS (talk) 08:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

DRN Coord

Hi Nihlus. Could you let me have a link to the discussion that appointed Kostas20142 as DRN coordinator. Many thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: There aren't really discussions. It's more of a volunteer role that people step into as needed every two months. (See here for his self-addition.) Nihlus 01:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, Nihlus. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Timeline of the Trump presidency, 2017 Q3. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Spanish Empire

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Spanish Empire. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Dude

Chill man. There's like 40 people who have his talk page watchlisted now. There's no shortage of eyes here. Itta be fine. GMGtalk 20:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

No shortage of eyes but a massive shortage of those willing to do anything about it. It's part of the reason I stop commenting at AN/ANI/ANEW. I understand discretion, but there is no reason to punt something to next week when it is a problem today, especially when the user continues the behavior in question. Nihlus 20:40, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Maybe something to consider, but I would not at all be surprised to find that this user is particularly young or particularly old. They often approach things similarly. We've already got one of our most experienced editors who's said they will take them on as a charity. I have no doubt thay can effect a swift TBAN if that's not effective. It's not like they're doing any damage that needs to be actively undone, they're just doing things that are less than helpful. GMGtalk 21:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware. People are just afraid to take action or make decisions lest they end up on ANI themselves for being "too hasty". Nihlus 21:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Lol. No. As someone who has (I checked) 1,030 edits to ANI on this account, I can safely say that fear of ANI is not a primary motivator for most editors of the type that are weighing in on a thread like that.
I've said as much before I believe, but your major shortcoming is being overzealous in advocating for sanctions. You're gonna be successful one day, and you're going to wind up getting someone blocked with a lot of hurt feelings from a lot of people to come along with it, and you might end up learning to regret it. I did. GMGtalk 22:12, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive959#Incivility and abuse by Cassianto. GMGtalk 22:19, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
It's just a reminder that I stopped editing on that page for a good reason. It was foolish of me to go back and think it would be different. Nihlus 22:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Asking assistance for Wiki editing

Comments by sock

Hi, there, sorry about the DRN case. I though I could fix up the issue by giving a quick ruling. Usually, I don't like much waiting and time wasting. I thought I could give a ruling like a judge. Now it appears as I can't.

Anyway, could you assist me with some information?

1. Since the parties are not obligated to comply with the advise of DRN moderator, what's the solution when someone is sure that the other parties are not going to agree with him anyway and a ruling from a judge is essential. I am sure DRN is not an option in this case. Could "Mediation" be an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Mediation Committee? If not, then is "Arbitration" an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Arbitration Committee?

The point of the DRN is to facilitate a conversation where the participants can mutually reach an agreement. The next step is the Mediation Committee, and this is normally the last step for a content dispute. Conduct is normally handled by the community and possibly arbitration. See Wikipedia:Mediation and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

2. What’s the difference between Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and a specialized noticeboard such as “Fringe theory noticeboard”? I know specialized noticeboards are subject specific. But my question is that whether the moderators in “Fringe theory noticeboard” are only administrators or general users as well? If there are general users as well, how can I become a fringe theory noticeboard volunteer? Do I need to list my username anywhere and/or add any template in my user page?

Noticeboards such as the BLP violation and Conflict of interest noticeboards are specialized noticeboards. The DRN is a more general noticeboard that handles disputes that might not fall within the realm of one of the specialized noticeboards. See Wikipedia:Noticeboards.

3. When I am in a dispute with a couple of admins in a Wikipedia page, what’s the process of reporting those abusive admins. Let’s say, the admins are reverting any edit that is against their personal views and beliefs. And those admins need to be removed from the page. The Wikipedia manual says as admins can be removed through a dispute resolution process. But it doesn’t explain how. Because DRN moderator or Mediation committee may not be able to remove an administrator. So, if an user is in dispute with administrators, should he directly file a case to Arbitration Committee?

This is an oddly specific question from someone who is new. But if you have problems with an administrator and cannot resolve with them directly, the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is the place to go. Again, DRN and mediation are for content and not conduct.

4. How can I add a new section and subsection to a Wiki article and remove an existing section from a Wiki article in visual editor?

I don't use the VisualEditor so it might be best to review Wikipedia:VisualEditor/User guide.

5. I found that some contributions are deleted from “History” page of an article. So how to delete a contribution and who can do it?

That is known as Wikipedia:Revision deletion. Examples of its use are for blatant copyright violations and grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material. The policy page there has more information.

6. Wiki policy states as I should not copy contents from other websites and should rather write my own contents. But what if the contents are open source contents? Can I directly copy those in Wikipedia? Are online news posts open source, including the images in the news? Can I use these texts and images in Wikipedia without editing? Can I copy and paste statements of medical national and international organizations in Wikipedia without editing?

A lot of copyright allows permissible reproduction of the material as long as it is attributed to the original author; however, there are many layers of copyright that you would want to be familiar with before replicating other people's work. See Wikipedia:Copyrights, Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright, and Wikipedia:Non-free content.

7. Where to find images for a Wikiedia article if the image is not already available in Wikimedia? Are the images collected from news posts open source? And many sites don't have their images copyrighted. Do those images qualify as open source? When I upload an image, Wikipedia asks for copyright information. I have no idea what information to provide? What info should I provide if the image is in open source? And if the image is owned by me? Wikipedia asks me to contact the copyright holder and ask them for copyright information for the image. But some websites don't have "Contact us" section, some other sites are unresponsive when they are contacted, and even when I contact a website owner, he may not be able to provide me copyright information as the images are not copyrighted. So what information to provide Wikipedia in such a case? How do Wikipedia verify if the images are already copyrighted or not. If I claim to be granted permission for reuse from the copyright holder, how does Wikipedia verify the copyright holder has actually granted me permission for reuse of the copyrighted content?

You can find that information at c:Commons:Copyright rules.

8. How to add videos to a Wikipedia article? Do I need to provide copyright information for a video available in Youtube? Are there other policies on videos such as policies for graphic videos?

See Wikipedia:Videos. Copyright information similar to images applies as well.

9. When I create a new article, how do I save my private draft for the article. If I click on "Save", the draft will become public and will be accessible for anyone. But I like it to be private. Is it possible. Furthermore, when I edit on an existing article, is there a way I can save my edits as a draft before publishing? It is an essential function. Because some posts may be very long and will take a long time to write. So, my unsaved works can be lost if browser tab is closed or if the texts are accidentally selected and deleted. So saving draft is essential.

You can save them in a sandbox, but they will not be private. See Help:Userspace draft.

10. Where can I save the usernames of my co-writers in my Wikipedia account like a phone book? I can't memorize the usernames of every persons. Thus, I need to have a phone book when the usernames will be saved in the respective categories.

You can keep that either in a personal list or in a sandbox/subpage. See Wikipedia:Subpages.

11. How can I be connected with the community to improve each Wikipedia article? I know each important article is being monitored by some administrators. But how do I know which administrators is monitoring a page so that I can discuss with them about improving the article? How to get connected with the community for editing articles? I heard that communication is important here. But how? Everyone is stranger here. Whom to contact among these random people?

The best place is to use the talk page for each associated article as that is where most people are going to be looking to help and to participate. You can also look into any of the WikiProjects linked at the top of the talk page. See Wikipedia:WikiProject.

12. What’s the use of pending changes reviewing by administrators and “pending change reviewers”? As much as I know anyone can revert another user’s edit. In that case, what will change if an edit is approved by an administrator or a “Pending changes reviewer”? Will other users be unable to revert the edit back then? If not, then what’s the use of pending changes reviewing? Furthermore, how do the users know an edit has been approved by a administrator or a pending changes reviewers? Will the approval appear anywhere such as in the “History” page?

Changes that are pending until reviewed are not visible to the readers. This prevents potentially libelous information from showing on the page until reviewed, which will show on the history page. See Wikipedia:Pending changes. 

13. What’s the requirement and process for becoming a pending changes reviewer? Can anyone become a pending changes reviewer?

See Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes.

Abir Babu (talk) 09:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Abir Babu: My replies are above in blue. I would also recommend that you remove your name from the list for a couple months until you are more familiar with the guidelines above as well as the different content guidelines you might come across. Thanks. Nihlus 19:10, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

DRN Archive Line

Hi Nihlus,

Looks like you forgot to remove the DRN archive line from this closure, which is why it has not been automatically archived. I have removed the archive delay. -- Dane talk 06:36, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Tom Petty‎

Sorry for the wholesale revert at Template:Tom Petty‎, I was on a phone, and wanted people to have access to the TFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:IPhone 8

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:IPhone 8. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Nihlus. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Academy

Can you train me for the CVU? Thanks. WarriorFISH (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

At this time I will have to decline. I want to see you have more experience contributing positively to the project. Edits such as this, this, and these show me you are not taking things seriously. Perhaps in a few months if you change your ways, but not now. Nihlus 17:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

recent DRN Notice problem.

hi there. i made a DRN notice but you have closed it because of 'meeting a minimum DR/N criteria' but the problem with this is, i cannot talk to the other part, as they have blocked me from there talk page, this is the only way i can fix this dispute with out getting into a edit war, which i obviously don't want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo0505 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Leo0505: Please have the discussion at Talk:The_Shield_(professional_wrestling)#Kurt_Angle. Thanks. Nihlus 01:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2018 Supercars Championship

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2018 Supercars Championship. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to WP:STiki!

Hello, Nihlus, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (talk) 04:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thiscrund68

Ran into a rare edit conflict (at SPI! What are the chances) with you here. A bit disappointed at myself (ha) since I am pretty sure I started the thread first, but took too long to establish the timeline overlap. Since many involved admins/CUs were looking at this but has yet to block the user, I thought a more detailed analysis would be more convincing. Anyway, good work! Alex Shih (talk) 01:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Alex Shih: Yeah, I was going to make it super detailed then I just stared at it for a bit and decided it was becoming more and more obvious. I know I brought it to the attention of a few admins myself in IRC, so I think the case is going to have a lot of eyes on it (add that to the multitude of unblock requests). I'm sure there is even more material to work with based on what is in UTRS. Nihlus 02:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
UTRS would give additional material for CU if it was requested. I know of one or two SPIs where the UTRS data was more useful to CUs than on-wiki data. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:CLEAN

Hello Nihlus:
You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America1000 05:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Radio stations

Thanks. I did a test run through the stations in the Sudbury-Manitoulin radio market a bit earlier this evening, but got distracted once I hit CKUC-FM, which turned into such a mess of total unverifiability that I actually had to nominate it for outright deletion. After that I just kind of lost motivation.

For the list, yes, anything on there whose title is just four letters beginning with C (or V) without an (AM) or -FM suffix is an AM station that will need an -AM added to the link. (Canadian radio stations on the FM band always have the -FM suffix, unlike in the United States where some do and some don't, so they'll always have an -FM on here too.) The oddities like CKC455 or VF2590 represent a special class of low-power radio station that didn't get a conventional call sign and thus mostly don't even have articles at all but for those couple of exceptions, but those are cases where a CCF link might not be present in the article at all anyway — so the bot would just skip the page as it wouldn't actually contain a link that fit the pattern it's looking for, so you probably don't need to do anything special to filter them out in advance.

If you think you can work with the stations that have a "(defunct)" dab by programming the bot to know what to do with that, then feel free, but I'm prepared to look after those manually as well if you'd prefer not to. There's also one case where the defunct station is dabbed as "(Unity, Saskatchewan)" instead of "(defunct)" — I'll look after that and its name-mate CHSC (AM) manually, because they're a special case where CCF had to break the normal pattern for the same reason we did, so they require something different than most others.

Generally speaking, any article whose name isn't a call sign likely won't actually have a CCF link to change at all, so basically it's only the list from CBA-FM to CKZZ-FM (minus a couple of oddities like CKC455 or the CBC Radio network articles) and the four stations near the bottom of the list whose call signs begin with VO that we need to worry about. Bearcat (talk) 04:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually, on second thought, just skip the defuncts entirely and don't try to program the bot to work with them at all. They're cases where, for reasons similar to the CHSC situation, I'll need to manually check if there's a pattern break or not — so it would be better if the bot didn't attempt to deal with them at all. Bearcat (talk) 04:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bearcat: Well, the template pulls the info automatically, but we can also override the link and display. I still need to file the bot request and will be able to add them once I get approved. Nihlus 04:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The disambiguators themselves aren't the reason I asked to skip stations if they have the "defunct" disambiguator in the title — the problem is that the CCF breaks its normal new URL pattern for disambiguation purposes sometimes too. In the CHSC example above, CHSC (Unity, Saskatchewan)'s page on the CCF site is at CHSC-AM, while CHSC (AM)'s is at CHSC-AM-0. That's why we need to leave those situations to human eyes — I can't imagine there's any way to make a bot able to detect which station actually has just the call sign in its CCF url and which one has a -0 or something else added, so they need human attention. Bearcat (talk) 05:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@Bearcat: The bot isn't going to be differentiating the different links. All it will be doing is adding {{History of Canadian Broadcasting}} in place of those links. The information use to complete the URL listing is in the template itself. Nihlus 05:15, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Re Veyshnoria

Thank you! I hadn't noticed that. — e. ripley\talk 16:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Help with constant reversions

Since you have offered to step in, can you help resolve the constant deletions / reversions by User:Biografer at Cavicularia. I have tried to explain the problems and situations, but Biografer deleted the discussion and reverted anyway. Since you have allowed the deletion, perhaps you can help. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I have allowed nothing; Wikipedia policy has (see WP:TPO). I recommend you discuss it on the talk page or take it to WP:AN3 if you are so inclined. Nihlus 23:46, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I have re-read WP:TPO. It advises against altering or removing the comments of others. Am I missing something? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem also extends to WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:NONENGEL, link farming, and multiple other issues, including the removal of spaces that make template parameters readable to human editors. Biografer has refused to discuss the issues, and blamed the edit on "edit conflict". --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: It's further down the page. I linked the wrong section. See WP:OWNTALK. If the user is edit warring, then take it to WP:AN3. If there are other issues as you have said and the user refuses to discuss them with you, take it to WP:ANI. However, understand that your own behavior will be scrutinized as well if you take it elsewhere. Nihlus 00:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
ANI and AN3 are procedural complaint issues. The primary problem here is the formatting changes and bizarre content additions, besides the policy issues. Neither ANI nor AN3 consider the content in deciding things, and generally generate more stress and less progress than they solve. All this is a key reason I have all but stopped editing on WP. Too much bureaucracy, too much emphasis on procedure and form, and no one cares about the quality or content anymore. It becomes a huge time sink for people who primarily want to improve content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: The issues you describe (such as not participating in discussion and ignoring attempts to do so) are conduct issues. Nihlus 00:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
But it's already wasted more time than I care to, which could have been spent doing something productive. I have no desire to open a bureaucratic discussion on the issue, fill out endless forms, answer repeated questions, all over what I had hoped would be a quick article expansion. WP stopped being fun years ago. I had thought things had improved here, and intended to start cranking out a short article each week, but the second one I've done has resulted in a full wasted afternoon over stupid issues that keep demanding more time. I should have spent the day at Wikisource like usually do; I'd have accomplished much more there than here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:First Battle of Passchendaele

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:First Battle of Passchendaele. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Punctuation mistake in template

You used a template here and maybe you would know more about it. It needs a period at the end of a sentence.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Nihlus 21:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Bot task approved

Your recent BRFA has been  Approved.. Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NihlusBOT 5 for more details. ~ Rob13Talk 11:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NihlusBOT 6 has also been approved. ~ Rob13Talk 00:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Peter Hore

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Hore. Legobot (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Your BRFA

Your recent BRFA, Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/NihlusBOT 8, has been approved. Happy editing, — xaosflux Talk 04:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Philosopher's Stone (album)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Philosopher's Stone (album). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

A location on where to resolve escalating issues when it's consensus that do not agree with

Nihlus, can you provide locations on where to resolve escalating issues when it's consensus that do not agree with? I've read the memo that DRN was not appropriate avenue to resolve such things. Saiph121 (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Saiph121: See WP:CONTENTDISPUTE, mainly the part about seeking community input. However, if you disagree with the community's input, I would just drop it and move on to something else. Nihlus 17:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

added Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93
removed Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi

I requested sd of To'ak Chocolate because it's already been to AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/To'ak Chocolate) and several other users continue to view the content as advertising. Since you removed the sd template, I would appreciate it if you would restore it. If only I don't consider it to be advertising while several others do, sd seems the best route to go. I'm not here to promote anything. North America1000 02:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: If users feel the need to remove the promotional material, then they should remove it or discuss it. If they don't think it can be salvageable, then they should nominate it for deletion. Deleting it under G7 at this juncture seems rather pointy as you are taking away the community's chance to involve itself in discussion. Nihlus 02:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Not pointy at all. I commented on the talk page and added a talkback to a user's talk page notifying them about it (diff), but no response, just another revert, which also caused page layout errors in the references in the process. So, I decided that since others consider it to be advertising, then sd it. North America1000 02:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources. Legobot (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Please consider ammending your closing comments to the above RfC. I don't think what you wrote reflects my participation in the discussion, considering I was specifically instructed that the subject of OpenCritic's reliability was important,[1] and that the RfC that immediately followed did not reach a conclusion and only involved four people.[2] Given this history, and the most recent talk's derailment (see User:Axem Titanium's comments), I don't think seeking formal remediation was at all unreasonable. Thanks so much. SharkD  Talk  18:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@SharkD: The RfC I linked to had more than four participants. The rest of what I said stands as well. However, I am pretty concerned about your absolute insistence that OpenCritic be included in some manner or another. Do you have any connection with them (whether real or perceived) or are they paying you anything? It just seems extremely odd that someone with no involvement with them would take it this far. Nihlus 19:55, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Ooops, I thought you linked to this discussion. As for my motivation, I just don't like the idea that a good reliable source is banned on Wikipedia. I have been made aware that there is precedent in the Film project, but I still disagree with it. SharkD  Talk  20:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@SharkD: You avoided answering my question. Nihlus 21:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I have read the notes that the owner leaves on Talk pages (he has left some notes on my Talk page since I voiced support for the site), but I am not involved with the site. SharkD  Talk  21:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
E.g. or that the "widespread use" or level of "establishment" of a site should influence whether a reliable source is used in an article. User:Izno put it in much better words than I was able to. SharkD  Talk  21:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
@SharkD: Please use show preview, especially on user talk pages, as I have gotten 16 notifications for only four different messages. I will reply further when I get a chance. Nihlus 21:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
To expand on my earlier point, we don't judge the reliability of an author/journalist/public figure based on the number of retweets. SharkD  Talk  21:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Templates on Adept (C++ library) page

Thanks for adding the templates to the Adept (C++ library) page. I have removed the paragraph referencing only a self-published source, and have added some additional references. Could the templates about "improper references to self-published sources" and "may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject" be removed now? Rjhogan (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rjhogan: I've removed them. Thanks for addressing the issues. Nihlus 22:14, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Previous DRN Discussion

Thank you for finally agreeing to collapse the extended discussion at WT:DRN that some of us had thought was unnecessary. I don't think that your complaint that the efforts to collapse it were disruptive was fair, but that is my opinion (and you had to have your way). I am looking forward to ideas on how to improve dispute resolution, and I hope that you will present them in a constructive tone. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Can I join?

I would like to join Counter-Vandalism Unit.

Vandalism is a terrible thing, because this site is meant to be an online encyclopedia.

ブレーデンBraden1127 布雷登Let's discuss it! 19:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Braden1127: I normally would like to see some efforts to fight vandalism before taking someone on to train them. Can you focus on that for a week or two and then we can look at possible training? Thanks. Nihlus 23:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia Anti-Vandalism Academy

Hello! You appears to be the one of two mentors for the Anti-Vandalism Academy.

I wish to stop aimless "contributions" to Wikipedia (its an encyclopedia, not a webhost!) and I have experience in using both Lupin and Twinkle. The only problem is the difference in time zones. Is it ok for you? Dark-World25 (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dark-World25: Sure, I can train you. Let me get your page set up, and we can start it there. Nihlus 02:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks! Dark-World25 (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
@Dark-World25: You can find your page at User:Nihlus/CVUA/Dark-World25. Finish that first set (which sounds like you have most of it done already), and then we can move on. We'll keep all the CVUA communication on that page. Whenever you are finished with a task, remember to ping me with {{ping|Nihlus}} and sign your message. Nihlus 03:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gillian Keegan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gillian Keegan. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't appreciate the attack

The user nihlus kryik sent me a message accusing me of doing something I did not do, and I do not appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.184.87 (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

NihlusBOT errors

I just wanted to let you know about a couple of errors I found with NihlusBOT. These changes, [3] and [4], made the respective images show up as being orphaned. I hope this notice will make sure these errors do not occur in the future. Aspects (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Aspects: Thanks! I will add this to the coding. It's hard for it to read the templates that put the pipe at the end instead of the beginning. That period is a new one though. That brings it to 20 different variants that people use for image parameters. sigh Nihlus 20:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Request

Is there a way for your Bot to take over the tasks of the Yobot and the BG19bot. As it seems the two bots owners has decided to take long breaks or similar. Would be very appreciated. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@BabbaQ: Which tasks are you talking about? Yobot's operator is still active. Nihlus 03:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Manual of Style

Please read the two points in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Possessives -> Singular nouns.

Regarding your point, you can hear the second "s" in "Gates's", "James's", and "Williams's", and all these are singular nouns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordofPens (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

NihlusBOT errors (Task 9)

Hi, just letting you know that the bot sometimes doesn't find/see/repair all the deprecated parameters on the first go. For examples see the history here or here. Doesn't seem to have anything to do with the number of changes to be made, a particular style (e.g. with spaces in front or behind the '|' or '=') or any particular citation style (e.g. web/book/etc.).
I have seen the bot go over some pages again and fix the remaining errors. Regards, 2A04:4540:1700:4201:B0FC:D8E4:5BC0:5A54 (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

These aren't errors. I fixed the code and had the bot go through some pages again and this is the result. Nihlus 14:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay? It just seems strange that sometimes the bot does not correct all deprecated parameters. Regards, 2A04:4540:1105:E701:1CB6:BF71:8203:82 (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

DRN case closed

Nihlus, I challenge whether anyone in your group actually read the Talk page -- which had plenty of input -- that was going nowhere. Whatever other parameters Wikipedia requires, clearly this was a dispute that needs intervention. I wish you would revisit and resolve what is clearly a dispute over who and how the David Stove entry gets improved. As for me, between others involved and DRN abandonment, I'm out: I've plenty of other articles I work on or create. Most disappointedly --Aboudaqn (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Aboudaqn: The discussion you are referring to was almost 10 years old, so, no, I will not revisit it. Nihlus 22:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Template:Infobox World Heritage Site/Wikidata

Hello. Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_4#Template:Infobox_World_Heritage_Site.2FWikidata. Since then, @Francis Schonken: has decided to merge the template and my attempts to revert this have in turn been reverted. See the template history and this discussion. Please could you have a look and see if this is appropriately following the outcome of the TfD? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:53, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: While my TfD closure did not speak specifically to redirecting the template, it did state "there should be no rush to get rid of one template over the other until everything is in order." I am intentionally not familiar with the templates enough to know the specific desires of the two parties involved, but if the template serves any use that the other cannot, then we should not be redirecting it. Thanks. Nihlus 14:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I propose Mike Peel makes their case of whether or not "the template serves any use that the other cannot" at Template talk:Infobox World Heritage Site#Usage of /Wikidata variant, a section on that page I just created for this purpose. --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, that didn't help. :-( Mike Peel (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Hello N. In case you haven't seen it an editor reverted your close here Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 7#Template:Contains Chinese text. I'm not complaining about that but I am wondering if its listing at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell#To orphan should be removed until the TFD is re-closed. Thanks for your time and thank again for the barnstar. MarnetteD|Talk 02:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it will stay. They went against WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, and I have no intentions of undoing my closure given the unanimous decision made there by the community. Nihlus 03:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. Thanks for letting me know. MarnetteD|Talk 04:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Ouch - I had not seen that editors talk page. Looks like they have had TFD disruption problems before. I'll try to be aware of that in the future. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 04:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:T-Mobile Arena. Legobot (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Request on 04:48:07, 15 November 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Filmfan67


Hi there,

I am getting a bit exasperated at this process and can't understand how any article is ever approved. I have MULTIPLE sources siting raving reviews, synopsis', IMDB listing, lists of WINS for the film, film festivals it has attended, sites of where the film is currently being distributed and even its sale agent and on and on. I have painstakingly gathered over 24 separate references giving this film validity. I also have another user telling me that my submission should have been approved with the references I have provided and that both you and another user are remiss in declining it. I have compared and contrasted my submission with many other indie films to ensure I am on track, and I see almost no difference between my submission and others that have been approved. I would greatly appreciate you reconsidering your decline and to throughly look at the validity of my references. I have heavily researched this film and gathered many sources and I know that it is wikipedia worthy and that my references meet the requirements. Thank you for your time.

Filmfan67 (talk) 04:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Filmfan67: Hey there, and thanks for reaching out. I was the first reviewer to decline your submission, and I think it's fair to give you some more context as to why. First thing I do when I review a submission is take a look at the references. Yours, for example, had quite a few. That being said, we typically pass by references to places like IMDB, since they can be edited by anyone and therefore aren't considered independent media coverage. Of the remaining references, most of these are to either very niche online magazines or to passing mentions of the subject, neither of which are considered in-depth media coverage as per our golden rule of notability. Now, I understand a previous editor mentioned they disagreed with me on account of garnering awards, and that's fine. However, if you take a look at our film notability guideline, #3 states: "The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking." if you click on that footnote, you see..
"This criterion is secondary. Most films that satisfy this criterion already satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete. Standards have not yet been established to define a major award, but it's not to be doubted that an Academy Award, or Palme D'or, Camera D'or, or Grand Prix from Cannes would certainly be included. Many major festivals such as Venice or Berlin should be expected to fit our standard as well."
That being the definition, I didn't see that your subject satisfied that. Now, I appreciate you comparing and contrasting your article to others here on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia, by design, can be edited by anyone and as a natural result, some articles that are here may not belong here. Obviously if you're comparing against those, it doesn't really help. If you do see some articles which you feel also don't fit our guidelines feel free to let me know and we can see if perhaps they either should be improved or removed from Wikipedia. Anywho, thanks for taking the time to read this and let me know if you have any further questions. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 05:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Drewmutt (talk)

Hi Drew, thanks for your input. I have a few comments and questions for you. Are you a film industry buff? I am assuming you might not be because getting a film onto IMDB is actually no easy feat contrary to what you have just said. In addition, this film has in fact actually won major awards of excellence in filmmaking. These reviews are not passing mentions nor are they niche media. If you use wikipedia to look up Outfest Film Festival and Frameline Film Festival and many others mentioned you would know that this film has won MAJOR awards. Frameline is the longest running LGBT film festival in existence. Outfest garners A-level stars in attendance and this film received THE audience award for the entirety of the festival. If you want me to point out every single article on wikipedia that hasn't won an Academy Award it would wipe out most of the wikipedia articles about films because such a suggestion is unrealistic. Those suggested examples are not the only form of major awards in filmmaking excellence and the footnote stating "standards have not yet been established to define major awards" means that you cannot decide to set the standard without the proper knowledge to do so. If you had thoroughly looked at the references I included which provide links to these major film festivals you would have been able to see their high status and validity in the film world. Please reconsider your opinion that the film has not received major excellence in filmmaking awards. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmfan67 (talk • contribs) 06:08, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

your premature closure

re Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_158#Talk:Unite_the_Right_rally.23Deliberate_deletion_of_counter-opinions_re:_Unite_The_Right_Rally I believe your reason "I see one user who is not adhering to the established consensus" was incorrect.

There was no established consensus. Equilibrium103 was disagreeing with others' opinions just as they were disagreeing with E's. Nobody was ignoring anyone.

I only just got the notification today. You closed this the day it was opened. Not all people involved in these things sign on every day, it deserves at least a week to get broad input.

Part of what drives active editors away from Wikipedia is this kind of gerrymandering where consensus is faked by a group of active editors who cooperate to condemn quickly and give a false impression of organic coincidence. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@ScratchMarshall: I'm not going to reiterate the comments I have made elsewhere (this is now the fourth page on which I am discussing this). It does not need to be open for a week and volunteers are free to close discussions they feel are more appropriate elsewhere. Instead of riding high on potential technicalities, I strongly suggest everyone involved in the dispute actually listen to the suggestions provided and work on improving the article. There are many reasons I suggested an RfC as I have stated elsewhere. Nihlus 06:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

No amount of reiteration could obfuscate that the reasoning you gave for closure was inaccurate, it was not a single person's voice and there was NOT consensus. You closed it under false pretenses. If you have such familiarity with the dispute I don't think you could be unaware of that. RfC sounds great. ScratchMarshall (talk) 06:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

trans_chapter changed to trans-title

This edit changed |trans_chapter= to |trans-title=. In the case of {{cite journal}}, that was a correct change, since |chapter= is not supported, but I wanted to make sure that this wasn't happening in templates like {{cite book}}. Are you making these changes using a manual add-on to AWB? – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

The bot is more-or-less done. These are all coded in regex, but there was a mix up for a couple minutes since AWB kept crashing on me. I also had to keep changing my code since I wasn't provided with the full number of templates that feed that category. I caught the error fairly quickly but let me revisit the pages. Nihlus 15:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jonesey95: I just went through near 1,000 edits around the same time frame. This only happened when I was fixing {{cite journal}} as there was an error in my original code that had excluded it. It shouldn't have happened in any other template (and didn't as far as I can tell). I've corrected the one other case I found. Thanks for letting me know. Nihlus 15:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I think I found one other, but if it happened only in {{cite journal}}, it's not a problem, since |chapter= isn't supported in that template anyway. The bot's work made an error more obvious, which is fine.
As for the bot's work being done, I expect that more articles will trickle into the category over the next few weeks as the job queue continues its work. An insource search done today shows 2,457 pages in article space (down from 55,000), though some of them are empty parameters that will not cause an error unless they are filled in later. I would be happy to compile them as a list for you so that we don't have to wait for the job queue. (Edited to add: Striking my link, since there are false positives on that list, including instances of {{vcite journal}}, which should not be modified.)– Jonesey95 (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I have forced about 1,000 pages into the category with null edits. That, plus the articles that your bot has processed, should add up to well over 99% of affected articles (unless I missed something with my searches). Let me know when the bot has passed through the category, and I will manually clean up the ones that are left. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jonesey95:  Done. Nihlus 23:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Looks great. Thanks. I'll take care of the stragglers. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism unit

Hello sir I am fighting with vandalism from past 2 years and i wanted to learn more policies to fight vandalism from you so will you be my instructor thanks. :Sidaq pratap/talk 16:05 PM 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Sidaq pratap: Possibly, but not right now as I will be out of the country for a bit. I suggest getting started with WP:TWINKLE; do that and you should be better prepared by the time I return. Thanks. Nihlus 21:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI (Data Feminism)

FYI, I've sent Data Feminism to AFD. – Train2104 (t • c) 04:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carter Page

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carter Page. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

DRN Newsletter

News and updates from Dispute resolution noticeboard

  •  volunteers: After the roll call that expired last week, the new list of volunteers is consisted of 12 editors. 10 inactive volunteers have been removed
  • awards: On 5 November, 2017, Robert McClenon received the Template:Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Award, Grade 4 by Kostas20142 and Yashovardhan Dhanania "for his extraordinary dedication and tireless contribution to DRN as a successful Coordinator from December 2016 to May 2017 and a ever helping volunteer since July 2014"
  • Preceding coordinator: Nihlus will be the next coordinator, with term from December, 2017 to January, 2018
  • Ongoing discussions: A discussion is currently ongoing regarding new volunteer awards system as proposed here. The proposal is still in brainstorming stage, and anyone may comment or add their ideas.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. All Wikipedia editors are welcome to opt in to the list, or to join DRN as a volunteer
Sent on behalf of Kostas20142 by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nihlus. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

added Joe Roe
readded JzG
removed Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Political appointments by Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for the help with Jefferson Davis Park, Washington. It's starting to turn into a real article and that would not have been possible without you giving it a chance. Thanks again. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tim McGraw

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tim McGraw. Legobot (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Can I request training?

Recently there has been a large rise in the amount of vandalism. Clever template hacking is starting to emerge, and it's likely the Zimbabwe military cop will cause a POV nightmare. With that in mind, I wish to be able to help fight back. Could you possibly train me to join the CVU? Thanks. TomBarker23 (talk) 09:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

@TomBarker23: I would like to see a pattern of anti-vandalism efforts before training you. Once you have done that (minimum a week of consistent efforts), I can look into it again. Thanks. Nihlus 11:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

1.0 log

Hello Nihlus. I have reverted this edit for now because it results in mainspace article links for categories and drafts (where the bot places erroneous links). Correcting them is a little more complex... Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 15:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted it. There is no reason to leave it in that state because of other potential errors. Nihlus 15:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
So information loss (that some are drafts) is acceptable to correct a lint log error? —PaleoNeonate – 15:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no "information loss". WP 1.0 bot intended to link the articles as such, regardless of whether or not it did it correctly. You should either remove the link entirely or fix it. Nihlus 15:53, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for the input, still trying to figure things out. Any advice on combining the pages? or deleting Foundation figures in favor of Foundation Figures? Wikiprojectgroup2 (talk) 05:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

AVGN in LJN

There's NO solid reason why AVGN cannot be mentioned in this article. He's been mentioned in a similar manner in the following similar articles:

And many others.

So tell me again why the LJN article in particular doesn't get the same treatment.

To back it up, AVGN isn't just any critic. No. He's perhaps the most well-known video game critic in the history of video game criticism.

If you guys are gonna revert these edits, then take it out of all articles mentioned above too. But you shouldn't. Because AVGN is VERY notable for what it does, which is video game criticism.

@ User:Smuckola Philmonte101 😊😄😞 (talk) 05:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: I didn't speak to AVGN nor do I really care deeply about its inclusion or exclusion. However, I did point you to WP:BRD, which I am now assuming you failed to read before marching to my talk page. Nihlus 06:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Emily Beecham

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Emily Beecham. Legobot (talk) 04:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Boy, am I glad I requested Special:AbuseFilter/850 a year and a half ago...thanks for moving that page back. A large proportion of these hits do seem to be students, and they just keep on going since all they care about is getting it live for a grade. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it's getting a little ridiculous. I'm going to be exploring some change here soon on WP:EDUN. Nihlus 01:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I've asked at WP:ENB before, some wording changes in the instructions were made, but the students aren't following them. Plus, I don't recall them saying to figure out why someone reverted your actions before doing them again. Education staff were more concerned about students editing in contentious/DS areas last year, which seems to have abated a little, but this issue hasn't. Neither has the issue of piles of "X in Y" or "X's effect on Y" essay-articles. – Train2104 (t • c) 01:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Converting improperly written out references to Cite web template

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests#Converting improperly written out references to Cite web template. Iggy (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nihlus/Archive_1&oldid=1143196840"