User talk:Ricky81682/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Wikipedia:Self-Reliance‎

We had an edit conflict on Wikipedia:Self-Reliance and I accidentally recreated par tof it after you moved it. Meters (talk) 00:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)‎

Self-Reliance Page

Sorry. This is my first time editing on Wikipedia so I did not know until I started adding different things to the pages. I was told to edit in my sandbox first before I moved it, because I am a student, but I understand your concern. From now on I will add a few things at a time directly to the page instead of copying and pasting it all at once. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmpatel9 (talk • contribs)

A Model of Christian Charity

Thank you. I forgot to add the zero at the end. When I went to edit this, there was only one citation for the book, so I thought that the rest would change but they did not. Do you know how to change the other citations so they also say 370? Rmpatel9 (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

They aren't combined. My fault, I did some but not all of them. How to do it is explained here but it can be quite complicated, don't worry about it. The actual work is in finding the information not these little details. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold

I have placed an unblock request on hold at User talk:ApparatumLover. the editor says that his/her days of playing around are over, and he/she certainly has done some constructive editing as well as playing, so I am inclined to give them another chance, on the understanding that the block goes right back in place if there is any more playing. What do you think? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I agreeable to that. I hope that editor understands why listing the user pages of new editors for deletion is particularly inappropriate. I can't imagine a worse way to scare off new editors. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I have unblocked the editor, and also told him or her what you have said about listing the user pages of new editors for deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Reply

They are not my numbers, they were the numbers that were already in the article. I reverted because changes were being made to the data without any explanation. A lot of times those types of edits are test edits by new editors. Occasionally, they are vandalism. On Baloch people the IPs did drive by edits with no stated reason for the change, then rather than explain themselves, the IPs chose to assume bad faith and make personal attacks. You are the only one to point to sources, though your tone came across as confrontational. Checking those sources shows that the changed numbers were correct and the larger incorrect numbers must have been inserted sometime in the past. Now that evidence shows the old numbers were wrong, I will not be reverting to the incorrect numbers. Edward321 (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Carolmooredc

Hi, you protected Carolmooredc's user talk page today so that only those with sysop rights can now edit it. Could you please reduce this restriction? Though over the last two years we have seen more and more banned users as a result of Arbcom cases getting their own talk page edit right removed, there is I believe no precedent for this act.

Carolmooredc's ban has raised several important questions about how the community of the English Wikipedia should improve, this user talk page is part of that on-going discussion for many valid contributors to this project. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

+1 I would like to know the justification for this protection 基 (talk) 11:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see how WP:Site ban and WP:BLOCKBANDIFF are relevant - the rules that apply to protecting user talk pages are Wikipedia:Protection policy. Apart from the formal aspect can you also elaborate on what you think was achieved by applying a year of full blown protection? 基 (talk) 12:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Chiming in here, I can understand Carol's ability to post on her page is extremely limited under the ban, but I don't see why the page has to be protected based on the very little that has happened there since. There has been legitimate news coverage criticizing her ban, which I why I posted that link on her page.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
    Rather than protecting the page against all edits, a more productive move, might be to add a notice on the talk page to limit discussion to that which may support a future unban request. Other banned editors have been able to provide this as evidence of their public discussion about their block and their intended approach for future contributions to the project. In the longer term this may help Carol, even if they feel like not bothering right now, so soon after the ban.
    The page is not being used to hound or harass any party, so those types of concerns that have been used as reasons to stop other banned editors from using their own talk page, appear moot. --Fæ (talk) 16:37, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
  • +1. I'm a bit flummoxed as to why full protection is remotely necessary given that discussion on the page is primarily well-wishes with a short discussion about a news article that is linked and discussed much more extensively elsewhere on-wiki. It also seems to be out of line with our protection policy, and is especially problematic given that it prevents other people from making any comment on her talk page as well. The standard protocol for problematic use of a blocked or banned user's talkpage is revoking their TPA, not protecting the whole thing - although I would disagree with even suspending TPA in this instance. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The appropriate remedy to a banned user posting is to remove their ability to edit the talk page, not to restrict others from editing the page. NE Ent 01:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I made a request for discussion at WP:AN. In this case, the editor's talk page has been subject to a number of attacks from my understanding given the various past protections. Would it really be preferable to allow others to edit her page but not her? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm having trouble parsing a number of attacks from my understanding given the various past protections. -- thinking maybe some words are missing? (feel free to dump this comment if you update the statement) NE Ent 01:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
If I were to semi-protect it, would that accomplish a lot? It was semi-protection before and yet there were attacks there. Your edits would continue. I thought that limiting it to administrators under December 1, 2015 (I didn't chose 'one year' but that specific expiration date) would prevent possible issues with the editors communicating with her or her about the use of her talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi would be reasonable -- I'm not aware of any attacks since her banning. NE Ent 03:13, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Did I ever state that there were any attacks? User:Neotarf was similarly banned. That editor lost access to their talk page and to email and the only reason User talk:Neotarf is semi protected is because users were screwing around removing the ban notice. In this case, semi-protection would not protect us from the users who are communicating with the editor, namely individuals such as yourself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I haven't directly communicated with CMDC since sometime preceding the filing of the case, and my last comment in the case page can be found here. I appreciate you opening the AN thread for feedback; I think I'll confine my future comments there, except to note that no one (at least I) is accusing you of "abuse" or bad faith, we just disagree with a specific action you took. NE Ent 12:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Check my block-log. You may use my past situation as a guide to what should/shouldn't be done. GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You were blocked on May 6, 2013. This is the sum total of all engagement on your talk page from your ban until reinstatement. Here, other editors have chosen to engage with the banned editor. Do you think it would be appropriate to prevent Carolmooredc from editing the talk page while allowing others to continue to do so? Do you think there will be attacks on her talk page? Do you think it's preferable to permit access and to allow possible attacks and then to revert them afterwards or preferable to just prevent any usage until she can appeal? Rather than a manual change, I automated the protection so it ends on the day any appeal can be started. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the events leading up to my talkpage privillages being revoked, occured April 22-May 6, 2013. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
On a semi-related note, thank you for striking out several comments that were... a little heated in their tone. Sometimes it is worthwhile to step away from the computer and do something else for a little while. —Dark 09:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm grateful that you've included an automatic restoration of CMDC's talkpage privillages. It was a consideration Richwales didn't bestow on me :) GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
BTW, don't you mean CMDC's talkpage is protected until (not under) December 1, 2015? GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Probably a good reason why it shouldn't be protected. No one can fix my mistakes. :) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

MIA

Ricky81682, sorry I have been MIA; busy week and also currently in a discussion on two pages (Ulises Heureaux, and Joaquín Balaguer) as a certain editor insists to use WP:OR and revert my edits, while I have posted 5-8 sources (mostly books) on the particular subject. Like there is no question. Anyway, resuming to the compas article, etc. Savvyjack23 (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Ziad Abu Ein

Hi there, Ricky81682. It appears that the Ziad Abu Ein article has been deleted. Would you be able to help me get it restored or rewrite it? Thank you for your help. Rustandbone (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Ricky81682, thank you for all your help with this article (twice!). I couldn't have done it without you. Rustandbone (talk) 02:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Don't modify or remove posts.

Hello. I just want to say: Please do not modify or remove other people's posts, as you did with this edit [1] to Baconbutterz's talk page. Thanks. ApparatumLover (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Deaths in 2013/My OR stuff

Note early on in the deletion discussion, user copied everything to User:Deaths_in_2013/sandbox. This should be deleted as well. Should not need another deletion discussion to delete the exact same content that was already deleted. – JBarta (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

More userspace longevity articles

I was looking at the list of subpages for each of the users who had userspace longevity articles and one of them has a number of these articles: User:AMK152/Future supercentenarians, User:AMK152/OldestPeople, User:AMK152/Longevity, User:AMK152/totals, User:AMK152/List_of_oldest_cats, User:AMK152/Last veterans of World War I that I think should all be deleted. There are also a number of other pages in that userspace. I'm unfamiliar with MfD; can I just tag these pages for MfD and then add them to the User:AMK152/107 MfD page or do I need to set up a separate group for this lot? Thanks for your help. Ca2james (talk) 15:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Ricky81682; I see you've started the process, and there are a lot of them. AMK152, I wanted to know whether there was an easy shortcut to nominating those pages for MfD before talking to you and before doing anything (there isn't). You've been here a very long time and you know (or should know, being such an experienced editor) the guidelines on userspace pages. I understand keeping drafts of work but many of the subpages in your userspace aren't labelled as drafts, they look like articles, and they haven't been touched in ages. Plus there's all those longevity pages that shouldn't be in userspace at all. Obviously now that we all know about this situation, something needs to be done to ensure the pages that violate the guidelines are deleted. Ca2james (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know. I have been reviewing my subpages. I have nominated 18 of them for deletion; 7 are waiting for deletion and 11 have already been deleted. — AMK152 (t • c) 02:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

User:AMK152/Cameron

Honestly, I find it easier and much more respectful to talk to people about their subpages instead of slapping up a deletion tag without asking the person about the page and its purpose. This: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:AMK152/Cameron is not necessary. I have already tagged the page for deletion. — AMK152 (t • c) 00:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you would find it easier. They would suggest it's not appropriate and you would argue it is. Nothing would change. A deletion review, however, is not a thing perpetually argued away. It's a specific action looking for a specific outcome within a finite period of time. You are welcome to make your case for retention there. – JBarta (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, but in this case we don't need a discussion, so I marked it for deletion since it is no longer needed. Every subpage that was nominated for deletion, the nominator has incorrectly stated it's use. Don't assume I would argue; all I would want to be able to do is tell the person the purpose of the subpage so a bunch of people don't discuss it thinking the subpage is used for something I never intended. — AMK152 (t • c) 00:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't necessarily matter what the nominated pages are used for or what your intentions are for them; it matters whether they conform to the WP:USERPAGE and WP:NOT guidelines. Almost none of the pages in your user space conform to those guidelines: most either look like articles (failing WP:FAKEARTICLE) or they're just they're lists of stuff being hosted on Wikipedia (failing WP:NOTWEBHOST). Some of your pages could possibly be drafts but that's not obvious, especially when the information has been forked from an existing article. Have you considered placing {{userspace draft}} at the top of your actual drafts? Or creating your drafts in Draft space? Ca2james (talk) 01:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

AMK152, ask you what? Can you look over all these pages for me? If you think they should be deleted, then list them now. You shouldn't have to wait until an MFD is filed to list them. Why don't we start with you listing the ones you recognize are problematic for deletion and then people can evaluate the others. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, you're arguing keep on one and this one you want listed for deletion. Why are you making it my job to figure out which ones you acknowledge should be deleted but hasn't listed them on your own and which ones you disagree with me on? -- 01:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I am talking about asking me the purpose of the subpage before listing it for deletion. I am presently reviewing them. I am not sure what you mean by your question. I have tagged 12 subpages of mine for deletion and 11 of them have been deleted. That's 11 less deletion discussions because I tagged them for deletion myself. — AMK152 (t • c) 02:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Additionally, I wasn't waiting around for an MFD discussion. It has been a while since I reviewed my subpages. — AMK152 (t • c) 02:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Crossing out comments by a banned editor

I see that it is sometimes done. Is it supported? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm.. I'm definitely not liking the sound of this. Reminds me of Stalin erasing all traces of those who were purged. In modern parlance... it's a dick move. – JBarta (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
It is standard practice to remove edits by banned users. Banned means not allowed to edit. Chillum 09:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
He's talking about crossing out comments made by an editor before they were banned. – JBarta (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Did I screw up somewhere? - Ricky81682 (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, G5 is applicable but after the ban is imposed. I believe pre-ban edits are left alone. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
As it should be. Comments made by an editor before they are banned are comments made by an editor in good (if shaky) standing. – JBarta (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, why the need to strike out comments? Just ignore them. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Ignoring them takes all the fun out of proclaiming to the world that the varmint should have never been paid attention to in the first place. – JBarta (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Premature close of FergusM1970 ban discussion

Hello Ricky81682. I note you recently closed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Community ban discussion of FergusM1970, and proceeded to block User:FergusM1970, after the discussion had been open for only 12 hours. In my estimation this was clearly premature; the Wikipedia:Banning policy states that such discussions are to be open for at least 24 hours before taking action, and I see no compelling reason to invoke WP:IAR in this particular case. Though most of the contributors to the discussion supported the ban, I have seen the consensus shift in similar discussions which were allowed to continue for a full day or longer. Furthermore the user in question was not being actively disruptive during the time of the discussion; his contributions were mostly to discussion pages, with the few article edits being only to address problems which other users had raised.

I considered bringing this directly to WP:ANI, as this is the second time in as many months that you've improperly banned a user. (In November User:UrbanVillager complained at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive861#Rogue Admin that you imposed a topic ban on him despite being involved and after too short a discussion period; his complaint was upheld.) But I think the simplest way of fixing the situation would be for you to reverse your block, reopen the discussion, and allow someone else to close it after at least another 24 hours have passed. Psychonaut (talk) 10:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel the close was justified, there was clearly a consensus for the ban with one person opposing, in addition the discussion had also run it's course in other areas. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I reversed the block and reopened the discussion. Psychoanut is right, someone else could block him indefinitely based on his conduct or the discussion but banning policy does require 24 hours. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Reclosed with same outcome as consensus remained evident. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
May as well expand on previous comment - consensus was fairly clear prior to the first close but no harm in the reopening as requested in case there were significant additional points or views to be added. However, several hours later there had been little further input and some obvious trolling from the subject of the proposed ban. As the sequential open periods now totalled close to 24 hours and the thread had become unproductive, I closed it a second time. Happy to discuss further if required, or if there are concerns.
Ironically I also closed the "rogue admin" thread referred to above - Ricky81682, I'm not stalking you, I promise . :) -- Euryalus (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey, at least you didn't vote to punish me there so no harm, no foul. Besides I think the only thing he was doing was commenting on the other paid editing section of ANI. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Phi Epsilon Chi

Readded the founding history, primary source, but IMO, enough to avoid BLP.Naraht (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Guidance and assistance

Hello Ricky81682. Could you please offer guidance and assistance with respect to ANI and concerning this discussion, inappropriately posted on an article Talk page? User:98.247.126.245 made unfounded allegations that I was carrying out somebody else’s agenda, claiming that I was acting as a sock or meat puppet, falsely associating me with recruitment via an outside website, reverting valid edits and labelling them “vandalism”, and suggesting that I was involved in "deliberate anti-intellectual obscurantism”. Apparently User:98.247.126.245 acted without taking sufficient time to examine actual contribution content and history, which clearly show these concerns were unfounded. I respectfully request that User:98.247.126.245 be asked to 1) retract unfounded allegations and offer an apology; 2) acknowledge that actions were rash and agree to act responsibly in the future; and 3) make reparation in the record insofar as possible. In particular, I suggest the following responsible conduct: 1) examine the actual history and content of contributions before acting; 2) properly log in or request assistance from an administrator; 3) assume good faith and communicate directly with an editor in good standing if there is a genuine concern; 4) do not revert valid edits and label them as “vandalism”; 5) do not post inappropriately regarding other editors on an article’s Talk page; 6) do not make allegations of puppetry without sound evidence; and 7) participate directly in good faith discussion concerning content or Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Thank you – TheProfessor (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there more than needs to be done at the moment? I thought I made it clear here to make a report at WP:SPI rather than make allegations. I make the same comment at WP:ANI as well. I have no seen no further editing from the user even though it's clear that this and this make the same puppetry claims. The ANI discussion has clearly ignored the claim entirely along with the talk page. Warning the IP address likely has little value since it's probably rotated by now. If it comes up again, please inform me but now I'd say just try to move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ricky81682, for responding. I note that User:98.247.126.245 has made various edits over the past couple of years. Assuming you do not need it, I would be grateful if we could delete what is left of Talk:Evolution#Inappropriate_discussion. Yes, it is best to move on. Thanks, again. TheProfessor (talk) 02:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the ANI discussion is still ongoing (regarding DonaldKronos's conduct) but the comment is basically so hidden no one is going to notice at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, although couldn't ANI just link to the deleted version? Let me know if you need input concerning the ongoing ANI discussion. Discussion with the user in question was challenging, to say the least, and I agree that this is a case of WP:CIR, WP:NOTHERE, and WP:RGW. His latest post on Talk:Evolution#Regarding_recent_changes, while civil, does not give much hope for productive contribution. TheProfessor (talk) 03:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I just put that link so the contents are clear. Within a day or so I imagine the ANI report will be archived and the talk page will archived and no one will remember or care. As to User:DonaldKronos, it seems resolved in whatever way at the moment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Ayasaki

u no need to edit my user page.. Ok.. Da## #### — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdayasakii (talk • contribs) 06:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Ricky81682,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

User:NickOrnstein

In fact, if you examine their user page, there's exactly 1 possibly unsourced claim about a living person, which it took me about 10 seconds to verify, and only that long because my internet's a bit wonky this morning. WP:BLP - which is good to read before invoking - requires contentious claims to be sourced; and allows for their removal without discussion; I don't actually see any evidence that any of the claims are contended, just a blanket complaint that some claims aren't sourced. The point was brought up (and is true) that the user is an active editor in longevity related pages; this allows them a lot of freedom to use their userspace for longevity related stuff (as it does with anything else - my userpage is covered in external links related to Canadian History - if I'd never made a mainspace edit, it might get removed - even speedily deleted as G11 or U5 - but since I'm an active editor doing history of Canada stuff, it's unobjectionable). If you prefer WP:UPYES explicitly lists things like Notes related to your Wikipedia work and activities and Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future as things you're allowed to have on your userpage. People who don't edit Wikipedia can't use their userpage as a free webhost, yes. But people who do edit Wikipedia have a lot of latitude to use it to host material related to their editing. WilyD 08:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Precedent and policy do matter in closing, especially when total participation is low. WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE (which you linked) says to only have information relevant to their notability, and to be particularly careful with material that might be harmful to someone's reputation - the former is met, and the latter doesn't apply. WP:NOTWEBHOST (read it) severally restricts the amount of stuff you can have on your userpage unrelated to your encyclopaedia building activities, the material in question is related to their Wikipedia activities, so go back to the top of Wikipedia:User pages and find that considerable leeway is allowed in personalizing and managing your user pages. Yes, it's more like notes than a draft, but both are allowed. A close only weighting headcount might be no consensus, but the outcome is the same. But policy and precedent matter a lot, especially when there's only a few people commenting, and it makes it a pretty obvious keep. Editors have a lot of latitude to use their userspace for things related to their encyclopaedia-building activities. That's not my vote, that's policy. Contentious and possibly harmful information about living people needs to be sourced, but no one has argued it's either (and it's all sourced now). Not a vote, but policy (and facts). You're free to avail yourself of DRV, of course, but they're not likely to delete a userpage that contains content about the area the editor works on, which contains innocuous, sourced information about living people who have attracted some notability (if perhaps not enough yet to write an article - but from Oldest people, you can see that being verifiably trés old often attracts enough notability to write an article). WilyD 10:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 4 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Protection templates

You removed protection templates from protected pages with the edit summary "rm incorrect protection notice". I'm willing to assume it's a honest mistake, but please explain what led you to this erroneous conclusion? Please self-revert the edits that were mistaken. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What page are you talking about specifically? I think I've cleared more than a few thousand from the backlog at Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. I've only seen a few reversions I think. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Simultaneous opposite direction parallel runway operations

Thanks for that fix, the semipro expired and the Cavalry didn't clean it up. Reventtalk 08:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Just realized that the last section is relevant as well, when a 'temporary' semipro expires they go into 'incorrect', and better es would be something like 'removed pp notice from page where it expired', or something along those lines. Reventtalk 08:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Expired protection notice? I just don't know what's the best edit summary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Listroiderbob/tagging

Hi. any chance you could put this up for Miscellany for deletion. The very notion of it I find vandalising to wikipedia. Excessive tagging is a big problem, and it only ecnourages editors to tag lots of articles and pick holes in the work of others instead of improving the encyclopedia. Let me know and I and I'm sure a few others will vote to delete it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll think about it but I'm a little uncomfortable that this is approaching canvassing. I have to think about a line or rule of some type that could be worked on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Page mysteriously deleted. Please save it!

Hi I am AH47, My record label Spectra Records built me a very nice Wiki page as I am a recording artist, and the page was about me. It was deleted by you it shows for a lack of verifiable references. I'm sure I can provide whatever you may need. The page was for Blues Artist Phil Gates, which is who I am. The person at the label may have gotten a deletion notice, but I did not. Can you please un delete my page, as it is a valid page, and a considerable amount of work went into it. Thank you. Phil AH47 (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by AH47 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ricky I will work on the references. AH47 (talk) 21:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


Please comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:AdmiralAlex

Hi, though this is not in exactly the same vein as the longevity-related user pages that were put up for Mfd this appears sufficiently similar to deserve examination. So far I have had no input for any other users so would appreciate your input. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 22:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Lack of notification

Yesterday, you put my draft article User:Auric/Hessie Donahue up for deletion, without notifying me. Why did you not notify me?--Auric talk 10:15, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Jeopardy! episode count

Please let me know what steps I should be taking to seek review of the decision to close the discussion and delete the essay. I don't believe there was proper consensus for the decision and I don't think that deletion is in line with the guidelines. If policy proposals, philosophical musings about Wikipedia, and satirical content are proper subjects for userspace essays, then explanations of why an edit is not original research under the guidelines are proper. Such content is not "soapbox" any more than any exploration of policy is. Because I'm dissatisfied, I'd like to take this up to a higher level of review. Robert K S (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. "[A] singular content dispute ... was the crux of the issue within the MFD"--if that was the case, then your decision to delete was especially wrong, because (a) the core of the issue wasn't a content dispute, it was a policy dispute (viz., what constitutes original research?) and (b) regardless of one's position in a content dispute, that should not be a reason to silence dissenting opinions by deleting userspace essays explaining and bolstering those opinions. The encyclopedia needs places to discuss content and policy. Talk pages are appropriate places for such discussions, yes, but when the same issue arises again and again, it is helpful to have a single linkable place to use to cite to general propositions, just as one links to WP:V or WP:CALC as a shorthand. Your conclusion that "that discussion does not belong on a userspace" is not correct. "Expansion and detailed backup for points being made (or which you may make) in discussions elsewhere on the wiki" are explicitly allowed in the userspace under WP:UP. As to the remark, "If you still want to argue generally for the inclusion of the episode count..." I'd point out that the issue has never been inclusion or disinclusion--but rather, whether the episode count shown in the article is factually correct or factually incorrect. Right now, a wrong number is shown. Robert K S (talk) 12:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It's neither a soapbox nor a content dispute. It's a policy essay. Are you saying essays can't be revised? For the purposes of the DRV discussion I will be initiating, could you please point me to the precise policy or guideline under which the essay was deleted? Thanks. Best, Robert K S (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Your closing explanation was not explanatory. I pointed to a specific portion of the WP:UP guidelines that expressly allowed for the content, which was backup for a Jeopardy! talk page discussion subject that arises frequently. The closing explanation, by contrast, does not point to any policy or guideline stating that the content is not allowed. I see that as something of a strange procedural failure. If the deleting admin cannot point to the policy or guideline under which the deletion is premised, I think that's something that I would like to be able to point out in the DRV discussion. The bottom line is that this sort of material--a reasoned explanation as to why a method of arriving at content (and not, as you seem to believe, content itself--the essay suggests no specific content) falls squarely within Wikipedia guidelines and does not constitute original research--is precisely what the userspace is for, and what plenty of userspace essays relate to. Suppose the essay related to appropriate synthesis of historical materials, and explained why such synthesis did not constitute original research. Under your reasoning, that essay, too, would be deleted. That's not right, and that's why DRV is appropriate. Best, Robert K S (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User:Caddyshack3838/Sortsofsports.com

Hello Ricky81682. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Caddyshack3838/Sortsofsports.com, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not promotional, under userspace, not U5 material. Viable draft (with some work). Thank you. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 00:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'll list it at MFD. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:31st-century BC establishments by country

A tag has been placed on Category:31st-century BC establishments by country requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for four days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Fayenatic London 18:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Category:35th-century establishments should have "BC" in the name. If you agree, I can just do it. – Fayenatic London 18:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's another empty one: Category:300 disestablishments by country. – Fayenatic London 19:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, following upmerger of 2nd-century BC disestablishments by country at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 20, will you look after Category:3rd-millennium BC disestablishments by country yourself? – Fayenatic London 07:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If you have the capoacity

to start new categories, you should also be able to actually make sure they are not red link categories as well, I am sure there is a protocol or policy somewhere - Dutch Empire is one thing, but to have as red link is not really very helpful.... JarrahTree 08:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there some particular time frame or something in particular I've done? The Dutch Empire goes from the 1540s until the 1970s and I've already created and organized Dutch Brazil, Dutch East Indies and Dutch India and I was trying to get all the Dutch colonies built out first and then work out the ones with some common dates so it's not just 1000 individual 1-subcategory categories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I was just suprised that there was red link categories related to the dutch empire - dutch east indies... ok by the sheer number, I figure you will get around to fixing it, JarrahTree 09:59, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Ok. There's very categories at all for those articles. The UK history pieces go back in crazy detail to time but the other European empires are fairly lacking (the entire Dutch Empire category didn't even exist a few days ago lol). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Misunderstanding about a CfD outcome leads to hundreds of inappropriate edits

I'm not accusing anyone, misunderstandings can happen – just looking for a way to contain the damage and repair it ASAP. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

    • @Francis Schonken: I agree. The CFD was only for parent categories for language families, not words and phrases by language.
    However, you made a further incorrect move from Category:Words and phrases in Latin languages to Category:Words and phrases in Latin, which I have reverted. It needs to go back to Category:Latin words and phrases, which was always a good name. Please undo any more that you have done, and let Ricky then revert the unnecessary changes that he has made.
    Ricky, after closing a CfD, please only process categories that were nominated. If you think there are consequent further renames needed afterwards, please propose them at WP:CFDS.
    if you're not an admin and would like me to use the CfD bots to put back some that you moved in error, let me know. – Fayenatic London 12:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
      • Can't move to Category:Latin words and phrases (no admin bit). At least Category:Words and phrases in Latin is correct for the intended content of the cat. Category:Words and phrases in Latin languages is not correct content-wise. Moving to a correct category name that is not an existing page (including redirects) is about all I can do, being no bot-equipped person either. If neither Ricky nor any other admin steps in to get it all back to the right places/categorizations my next step would be to ask help at ANI. Note that I didn't cause any of this, and my time to assist in reparation is limited. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:10, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
        • Francis, please stop making even more undiscussed category moves – it gets very confusing to sort out. (This is in response to your moving the above yet again to yet another name, Category:Words and phrases in Latin language (no "s").)
        I will move the Latin and Italian categories back to "Fooian words and phrases". – Fayenatic London 14:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
          • Sorry, I have no involvement with Category:Words and phrases in Latin language (didn't create it, didn't move anything there, didn't even know it existed before this showed up on my watchlist). Let's make an agreement: I won't use words like "clueless" any more, you don't say "undiscussed" for things that were discussed, and don't say I moved things where I didn't move them.
          Note that moving those two categories is only less than the tip of the iceberg: there are several others, and a lot of pages to recategorize. So I'd definitely hope Ricky81682 steps in ASAP, while indeed things can only get more complicated the longer reparation is postponed (I might not be the only one trying to repair in an inefficient way and/or edit articles for whatever other reason). --Francis Schonken (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
          • As for what is left to be reinstated: is there anything that I have not picked up, as listed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 25?
            Ricky: apologies for forgetting that you were an admin – I saw that you had processed some using AWB rather than the CfD bots. Thankfully the bots did not process all the ones you listed on the Working page. I cancelled those remaining and added some reversals, see here. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

It was mostly through AWB not the bots. As I warned the user at User_talk:Tropylium#CFD_nomination_without_notice, the whole discussion was a mess since the editor didn't bother to post the notices on the page, inform the editors nor provide a complete list of what was to be done. I think it's best to reverse all of it and re-post the CFD anew to allow a proper discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I will own up to your first two allegations (not that it is clear to me how informing more editors would have helped here), but misreading the CFD has been your mistake: the eight categories I listed are in fact the complete list of categories that were supposed to be targetted here. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC) 
I had not realised that these were nominated without tagging the category pages. @Tropylium: tagging category pages is considered essential, as the main means of alerting editors to the fact that a discussion is taking place, (i) because some may be watching the page, but mainly (ii) because this generates an alert to the WikiProjects which have banners on the category talk pages. Ricky, I concur: please put them back. At least you can now use Cydebot to do it, as it is working on categories again. For future reference, I have added a step at WP:CFDAI to cover this situation. – Fayenatic London 16:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you; your second piece of information, of which I have had no idea, is quite essential for assessing whether the procedural policies here have any point to them at all. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 19:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I presumed that "(i.e. for all genetic language groups)" and you listing the parent category meant that there were others to be included. While I take full responsibility, I was the one who was left to do the mess of work that now needs to be reversed. There's a reason that we have giant backlogs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I suppose the CfD initiator thought anyone would discern a language from a language group. That is not so. I hope nobody gets discouraged over this. I see the bots picking up on putting things straight. CfD guidelines have been adjusted, diminishing the chance the chain of events will repeat in the future. Thanking you all for your efforts. --Francis Schonken (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree. However, if you using a heading for a "subcategory of a category" and don't define which ones are and aren't part of your listing, you can't expect other people to read your mind. The discussion itself was very poor anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the CfD as filed was malformed in multiple ways. I go from the assumption that Tropylium has learnt something here. Every once and awhile such cockups will happen, even from the most well-meaning editors. I'm sorry it was us having to deal with it this time... --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Fictional magicians by gender

Hi again Ricky, good work on reverting the language categories.

When you closed Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_17#Category:Fictional_magicians_(fantasy) you said there was no consensus to merge genders, and yet you did so – rather than rename to a "female" category as I had suggested. I'm not asking you to change the outcome, but if you don't then you might as well remove those words from your close. – Fayenatic London 07:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete deletion

Hi Ricky, you closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Phoenix79/2006 World Cup and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Phoenix79/2010 World Cup, but you didn't complete the actual deletion process. Regards. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:20, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Bots


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Unilateral addition of dubiouis text

Hello! I'd like to ask you to revert the unilateral additions of dubious text made by User:Rob.HUN at the semi-protected article called Austria-Hungary. His edits were once reverted after my talk page request at Talk:Austria-Hungary#Semi-protected_edit_request_on_28_June_2015, but now he restored them. 213.229.101.59 (talk) 08:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Please undo the change at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenn_Cuneta

Hi Ricky,

Can you please undo the edit that you made on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenn_Cuneta That text has been there for years. Not sure what prompted you to make the edit. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.196.192.8 (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sri Lanka or Ceylon categories

Hi Ricky81682, this CfD asks for a choice between option 1 – Sri Lanka or option 2 – Ceylon. You !voted for Option 2 – Sri Lanka. Please would you go back and strike out whichever part of that you did not mean, and insert what you did mean? – Fayenatic London 18:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, RFA? RFC, presumably… – Fayenatic London 22:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
There hasn't been any consistency along all the various CFDs. That may be the easiest end result. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Category:21th-century disestablishments in Bhutan

Category:21th-century disestablishments in Bhutan, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

@SchreiberBike: Geez, should have just asked lol. It's a speedy renaming candidate anyways so I did it myself if you don't mind. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Great! Thanks,  SchreiberBike | ⌨  04:08, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

YOU HAVE DONE A GREAT OFFENCE

You have placed a page in my user space that does not belong there, and which I expressly said I DID NOT WANT THERE. Remove it at once, or face centuries of disdain. RGloucester — ☎ 16:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

  • DELETE IT NOW, I said. DELETE IT NOW, or face centuries of disdain. Do you dare defy my expressed logics? DELETE IT NOW! RGloucester — ☎ 16:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Ricky, I came here to ask about this essay - specifically, to ask why we have retained numerous cross-namespace redirects like WP:ARGENTINE to a userspace essay. But in the light of the above comments, I will put my question on hold until I see what becomes of the userspace essay. And by the way, thanks for closing the discussion. Please realize, when you do this kind of admin chore, that for every (spoken) abusive reaction like the above, you get dozens of (unspoken) grateful reactions from the rest of us. --MelanieN (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

NO "USERSPACE ESSAY" exists. THERE IS NO ESSAY, only a page that was planted within my userspace to decieve you. Eliminate it, if you can! If this planter of pages does not delete it, then you must! DELETE! RGloucester — ☎ 20:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
You know, User:RGloucester, if you really want it deleted, screaming your head off on the talk page of somebody who probably isn't even online right now is not the way to do it. Just tag it with {{Db:author}} or {{Db:userreq}} and it will be gone within hours. --MelanieN (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@MelanieN:. It comes with the territory after nine and a half years as an admin. This is my particular favorite especially DRV2. As to your first question, there's no policy reason against redirects. For example, User:DESiegel/Template the regulars has redirects from WP:TR, WP:TTR. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
You must repent for your offence. Think hard on this, for it shall be with you until the grave. Regardless, DELETION has been COMPLETED and the PLANTING has been EXTRICATED. RGloucester — ☎ 14:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. Ricky81682 (talk)

Introducing the new WikiProject Ghana!

Greetings!

The flag of Hampshire

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Ghana! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 3,474 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in Ghana.

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ricky81682/Archive_9&oldid=1139081158"