User talk:Tide rolls/Archive 55

Why send me the warning

I was trying to stop that person with its disruptive editing. Maybe he told that on you. Look I was telling that person that some people are not promoted in the movie their due to the fact that their no longer with a company plus you don't see them on the cover of a dvd. 72.64.207.76 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Why? Because you were edit warring. Full stop. I'm sure you noticed my message did not mention content. In this instance I couldn't possibly care less. Read the link I left you and if you are still unclear on any aspect of edit warring please let me know. Tiderolls 23:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Real Deal keeps doing this edit warring alright. If there's a problem its him alright. Like I said I was trying to fix something and I didn't do anything bad.72.64.207.76 (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Read...the...policy: WP:Edit warring. You'll discover being right does not mitigate the violation. Tiderolls 21:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Dry thunderstorm

An article that you have been involved in editing—Dry thunderstorm —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Pierre cb (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Pierre cb (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy 2016!

Roll Tide!

;^) Tiderolls 01:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Spirit of Sauron endures

Hi,

No the legal threat was not redacted. Yes, he delete the text about the police. However, he has left text which cites an element of tort law, he has referenced the civil claim of negligence, he continues to recruit others in like circumstances as though he were prepping for a class action, and there is no evidence from his behavioral response to feedback or content disputes that he will react any way other than thinking he is the victim of a legal crime or tort. Classic case of CIR, as I said in his failed bullying ANI complaint. FYI, the user has stated that he has ASD, so I'm not without sympathy, just out of patience.

I was working on a boomerang when the matter was closed. I may still file it as a stand alone.

On the other hand, if you want amusement, check out my self-report at AE. Whoops. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, NewsAndEventsGuy. I'll check again soon; by way of explanation, I'm loathe to block except in the case of direct threats. I do believe the individual has a point to make (how valid? meh...) but their lack of taking on board advice is concerning. One may hate/detest/resent bureaucracy, but swimming upstream just to get your laps in is a waste of time. See ya 'round Tiderolls 16:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Re

Well, I'm not sure about edits on the Economics_(textbook) article, but that wasn't what prompted me to report this user, I was on the Fine Gael page and noticed the edit here.. I then and had a look on the users talk page and contributions, and noticed some edits like on the LGBT Parenting page and warnings on the talk page. So I figured the time for assuming good faith was up on this user, its seems pretty obvious their intention is to mislead and spread misinformation, so they should therefore be blocked.

But please inform me if this is not the appropriate action to be taken and inform of what would be appropriate, thanks.

Hey

You ready? This is not going to be a gimme. Stick with the process. Finish the play. Drmies (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, Professor, Nick really has you sold! I'm impressed. Roll tide. Tiderolls 00:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Hey, I'm sold on Lane Kiffin. And, tonight, OJ Howard. That was a tough game, Tide, but you rolled. Drmies (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
• And didn't you love how they ran that same play for Henry behind those two 300+ pounders? Are they doing the Scale Back Alabama jive at your job too? Drmies (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No, sir. We're strictly Foosackly's and Five Guys where I work. I make no apologies :^) Tiderolls 06:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Warning

Instead of warning me, can you look a little closer at what went on with @Jim1138:?

I spent a consider time improving an article. He and two other authors came about and replaced a 99% EXACT duplicate of content which actuall remained in topic,

All I had done was paragraphize it.

Of course, I removed it.

You can see it here under the section 'History' as plain as day.

He then attacked me claiming I was edit warring.

• Where is the sense in that?
• What is the benefit in duplicating content?
• How did it improve the article or encourage involvement?

Therefore I asked him to remove and erase the bad mark so it is not used again me but he refuses, and now runs to you.

Do you think this is correct, or do you think you are just being manipulated by him?

Again, I ask you, what is the benefit to the Wikipedia or its readers to have duplicate and badly composed content?

Thank you. --Wordfunk (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That you posted here,Wordfunk, instead of your user talk tells me all I need to know. Did you not see the notice at the top of this page? Keeping discussions in a single location is preferable to any other system. The background to your dispute is irrelevant. You are verging on harassment regardless of the content dispute that may exist. Have it your way, though, and continue on your course against advice. Just keep in mind you were warned. Tiderolls 04:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

What I read is that you are "always open to civil discussion" and I believe that I have always been civil, not just to you but also Jim.

Now, can we start by addressing the issue of the duplication of content that I show you above?

It's strange that you both ignore the core issue. Why was I wrong to remove a 99% immediate duplication of content? Thank you. --Wordfunk (talk) 05:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It's strange to you because you do not understand the roll of administrators. We do not referee content disputes. Content is decided by editorial consensus. Admins are not precluded from editorial input but there exists a partition between administrative action and editorial input. You are requesting an editorial opinion and I have been attempting to communicate that I will not offer an editorial opinion. You may be new and this concept may be a novel one for you. Please understand that I, more than likely, will not offer an opinion on the content. Now, please excuse me while I enjoy the pleasure of an NCAA football championship. Good night. Tiderolls 05:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute. A content dispute is, say, an argument over whether something is taupe or beige.

This is about erroneous accusations and bullying, and @Jim1138:'s refusal to remove it. And now you adding to it.

There's no dispute over the content. It's an exactly duplication. Case closed. Jim1138 didn't look or wasn't paying attention.

Therefore, I'd the accusation removed and erazed, and I think he should apologize for being wrong. Thank you. --Wordfunk (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Max Li Hao

...is likely a sock. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Devil Dark Vader When one Li Hao is blocked another Li Hao appears. This page history of Astro (television) shows sequential editing by

• Devil Dark Vader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lowlihao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mr. Low Li Hao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Max Li Hao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - the apparently current reincarnation.

Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:29, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack.

FYI [1]. Horseless Headman (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

Actually, I meant this edit specifically [2]. I thought you were online at that moment, but you were not :-), sorry. IP is at AIV now, let's see. Horseless Headman (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

• And yes, there he has it [3]. Cheers, Horseless Headman (talk) 18:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC).

Black?

[4] Drmies (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No....not far, but no. I've never heard of that burgh, BTW. Thanks for the education :^) Tiderolls 22:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Old friend who got his undergrad at UA. He's teaching at ... can't remember, some school in Florida, FAMU or something like that. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring accusation

Please note that I'm not edit-warring nor I'm interested in it. The only reason I reverted it because their explanations given for removing the sourced content was not rational (I explained in edit summaries for my edits at Muhammad Iqbal). I even said at User talk:Justice007 I'm not going to revert anymore and don't want to indulge in any edit war. The reason I haven't started a discussion until noe is because I don't have time right now, but I will start a discussion soon likely tomorrow. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC) KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, you are edit warring. Please read the policy page linked in the title of post I left on your user talk. It's good that you plan on stopping but it's just as important that you understand the policy. Tiderolls 15:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: No I am not. I have to keep on continously reverting many times to it be considered edit-warring. I only reverted a few times. Neither I plan on edit-warring. However right now I don't have much time. I'll start a talk by tomorrow or if it's already started, then I'll start discussing. Thank you for your time and understanding. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, again, read the policy. It states explicitly that you are incorrect. Tiderolls 19:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tide rolls: No it doesn't and neither I had ever any intention or desire to get into an edit-war. But anyway as I said I'll discuss later. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Request to monitor Muhammad Iqbal

Hello, recently User:Justice007 has again reverted my edits here that too based on false and improper grounds. He claims that he has added a new version while he hasn't and removed my content. He also falsely claimed on Talk:Muhammad Iqbal#False version that my edit contained the false version of what was written in source. And because of that, I was forced to revert even though I didn't want to revert again. Both him and I are close to breaking the 3RR rule. I won't be reverting again as it will be breaking the 3RR and this will turn into an edit-war. However, I doubt that User: Justice007 won't revert again. Therefore, I ask you to monitor the Muhammad Iqbal article and the discussion at Talk: Muhammad Iqbal to make sure everybody follows the rules. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC) KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Muhammad Iqbal

Thanks for your note. I'm an unrelated editor here and came upon this article a while ago, I reverted SheriffIsInTown because he's himself getting into an edit-war and reverting without discussion to be solved while telling others to wait for discussion and not to revert. I also noticed you blocked Justice007 and KahnJohn. Although I agree with reasons of KahnJohn, the meaningless repeated reverts of his are not acceptable. I don't have any interest in the article right now. But I'll think about discussing it later when their blocks end. Thank you for informing me again and good luck with your editing. Lakhbir87 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I received another of your comment. I only reverted SheriffIsInTown since he was edit-warring and I wanted to tell him to stop it and wait for discussion to be resolved first. If my revert was wrong, then I apologise, I'm still kind of new here but I do know edit-wars cannot be solved by reverting. Don't worry about me, I won't be reverting anyone. If SheriffIsInTown (or anyone else for that matter) reverts again and doesn't stop edit-warring, I'm not going to revert, I'm going to complain him to the administrators and they can decide what to do with him. Thanks again. Lakhbir87 (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Here's an administrator: don't revert for the sake of reverting! Drmies (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Stay in your limits

You have recently acted excessively for a mere revert. You seem it necessary to block me who only reverted 2 times just to stop others doing what they want. I understand the meaning of the policy but you shouldn't be blocking someone until they are definitely edit-warring. I am instead of reverting, going to complain the others if they revert again as the situation looks out of hand. In case you feel the edits should be reverted, you can revert then yourself, I have no objection as you are an admin. But please don't try to bully me over small reasons and because I'm new. If you bully me again then I will complaint about you. I have no tolerance for bullying people like you who think they can do whatever they want. Lakhbir87 (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakhbir87 (talk • contribs) 11:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Unban RealDealBillMcNeal

Hello, Tide rolls, I just wanted to ask you to unban User:RealDealBillMcNeal, the guy has multiple Barnstar awards. he just made a mistake, if you unban him, then he will most likely do whatever you say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 06:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

First, unblock requests need to be initiated by the blocked user on their user talk. If the editor can convince an administrator that they understand the nature of the issue that prompted the block and demonstrate that they can avoid the cause in the future, then an unblock is possible. We all make mistakes; how one addresses the matter afterwards decides the future. Tiderolls 13:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Question about sockpuppeteer

I see that you blocked Mighty Joker Revenge Game for block evasion. Can you let me know what other account(s) the editor has used? I am asking because I have seen some recent edits from other accounts that look suspiciously like Mighty Joker Revenge Game, without enough evidence to take action, but knowledge of the older account(s) might perhaps help to decide the issue. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, JBW. I do not know the order of progression but see this section of my talk page. Possibly related to User:Albert20009 but the relationship is tenuous; mainly being the choice of article topic. Let me know if you need more specific info. Tiderolls 13:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't noticed the talk page section above. After posting my message here, I did spot the connection to Max Li Hao for myself, but I didn't see the other accounts. Having now looked at those accounts, I think the connection to the new account that I noticed is still only at the level of "could be", so I'll leave it. However, I will tag the accounts Lowlihao, Max Li Hao, and Mighty Joker Revenge Game as sockpuppets, because doing so may be helpful in the future to anyone in the same position that I was in. Checking likely sockpuppets can often be much easier if there are pointers to which other accounts may be worth looking at. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

RevDel request

I believe this should probably be RevDel'ed. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, DonIago. Thanks for bringing this to my attention; revision deleted. Regards Tiderolls 14:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Happy to help; thanks! DonIago (talk) 14:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Virtua Fighter pages

• IP address user 172.56.17.110[5] is stating info that's nothing more than trivia on the VF page[6] and is it really important 82 meters means 269 feet? That seems pretty redundant.[7].108.82.6.89 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI

Hello T. Just so you know XBox360fan6454 (talk · contribs) is a sock of banned editor Bigshowandkane64 (talk · contribs). You might have already caught this but I thought I'd let you know just in case. MarnetteD|Talk 02:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MarnetteD, apologies, but I am not sure of any sobriquet you may prefer. I came late to the party but I think I understand now. See ya 'round. Tiderolls 04:32, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. The sobriquet you used is just fine. It is great when a conversation allows a person to use a word like sobriquet. Just wonderful :-) Cheers and enjoy the rest of your week. MarnetteD|Talk 14:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Delete my account

What la, this dog defecate here at my cement — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeliVivianWong (talk • contribs) 05:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to permanently delete my Wikipedia account as requested — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeliVivianWong (talk • contribs) 05:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I would like to delete my Wikipedia account permanently as requsted — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeliVivianWong (talk • contribs) 05:40, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@GeliVivianWong:, user accounts cannot be deleted. Tiderolls 10:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply on Question

Well, the user is confirmed related based on his block here [8] (main account). The other accounts related which admin Bbb23 has tag are this, this and the one I tag which you asking for. The latest I'm suspecting based on his same behaviour is this user which continuously restore an article version full with bare links and messed paragraph [9] just like Polopaladin have done before [10] as you can see also on Jakaidiot [11] (one of his sock that was blocked for personal attack against me) and an IP that was related to him [12]. I have open a case page recently to check for another socks that could have hiding. The protest against me and the user rude behaviour can be seen back on his talkpage sock account of Jakaidiot which also continue into a new sock account as can be seen on my talkpage. Herman Jaka (talk) 16:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Tiderolls, I've semi-protected this page for a week. Free free to adjust it however you like.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It's all good, Bbb23. I only regret you've been drawn into this sad, boring demonstration. Tiderolls 20:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Gordon Freeman

User Bendybit[13] is claiming that the Half-Life character Gordon Freeman is mute[14], a lot of people have made this claim but without any proof at all. Looking at the user's talk page[15], this user does this type of thing a lot-108.82.14.211 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:19, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies, 108.82.14.211...wow, that sounds clinical. Did you forget to log in? Don't answer that. When acting in an admin capacity I'm prevented from favoring one version of an article over another. Probably would be best if you found a source supporting your version. Thanks for your polite message. Tiderolls 12:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Egon Spengler

The Egon Spengler page is getting edited by TotalTruthTeller24[[16]] who doesn't seem to understand the rules on wiki, such as that non-canon information and Trivia is not allowed here on wikipedia.[17]108.208.136.251 (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Tagalog language

There is no definitive total for the number of speakers of Tagalog language. The 70+ million figure is based on the totals for Tagalog (25 million) and the Tagalog-based Filipino language (45 million) in Ethnologue. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Tnguyen4321's intention to wage edit warring

User:Tnguyen4321 has just shown his intention of conducting edit warring on Battle of Ia Drang by reverting my synthesis tag here.[18] About the tag, I've clarify the issue on the talk page. Besides the tag, I haven't made any material editing yet, so he needs my consensus before removing it. Dino nam (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Do you have time to look at this?

I can translate text into English, if you like and it's important. Email me for details. - Mailer Diablo 22:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Coverage

I bet you're in Dallas. I hope you have good coverage and can read this obligatory and predictable but important message: Roll Tide, Tide Rolls. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

My boss is in Dallas, Professor, I'm at home. Allow me to reciprocate, Roll Tide. Tiderolls 18:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

So it goes, doesn't it. Hey, I learned that Auburn has a new corporate jet; I'm going to try and get a ride on it. Wish me luck. So, LSU lost, Texas A&M is going into overtime--we're not doing so well. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Miss State lost (go Jags) and Tenn should've lost. Maybe the pilot will let you take the controls; make sure you mention you're an admin on the English Wikipedia. Tiderolls 23:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Tide rolls. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Michael Hardy is reminded that:
   1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
   2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
   3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
2. MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
3. The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

It's Saturday

Roll Tide. 71.91.45.233 (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

See also

When you put a See also section, doesn't it have to be relevant to what the articular is about? Meaning you can't put in links which have little or nothing to do with the page?? For example, the Punisher in film page[19] has a see also section, but user *Treker puts in a link to Spider-Man films, but the character (in both film and animation) hasn't made any appearances in any Spider-Man film or animation since the 90s animated series, but that's not what the page is about. Also, isn't a see also section pretty much pointless when you have a Template full links that go to the same pages, making a see also section rather redundant???108.82.4.171 (talk) 10:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I see your point but you need to take it up with the editor that is reverting you. Tiderolls 13:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Roll Tide

Hope you're wearing your lucky shirt. I am. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Go 88. Drmies (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• So many trips to the red zone with minimal results, Professor. I don't like it. Tiderolls 21:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yep. There may be a few getting themselves new rectums as we speak. Hope 34 is OK. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

• Concur on all points. Tiderolls 21:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

(Please explain) Mediacorp Toggle

How this is not promotional. Tiderolls 07:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This is another service just like Mediacorp's Television or Radio. This event is stated in the History - Timeline.

I explained the service a bit because people may not know what it is. Actually, I got to know more about "Toggle" after doing this section.

You can remove part or all, or re-phrase. I am ok with it.

Thanks.Jjaey (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I have re-phrased it. Mediacorp#Over-the-top broadcast: Toggle. You can help by improving on it. Thanks for reviewing.

Jjaey (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Tide rolls.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tide rolls. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Gibraltar

If you are active I'd like to discuss Gibraltar. For example, User talk:Asilah1981#This requires your immediate attention and this section on the article talk. It's possible there could be something useful for admins to do here. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Roll Tide

How you feeling? Drmies (talk) 00:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is a red link better when it doesn't need to be one?

I fail to see why it's "better" to change a link to Captain Marvel's page when it's a red link[20]. Before it was because he wasn't called Shazam back then[21], but what does it matter? It's just correcting a link address so that it goes to the page...108.208.137.251 (talk) 06:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks, Bill. Happy Boxing Day :^) Tiderolls 14:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC)