This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello Nyttend: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Orlady (talk) 00:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Ryan Vesey's talk page. Message added RyanVesey 00:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Reply at my talk page
Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Northamerica1000#Happy New Year to you too!'s talk page. Message added 03:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC).
re: Creating a page?
Hi. Thanks for the kind offer, but I don't think there's a snowball's chance I'd make it! Happy New Year. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 10:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Wonder Woman/GA2
Hi Nyttend. I probably should have left a better edit summary or a hidden message. I cleared the deletion with the other contributor [1] if that helps. Given the blatent abuse (creating a sockpuppet to pass an article you nominated at GA) I thought deleting the whole thing would be best and left a comment at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#Wonder Woman GA2 saying as much. Is there another speedy criteria that applies or will it have to go through an WP:mfd? I have seen less abusive sockpuppet reviews deleted before using WP:Deny as a reason, so maybe there can be a case here. AIRcorn(talk) 14:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
WonderBoy1998 (talk·contribs) and WeirdWoman123 (talk·contribs) are apparantly the same person [2]. It looks like s/he basically nominated the article as Wonderboy and then reviewed the artcile as WeirdWoman. Amadscientist was just trying to work out what was going on [3]. AIRcorn(talk) 14:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I see that you removed the CSD because you couldn't find the move request on the talk page; however on the talk page of Talk:Arizona Proposition 102 (2008) it points to the meger discussion on Talk:Nebraska_Initiative_Measure_416#Move.3F because this is part of a multi-page move. Please take a look over there. Sorry the CSD wasn't more clear. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Moved; thanks for the help. Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you --- apparently I made the CSD reason more clear on the other page, and just didn't do it on this page. Happy new year! Tiggerjay (talk) 17:45, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Idly curious — what do you mean by "Redacted phone number"? Nyttend (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Where did you see that, I somewhat remember that. I believe it was someone who posted their own phone number directly on a talk page, and I was simply blanking it. Tiggerjay (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
It was the edit summary for your 17:45 note here. Perhaps a copy/paste error? Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
AH I see that now, it must have been a auto-fill error. 03:27, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Christmas gift for you, as promised
Hi Nyttend, just to let you know I've filed a BRfA for the task you requested for SDPatrolBot. The request page is at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SDPatrolBot 5, feel free to add any further comments you have there (I've linked to the previous discussion on my talk page). - Kingpin13 (talk) 01:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks like Snotbot is handling this pretty well at the moment, just with a bit of a delay between the removal and replacement. If it suits you I will probably withdraw the BRfA, and re-open it if it's needed in the future. - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Illinois Central Railroad Freight Depot (Bloomington, Indiana)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.
--doncram 16:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Ryan Vesey's talk page. Message added 17:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
...for the heads-up. Not exactly unanticipated. We did something like this on a voluntary basis a little while back, and it worked reasonably well, but I recall that it led to an incident best described as "Nyah, nyah, nyah!! No matter what I do, you can't touch me!!"
Either he's an exemplar of humanity who has the unfortunate fate that nearly everyone he interacts at Wikipedia has a personality disorder, or...? (You choose.) --Orlady (talk) 18:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
A new sympathizers' club seems to be forming. --Orlady (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice work documenting Orators Mound. Not every archaeological site is as obscure as BOC! --Orlady (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings from Charleston, South Carolina! Thanks for your message in response to my formatting problems. I've been fishing around for some input, but I haven't had anyone firmly stake out a position on this yet. My neighborhood (Hampton Park Terrace) is on the National Register with about 200 buildings in it. The actual article on the neighborhood itself is just about one screen long, and I feel like a comprehensive gallery of all of the buildings at the bottom of the page would overwhelm the actual article itself from a layout position.
So, I started fooling around with collapsible galleries. I like the idea myself, but I haven't seen anyone else use one. I've gotten some feedback that materials should be opened as a default. Others have questioned whether that will bog down older computers. Others (me included) don't know whether a closed gallery loads any faster than an open gallery.
I also have been sitting on the fence about tables vs. galleries. It seems that MOST collections of NR historic districts use tables, but I'm not keen on that. I just don't like the massive amounts of white space that result. The situation would even be worse for Hampton Park Terrace since the district was nominated purely for its dense collection of homogenous early 20th architecture. There are no individual house names, for example, and there is not much text about each one. Galleries cannot be sorted, of course, but the more I think about it, the less I feel like that is really a very useful funciton. I mean, you could sort by address and date, but I really don't see people doing that very much.
Lastly, I'm wrestling with organizing things street-by-street or comprehensively. I'm can go back and forth on this. I kind of like the street-by-street idea. Hampton Park Terrace is not SO big that a comprehensive gallery would be unuseable, but it would be a lot to take in. And, I know that there are other very large districts that a street-by-street (or style-by-style or decade-by-decade) organization would be helpful inbreaking up massive amounts of info. To the extent, I end up using tables, I don't think there is much reason to do this. But, since galleries cannot be sorted, street-by-street galleries would essentially mimic at least one (of the two?) variables that a person might want to sort by, that is, address.
I like the tables that you linked to a lot. I think the Vinegar Hill layout looks the best for my purposes, but I'm going to tweak some of the widths a bit. The one thing that I have no idea about is the use of color in the tables. I think I'm going to add a column to designate buildings as either Contributing or Non-contributing. Right now, I have that information (for non-contributing) in the Notes column of the mock-up tables that I was playing with. But, by breaking it out, it eats up a little more of the white space on the table and improves the functionality of the sorting by style. Here's my problem: I've never used colors in the table before, and I'm not sure how to do that. I see on yours that there seem to be some hidden code for what "Contributing Color" and "Notable Color" and things like that mean. I don't see where those terms are defined anywhere on your entries, so I assume there must be some master list somewhere that the coding just picks up on. But, where? If there is a National Register Project standard color scheme to designate the Contributing/Non-contributing status, I'd like to use it, but I have no idea where to go to find that color scheme laid out. Any advice?ProfReader (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for helping to move LinpingAzylber (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Refund/merge
Here's my point. Let's take a hypothetical. The AFD for article x is 99 "delete" vs. 1 "merge to y". Article is deleted. Editor then requests refund of x, which is granted. Editor merges content to "y". Now, because of licensing issues, he argues that we have to keep the history of "x" available. Editor has now successfully bypassed the AFD result without going to DRV. The only method of preventing that is to not refund material if the intent is to merge it.—Kww(talk) 14:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Why did you delete Category : South Korea Professional Football League?
Do you know current south korean professional football league status?
K-League are splited and League name changed spelling.
First division : K League Classic
Second division : K League
Anymore - is dont used...
So new category is needed including K League Classic and K League
So I created new category South Korea Professional Football League like Japan Professional Football League. Do you understand what I mean?
You are foreigner and you don't know the south korean football status. Don't act without inspection.
Do you Know I spent much time in order to created new category and moving contents yesterdya. But you spoiled my contributions. You restore it immediatly.
Footwiks (talk)
Are you stupid guy? I explained reason on deletion tag. Is it difficult to undestand? In south Korea professional football, K-League name is don't used anymore. First division new name K League Classic and Second division new name K League.. - Hypeo is don't used.
So new category is needed. I created Category South Korea Professinal Football League, like Category:Japan Professional Football League In Korean Wikipedia, New category is creatd. "대한민국 프로 축구 리그" This is same meaning "South Korea Professinal Football League"
Why don't delete Category:Japan Professional Football League? Why only attack Category:South Korea Professinal Football League?
Do you check up my contributions? I am korean and I am a big fan of korean football. Do you think that I vandal on wikepedia page about korean football. I am very busy person but I really love korean football so I contributed on korean football page in wikepedia. You are foreigner and you don't know south korean football status. Why interrupt contributions about korean football?
Think as if you were in my place. Can you write korea? Can you edit korean wikepedia and debate with koreans.
Can you do cotributo to korean football on korean or english wikepida.
You are native english speaker. But English is not my mother tongue. So I can't explain in detail and can't debate English speaker. But I have accurate information about south korean football than any foreingers. So..Please please beleive me. Category K-League is not needed anymore and have to change.
I am very busy person and editing is just hobby. I give up contribution because of you. Keep wrong Category K-League forever on wikepdia. Congratulaions! You win......
Footwiks (talk)
I give up I don't care...Keep wrong contensts forever....I am not wikepdiea employee...Editing is just hobby. I don't have time to debate foreingers. Can you debeate with korean people? You can't write korean at all.Footwiks (talk)
Arbcom
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:Doncram and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
= Wait person who can debate
I give up contribute about this category issue. I don't care...Keep wrong contensts forever....I am not wikepdiea employee...Editing is just hobby. I don't have time to debate foreingers. Can you debeate with korean people for just hobby editing. Footwiks (talk)Footwiks (talk)
Please keep in mind
An inflexible wikepidia controller like you, many users leave here. If category that I crated is wrong, some people chaged it in the near future. But you don't know south korean football at all and you deleted immediatley. beacaue policy policy policy...Becaue of controller like you, I made a dicision I'll leave wikepidia soon.Footwiks (talk)
Inter-language help needed
I had a look at your request. Both the main article it:Korean League Cup and the category it:Categoria:Korean League Cup share the same title, so by it.wp standards they seem OK. Anyway, I'm not into soccer, so I cannot judge if the title itself is actually OK. If you are still in doubt, you may want to contact the it.wp Soccer Project at it:Discussioni progetto:Sport/Calcio. Ciao, Ary29 (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
another reply here ;) --Lucas (talk) 13:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
you regretted to delete German Colored Tail Owl and redirected it to Königsberg Coloured Head Tumbler. The redirect results from a very bad translation. As you may see Owl pigeons and Tumbler pigeons are two totally different groups of pigeon breeds. The redirect is misleading. I am not able to find a better fitting one. The breed of the Old German Owl has varieties with colored tail feathers, but I have never heard of a German Colored Tail Owl (or a German: (Alt-)Deutsches farbenschwänziges Mövchen).
Please delete the redirect. Best regards --PigeonIP (talk) 12:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Re Reason for deletion of File:MVI 9133 (1.00.04.14).jpg
Hello , not sure if this is the correct way to comment on a talk page, but I wanted to reply to expand on the reason for deletion of File:MVI 9133 (1.00.04.14).jpg as you requested. OR was supposed to refer to 'orphaned' but yes it may well be that this meaning is not quite right. I thought there would be a simple 'delete' / undo upload button. I have simply uploaded this picture in error, whilst trying to look at the options available in the upload process, it uploaded without a clear 'confirm' button. My apologies to waste your time. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Londonrb (talk • contribs) 10:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Saw your talk message - thanks v much for your help on that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Londonrb (talk • contribs) 15:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Urho
Hi, thanks for helping to move UrhoAzylber (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
You denied the speedy of it here, saying that it is "Obviously not a repost, and the contents are different as well". How is it not a repost when it was discussed and deleted here? The description "This category lists scientists who are, or are known to have been, gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender." does not address any of the problems that caused it to be deleted, either. Nymftalk to me 18:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Cheers for the reply. I have to ask, how do you know that the contents are different now? While it is by all means a good faith creation, I believe the problems that was raised previously still exists. The criteria for inclusion is still only that you have to be a scientist and LGBT, and the majority seems to be just that. I will bring it to CFD instead. Nymftalk to me 20:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Hasteur's talk page. Message added 00:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Either revert your edit at File:Camp 7, Guantanamo, via google -a.jpg or add a required license tag to this image. You have removed the deletion tag twice now without addressing its concern at all. Fair use rationale templates do not constitute as license tags, and your application of WP:BURO to copyright-related content is beyond misguided. — ξxplicit 00:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
"Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies". The purpose of copyright tags is to identify the copyright status of a file. Since pages only qualify for F4 speedy if they "lack the necessary licensing information to verify copyright status", and since "Administrators should check the upload summary, file information page, and the image itself for a source before deleting under this criterion", this image does not qualify under F4 and shouldn't be tagged as if it does, since an admin who follows the criterion's instructions will easily be able to verify copyright status. Nyttend (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I find it hilariously ironic that you cite a policy to refute another, especially with one like BURO. Clearly, the image use policy should be followed strictly as it deals with a serious matter like copyright and fair use laws. What exactly would be the point of non-free license tags if fair use rationale templates were enough? Honestly. That makes absolutely no sense. If you have no plans to revert yourself or to add a license tag, I will request more eyes on the matter over at WP:ANI. — ξxplicit 23:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The point of these templates is to make it easier for people and bots who work with these images: people who aren't familiar enough with them to understand the licensing situation and bots that don't know how to read. Would you give me equal complaints if I removed such a template from an image whose description page contained the text "cc-by-sa" without a template? Or what about an image that had a source statement in the metadata but not on the description page? Also, you may want to go to the US Code, which makes no such requirements; this use of this image is equally fair or not-fair regardless of the presence of a simple fair use template or rationale, and because we only use them because of internal policies, it's absurd to be bureaucratic about it. It would be appreciated if you decided not to press charges against me for removing an speedy deletion template on a page that doesn't qualify for it, or spend a few minutes figuring out which one is appropriate (time that I don't have; there are too many different nonfree templates for me to keep track of them), or even just wait a few days, and the image will be deleted at FFD. Nyttend (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The image currently violates WP:NFCC#10b, which requires a licence tag for non-free images. Free images might not need a licence tag (if the licence information still is available somewhere), but it's still better to have a tag. However, the image is currently up for deletion at WP:FFD, and it seems more sensible to let the discussion end there before trying to apply speedy deletion criteria. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
You may have noticed that I already voted in the FFD, and all that I've done was removing a speedy deletion tag that didn't apply; I'm not arguing that it passes every point on a checklist. Nyttend (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
ttend, I need your help with User:Eduscapes. She is a college professor and a librarian, and has a history group interested in contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately she is in Utah, where we do NOT have a WP:GLAM satellite. Could you please contact her and get her on foot? —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you
For your post here...the conspiracy enthusiasts have been posting repeatedly at that page & at its Article Feedback since the article was created. Shearonink (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! With this edit, you restored the Category:Indian Hindus on the above page. Isn't there a rule for cited self-identification for such categories to be added on biography pages? Regards, Lovy Singhal (talk) 18:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I marked it as spam because of the external link. Looks like pure advertising to me. But it is fine with me if you don't think so. --I am One of Many (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
NRIS NRHP header
Hi Nyttend, I noticed this edit. Every header that used to have a reference in the old style list still has that in the new system, it was converted. That's why there is a NRISref field in there. What you know did is just broken. What I would suggest is to add a default if NRISref is not set. Multichill (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Reverted. Now I'm confused; see National Register of Historic Places listings in McCracken County, Kentucky, where I added <ref name=nris /> and get a big "Cite error" warning. Why is it doing that if the reference is still there; and more importantly, why do our lists only cite NPS for the recent listings link (This National Park Service list is complete...) if that reference is still there? Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
I hope to take a look at it later this week. Let's see if I can get this to work in a sandbox. Multichill (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
RfC/U
I was wondering what type of time frame RfC/Us have? Or is there a time frame and a closing schedule?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou for your heldful response.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Z Densetsu: Owarinaki Kakumei
Hi! Could you look at it: Template:Did you know nominations/Z Densetsu: Owarinaki Kakumei. I added a sentence about transformation belts. Sorry for the delay,. I explained it there. I searched the net, but I didn't find any general sentences, so I could write anything meaningful. Since Anosola seemed to be knowledgeable about the subject, I wanted him to write a couple of sentences. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
CrimsonBot
Hi,Thanks for leaving a message on my talk page about User:CrimsonBot. I do want to note, that I disagree with your actions, because the bot hadn't edited in 2 days. Don't worry about unblocking it though, I came back just a while ago and at this point in time it seems as though wiki has changed for the worse. I will be retiring myself as well as retiring the bot. This isn't because of your actions alone, this is just everything combined which has been a pretty bad experience since coming back. Again thanks for your comment on my talk page, and I hope you have a wonderful day. CrimsonBlue (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Z Densetsu: Owarinaki Kakumei
Look at "Z Densetsu: Owarinaki Kakumei" once more, please. I rewrote the section about transformation again, but nothing drastic. I hope the section is comprehensible, please check it. It's that there are several Kamen Riders, not one. I think one source (Asahi Shimbun) talks about one of the characters, and another source uses Kamen Rider as a personal name. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Lovysinghal's talk page. Message added 05:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at WP:BOTREQ. Message added 15:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Wikimedia Foundation is finalizing the switch-over to their new server center this week, which is located in Ashburn, Virginia. I, like other people, looked at the article to find its location, and noticed the Ashburn article needed some cleanup. I made some changes, but it still needs more more cleanup. Please take a look at the article and pass the word along to some other good editors to take a look at it too. Thanks. • Sbmeirow • Talk •
Disambiguation link notification for January 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fish Town, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Grebo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
List of Indiana state symbols
Hi, I just wanted to remind you that a souce link being dead does not invalidate the source. The article about sugar cream pie is actually archived and I was able to find it at [4]. This includes that both houses of the legislature passed the resolution, and although a resolution is not the same as a law, that does not mean it should be ignored in the article. The same goes for the state beverage. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 18:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Why exactly was IHB writing to you? Here is another source that the pie resolution was jointly passed by both houses. Although it was not intended to become a full law - I would disagree with their characterization as being "later-dead" - I do not believe the article should exclude legislatively-recognized, though unofficial, symbols. I am having trouble finding detailed sources about water as ones from 2007 are no longer available, but it was a similar process. I do not wish to give "evidence that something is law" and can make it clearer in the article that these two are unofficial. Reywas92Talk 18:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I did not realize that the sources I was using were wrong all along. I have replied to Aroseforme at User talk:Aroseformo. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 03:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Diffs and links
I think that item 6 in your collection of "personal attacks" links will be difficult for Arbcom to parse, since the DRV discussion is now collapsed. I would try this diff instead: [5] --Orlady (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
I really think you incorrectly understood the cirteria for speedy deleting disambiguations. The criteria states that it can be deleted if it "disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic)". There is a primary topic, which is I Love Rock 'n' Roll, and the page disambiguates two articles (I Love Rock 'n' Roll (album) and I Love Rock 'n' Roll (The Jesus and Mary Chain song)). It just happens to also link to the primary topic. It does not disambiguate the primary topic. It's clear from the wording in the criteria that the primary topic is different from the two or less disambiguated pages. Trinitresque (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Are you seriously suggesting that a page should be kept if it serves zero purpose now but if it might later? Creating a two-article disambiguation page would take what, like 20 seconds? Secondly, you're still not understanding that the disambiguation page is not disambiguating the primary topic! By definition the primary topic is the article that is not disambiguated. It just happens to link to it. Are you seriously suggesting that the primary topic is disambiguated? Trinitresque (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
The page is orphaned. No article points to it. How does it serve a purpose? Trinitresque (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I was sure that the disambiguation policy said that it's fine to have up to two disambiguated articles in a hatnote on a primary topic instead of a disambiguation page, but that turns out not to be the case. Trinitresque (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
CountryRadio
I actually may be, in fact. Currently I have a WP:COINreport out about KUPL regarding the user DU2010OR (talk·contribs), who admitted they freelance for that station and are trying to 'refute' my claim that they only edit articles involving the stations they freelance for. Same editing pattern involving social media links (compare WRXP to KUPL) suggesting possible socking, and of course they don't have any rollback or image naming permissions. Thank you for the heads-up. Nate•(chatter) 06:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Deletion of Gavin Francis
Hi,
I got a note to say my page Gavin Francis had been deleted. The language around A7 is extremely unclear so I'm not sure what the issue is and how can I resolve it.
It's either saying he's not notable, or that the article hasn't explained in what way he's notable.
If it's the former, he's a twice published author who's spoken at several book festivals, and on national radio. and written for several national newspapers. He was the youngest ever base doctor assigned to the British Antarctic Survey. If that's not notable enough, I'm confused about what notable means :-)
If it's the latter, what specifically would be required to demonstrate notability beyond linking to the books and articles ? I could link to his literary agent bio page Jenny Brown Associates or his publisher bio page Random House ? Should I just add more links to all the stuff I mentioned above (book festivals, radio interviews etc) Any suggestions would be very welcome.
Thanks for your help
Acf1271 (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC) (Alan Francis, not notable at all)
Thanks for your reply on my talk page. I realise this is perhaps fodder for a wider conversation, but I don't find your argument particularly convincing. Britannia had a physically limited space, and so by definition had to constrain what entries they provided. Wikipedia has no such concerns. The inclusion of one, or a hundred extra pages doesn't affect the presence or absence of existing pages at all. In short, no page needs to fight to be more notable than another. There are a lot of Wikipedia rules about the content of the page that are important, neutral POV being (imo) the most important, but why shouldn't Wikipedia have a page on anything that someone might want to search for an learn about ? As long as the content conforms to the high standards of WIkipedia, why restrict the pages it contains ? Acf1271 (talk) 10:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Your message said "Basically, the idea is that writing books and travelling to lots of places doesn't make you important, and writing some in various periodicals doesn't either." is what I'm puzzled about. Wikipedia is pretty full of pages for people who write for newspapers and write books. I'd argue that these things do justify a page existing. You're now saying it's about the content, which is what I originally asked. In essence his accomplishments (or lack thereof) are not the problem, but how I have written the page. Thats fine. I'll have another try at writing the page. Thanks Acf1271 (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
The Pablove Foundation
I'm trying to create a page for the Pablove Foundation, but someone has already tried to do this and it was deleted. I did not create that page, I have reliable sources, I'm not affiliated with the group, and I'm not going to plagiarize. The note I received says the original page was deleted for "Unambiguous copyright infringement", and I have written my own submission. I do believe the Pablove Foundation is a notable organization. I think I've covered all my bases. Please let me know how to continue. Thank you! Desertpixxie (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
This is what the notice says: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Pablove Foundation. So I assume the article was The Pablove Foundation. It seems like there is a dead link to the original submission on the page of one of the founders, Jeff Castelaz. The only other info I have is that it seems to be from July 17, 2012. Any help? Desertpixxie (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
South Korean Football Category
Because you interrupted my editing. Category about South korean professional football is keep wrong. As I told you berfore, New category is needed, K-League category have to changed. In Korean wikipedia, new category is created. If I wrong, New category in korean wikipedia was deleted, But still exist and didn't appear person like you. You are not korean and also you are not definaltely interested in south korean football. So you don't mind that korean football contents are wrong or not. Just interested in wiki policy. What do you think of this situation? Footwiks (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I have a question. If I change category about K-League, Do you interrupted again? If you have a conscience, Solve this problem. Inbehalf of me, Go with a CFD or drop the issue. I don't have time and my english is poor. So I can't debate.
I really don't understand you and angry with you. You are not in south korean football and absoultely don't have any background knowledge about South korean football. Why stalk South korean football articles? Be conscious and solve this issue.Footwiks (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Do that it by yourself. Why you leaves me with the difficult work to do? I explaind it why category have to changed.
If you are not idiot. You can understand that. So Inbehalf of me, You debate and you change it. Because of you, Wrong contents exists On English wiki. Please have responsibility. If you don't know south korean football situation, Do investigate now. It's very easy to understand than wiki policy. Why do you only to do easy thing? Just place a tag. Not interested in the accurate or not at contents. If you are not intereted in content accruray about South korean football.
Keep out of this, Although without debation, South korean people including me improve contents. Don' worry and I think you are busy person. You have to patroll in order to find content which violate policy. Mind your own business.Footwiks (talk) 01:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Haaaaa, Because of stubborn and irresponsible contoller like you. Wiki contents are disruptive now. Ok....Let's wait....Somebody who can debate comes up.Footwiks (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
DYK for East High Street Historic District (Springfield, Ohio)
DragoLink08: ANI discussion regarding requested range blocks
Nyttend, may I suggest that we indef block all of the IP addresses listed in the discussion as an intermediate step, while we are waiting on one of our boffins to figure out the best way to determine the range of IP addresses that need to be blocked. We may discover by this intermediate step that we accomplish most, if not all, of our intended purpose. It may be the listed IP addresses represent a smaller subset and are the only "public" USF IP addresses to which our friend has access. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
So it was you! I'd wondered what was going on (back when it was happening, that is). Congrats, this is something with which to ward off obscurity! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello Nyttend. Please see WP:RM/TR, where an IP has requested that this MfD be moved to an AfD. I saw your comment in the AfD so I figured you were already trying to bring this about. Feel free to do the move if you think that is correct. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and did the move, since I figure it can't do too much damage. Also updated the day log with the new name. Unsure if more has to be done. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Doncram case
As you don't appear to have been notified of this case, you should be informed that your interaction with Doncram is being scrutinised here and here. If the suggestion is that you have hounded Doncram, you may wish to say something defending yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.62.248 (talk) 16:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
User using tor nodes to edit
Hi Nyttend. The user trolling above with a tor node has just been blocked for three months by Materialscientist. Similar edits were made on the workshop talk page of the Doncram arbcom case and that ip has also been blocked as a similar tor node. The spelling above is British ("scrutinised"), so this is almost certainly a familiar community banned user. Contrary to what they have been writing, I do not believe that either you or Orlady have been hounding anybody. There was never any reason to look at your own interactions on Doncram stubs; in any case in the stubs involving Orlady where you also intervened, everything appeared completely normal and neutral. I do not agree with the negative evidence presented about you by other participants in the case. Mathsci (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
As far as hounding or following are concerned, there are these bits of "evidence" presented by TDA about Orlady [6][7]. The point about trolling is just to sow confusion. I wanted to check the claims about hounding by looking at the Doncram stubs. There are almost 9,000 of them, so it's impossible to analyse them without some kind of script. On the other hand there are just over 1,000 intersections with Orlady, so it was possible to look at those, albeit slowly, manually discrading articles not started by Doncram. I hope this clears matters up for you. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
HI, Nyttend. Would you consider putting IP protection on the above page for a week? Maybe if the IP can't edit when he comes back, he will lose interest. There seems to be a definite competence issue with him (User:12.197.247.250). Thanks. Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I took a look at the problems you mentioned and was able to fix or address them all. for #1 i clarified the title (bull. = bulletin, by the way), for #2, the animal resources and ecology library is the publisher of the book, a quick google search will turn up other references with the library cited as publisher. #5 i expanded to include the other page that contains the entry- there were some sections i used from both pages, and i removed page ranges on #8 and #1. let me know if there is anything else. Ryan shell (talk) 18:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
A little help please
Hey- I want to get the list of WV counties to FA list staus. I think its ready. Take a look [here] and tell me what you think. I will of course be seeking a few opinionsCoal town guy (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for the help thus far!Coal town guy (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Unblock request
Based on this rather vague unblock request from an IP with 0 contributions, does it appear to be the target of your range block? If not I'll send him to acc, if so I'll suggest he sling his hook. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 18:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't know much about the technical side of rangeblocks; I implemented this one because one was clearly needed, and others with more clue than I said that a 131.247.0.0/16 rangeblock was an appropriate size. Find someone who knows better what to do (if it's a non-admin, I'll follow his instructions), or I can do the finding if you prefer. Regardless, I'm happy for anyone to make changes or unblocks if appropriate; if you find an admin who knows what to do, please don't bother asking my permission or even letting me know. Finally, note that the message was placed by Tomfowlermd, at whose talk page I've left a message. Nyttend (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh I'm not questioning the range block, I was just wondering what type of articles were being edited by the target of the block so I could determine if this particular IP was involved. It all seems sorted now though. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 21:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I may be able to help with range configuration - I'm in the CSE department of USF and may be able to track down relevant and necessary details. I know that the 131.247.2.* and 131.247.3.0-64 blocks are regulated static IP addresses for Engineering. Hflw27 (talk) 16:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Elockid's talk page. Message added 01:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thought that would probably be the case given what you've posted on your user page but just wanted to be sure - I know some people are more worried about these things than others. Dpmuk (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey! Was my assumption of your position correct? You initially said "one-way IBAN" but then in your response to Nathan Johnson said that either is cool, so... elvenscout742 (talk) 08:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, and a request
Hi, Nyttend. I wanted to take a moment to thank you for your comments in the thread I started to ask for clarification from the community about the circumstances under which we should and shouldn't name individual members of a religious group who have been convicted of sexual abuse. I wholly agree with you that this is a sensitive subject, and thus wanted to be sure that we maintain a consistent, policy-based approach across all our articles that relate to such cases.
I think my personal inclination is probably at odds with the preponderent opinion of the Wikipedia community on this one, actually. I haven't really decided what I think we should do in such cases, re naming individuals: I want to take more time to think about that, and evaluate other's comments, your own included. But my first inclination is probably even more conservative than that of most other established editors, viz. I'm wondering whether we shouldn't explicitly name anyone who's not actually been convicted by a court or lost a civil lawsuit for damages, based on allegations of sexual abuse.
Even more than that, I'm not sure we should even name everyone who's been convicted. I need to think more about this, as I say, and it seems relevant to me to consider whether the person held or holds any position of trust in the affected community, too, along with many other considerations. But it has also occurred to me that if (first page?) results from the major search engines don't return hits for the perpetrator based on, say, the combination of their name, the name of their religious sect, and one or more of the words "convicted", "abuse", "sex", "molested", & etc. then maybe we shouldn't name them explicitly, either. If search engines don't prominently "out" a convicted child molester, in other words, then I'm not sure whether Wikipedia should do so, either.
Anyway, I do appreciate your thoughts on this issue. I also wanted to ask, though, whether you'd consider reverting this, from a few days ago. I don't like the opening sentence of the original article, either, since it's uncited, but it's also kind of a sticking point for me when I see a redirect created over an existing article to effectively delete it. I'm sure you didn't intend your edit as a way to bypass the AfD process, but I'd really be much more comfortable seeing it nominated for deletion, rather than just unilaterally overwritten with a redirect. That way other editors would have the chance to weigh in on the existence of the article, on whether it conforms to NPOV, and to help improve it, as well. I'd be grateful for the favor, if you feel you could approach the issue that way, instead of just going with the redirect. Best, --OhioStandard (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
P.S. If you want to reply, feel free to do so here, as I've temporarily watchlisted this page. --OhioStandard (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't particularly know what should be replied to (feel free to specify, if you want a reply), except the final paragraph. I'm not interested in reverting the diff you link — the page is so bad that it's a WP:TNT case, but since it's a reasonable search target, it would make sense to recreate it as a redirect to the archiepiscopal article, and that being done, we might as well undelete the history...which would have the same result as what I've done. I don't have any objection to the existence of a neutral article on this topic, of course, but non-NPOV content absolutely must be removed (to quote WP:NPOV, "This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it."), and this article was so non-neutral that removing the problematic content would result in a useless, effectively-blanked page. Nyttend (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi, friend
I have written a proposed remedy to the Richard Arthur Norton affair, to be taken to AN/I in the event that ArbCom defers the case. Since the original thread is hatted, the proposal has been made on his talk page (User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)). As you were a participant in the original thread, I would very much appreciate your comments as to whether the proposed remedy satisfies your concerns. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I am truly sorry to trouble you with this but would it be possible to delay featuring Gimnazija Mostar (Gimnazija Mostar nomination) until it could be featured along with the photograph? The hook is currently in Preparation area 2. The photograph is of very good quality and would look quite refreshing at the main page. It would be a shame to discard it; I am not sure why it was overlooked in the first place. On a side note, in the nomination review, the reviewer and I agreed that the second alternative hook would be better than the original, but that too was ignored. Surtsicna (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I should let you know that I've just contacted Crisco 1492, who I think promoted the hook, and he agreed to change it. The image, it seems, won't be featured after all. Thank you anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I should bear in mind that the article was moved. As for the hook, I was told that it would be featured without the image. If the hook can be delayed until it can be featured along with the image, that would be great. I visited the building to take several photographs of it myself, but the one I found and nominated was very nice and far better than my photographs. Surtsicna (talk) 15:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I understand, of course. It is impossible to please everyone, and it would be silly to confront other users because of something as trivial as this. I am still learning how DYK works, so forgive me for not being familiar enough with the entire process. Cheers, Surtsicna (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Church of Our Saviour (Mechanicsburg, Ohio)
Thanks for the nomination. Let's hope a few people find it interesting. I find it hard to imagine conditions so long ago in such a bleak place. But the people who lived there, just as smart and complex as people today, probably thought life was pretty good. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Talk:Austin Dabney. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You're the one who keeps characterizing my actions as "hostile" and "uncivil". Are you so embarrassed by your own comments that you feel you have to keep scrubbing your own talk page? I feel no such need. The "copyright infringement" as you call it seems to exist solely in your own mind. Nobody else sees it. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you ask an editor you trust to take a look? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Category:Hospital buildings on the National Register of Historic Places Missouri
Hi Nyttend-
The Kent, Ohio article needs protection. There is an anonymous editor (or editors) who continually adds the website KentOhio.net to the External links and has been non-responsive to edit summaries and explanations on the talk page. KentOhio.net was specifically mentioned in the FAC process as not meeting the requirements for WP:EL or WP:USCITY#External links (I originally had it listed prior to the reviews), mostly because it isn't any kind of official site (it's a great site, but it run by an individual) and seems to also be commercial in nature. Any assistance would be helpful here, thanks! --JonRidinger (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Just curious, what would have to be done to the article to warrant a C rating? Nyttend (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I actually think the article deserves a B rating and said so in the first bullet of my comments. I chose to defer assigning a higher class than Start to an assessor from one of the associated projects. I changed the class from Stub to Start since Stub class articles aren't eligible for DYK. I agree with reverting my edit to make the fact explicit. Smoother flow and all the info was already presented.
Getting the article to GA would take more work. In its current form, the article is primarily about a NRHP rather than the church as a whole. For GA, merge Infobox church into the infobox, add information about the current congregation, associations and leadership and perhaps add another couple of photographs to show details of the sanctuary, alter and/or grounds.
Nyttend, thank you for your support during my RfA. It did not end as hoped, and I regret that I may not have lived up to the expectations of you and other supporters. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Notification of discussion
A few months ago, you participated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Did you know about Gibraltar-related DYKs on the Main Page. I am proposing that the temporary restrictions on such DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012, should be lifted and have set out a case for doing so at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Gibraltar-related DYKs. If you have a view on this, please comment at that page. Prioryman (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank You...
Hi Nyttend.. This is Ajayupai95 (in short Ajay) and I just wanted to clarify that my request for speedy deletion of Jiten Purohit was justified. For a minute, I wondered if I was right and you just deleted the page and it clears a lot of worry because I don't like deleting someone else's hard work, but I guess the page was more of an advertisement... So thanks you for clearing my doubt and I hope I'm correct... :) Ajayupai95 (talk) 14:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Redirect CSDs
I put up the redirects "Pokemon Scramble U", etc. for deletion because I turned the page they pointed to into a redirect as there's nothing to show that it exists yet (the only sources are from a magazine that won't come out for another few hours).—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
If the redirect target has been redirected, the newly formed double redirects should be retargeted to the new target. RyanVesey 15:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
As long as we have a bluelink at "Pokémon ___", it's not inappropriate to have a bluelink at "Pokemon ___". Note that I deleted the rest. Nyttend (talk) 15:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Not particularly, since it's common to list redirects from alternate names on disambiguation pages. Why don't you try an AFD if you want it to be deleted? Nyttend (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I don't feel like I really care about it enough to bother with nominating it myself. In my attempts to tidy up a little, I've now tagged it {{orphan}} and recreated the talk page with WP:WPDAB, so will see if anyone else picks it up and feels like doing anything with it. Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
But...disambiguation pages are generally supposed to be orphaned. Curious why you think that it should be present on this one? Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - of course you're right! I did consider adding {{Only-two-dabs}} but as you pointed out, there appear to still be three valid inclusions there. So in an (unnecessary) attempt to attract the attention of others, I just slapped the orphan tag on without really thinking or checking the guideline. Sorry... and if I don't do any further edits there, then you won't have to correct them! Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 04:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Mass reverts
If you're going to apply a bunch of mass reverts to the edits that Ohconfucius(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) has been doing, you might want to at least give him a talk page message explaining why he shouldn't be doing it, or what he's doing wrong. Now, this may not matter in a couple weeks, once the ArbCom case is decided and you and I are both banned, but it might at least prove instructive to him in the future. --Elkman(Elkspeak) 16:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Shall we give Elkman the nickname "Eeyore", in honor of his perennial optimism? (Smile.) --Orlady (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The reason the original page "Rohanrhu-framework" appears to not exist because it was recently deleted under A7, so could you please follow through with this one with A7 as well. Thanks. Grammarxxx(What'd I do this time?) 03:20, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
WV List of Counties FLC
Hey Nyttend, I have 2 supports for my WV County List FLC. Wanted to say thanks for your help and any review or support would be greatly appreciatedCoal town guy (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Good question! Hope the answer is just as goodCoal town guy (talk) 03:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Appreciate the close look at the county list. You have great questions, I hope, folks do this on other county list pages. Given that the standards for FLC have certainly tightened, some of the county lists even at FL status....NEED some workCoal town guy (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Nyttend, never apologize if your observations improve something. Of all people, I think you and a few others have shown me that. Trust me, I competed in classical cello for a few years, my skin would make great hiking boots. YES, I am trying to get support, sure, BUT I think I can say I am getting to be a better editor as well. WHICH will come in rather handy when I start getting to the individual WV county pages...oh my.....Hope you support the FLC.Coal town guy (talk) 15:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
On 15 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Creole House, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Creole House is an important part of a French colonial settlement in Illinois, although it was built by Americans? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Creole House. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I saw your request here. This was difficult to fully automate, as some links tagged with {{dn}} now led to an innapropriate non-disambiguation page, or they had been delinked, and a few other issues causing a lot of false positves. I have used a script that found all {{dn}} tagged links that didn't lead to a disambiguation page, then manually edited them if required.Mutley1989 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Wolf, Oklahoma Article
I wanted to let you know that I have created a new article on Wolf, Oklahoma, which is Wiki-linked from a subpage of your UserPage. Any assistance you can provide in expanding the article would be most appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Transylvania 6-5000 (1963 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hocus pocus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Gibraltar District School No. 2
Hi-I have a question-the article Gibraltar District School No. 2 is to be part of the April Fools Day DYK articles. The debate about the Gibraltarpedia DYK articles is getting messy and nasty and I am concern that this will spread into articles that have Gibraltar as part of the name but have no connection with the British Colony of Gibraltar. Will this affect the release of the Gibraltar District School article on April Fools Day? I wish the Gibraltarpedia DYK debate will just end. Many thanks-RFD (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nyttend, you recently deleted my page tiled UBC Food Services for "unambiguous advertising or promotion". I'm wondering if there's any way you might be able to reverse this. I was in the middle of making changes to the page to ensure I did not break any rules, unfortunately it seems I didn't get around to changing it fast enough and you beat me to it. This page is supposed to be for a University project so I would appreciate a quick reply. Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia and I'm still trying to figure out how it works...many thanks. Ccw10.
Hi Nyttend, I have enabled email now. Thank you so much for your help. Much appreciated!!! Ccw10 (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
A beer for you!
On da house! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Just call it common sense..♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
You had to be diligent to help me, which you did. WV counties is a FL, many thanks for your observations, they made the list better and certainly, improved my eye when I edit Coal town guy (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Cmckain
The page looks good to me ... the district's website is real. We should keep it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Arjunaraoc's talk page. Message added 08:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi - you might want to re-think/retract your advice here - I cannot see how an expired PROD would qualify for CSD, and I do not see why it cannot be dealt with in normal time as soon as an admin gets around to it...there's a discussion already at Cobalion254's talk page if you want to chip in. Regards, GiantSnowman 11:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Dinas Powys
Can you keep an eye on this IP. He keeps adding a non notable external link to his website.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I think the Navbox template is broke. It's showing }}}} Funandtrvl (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
It looks okay now. (at least it wasn't me!) :-) Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks...
...for the userpage deletion. --Northernhenge (talk) 22:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:HLIST
I was surprised to see this edit. The benefits of horizontal list formatting are overwhelming, with no drawbacks that I can see. See Template talk:NHSC where I list the advantages of WP:HLIST. See also the links there to the relevant discussions leading to the implementation of WP:HLIST.
Per your message at my talk [8], yeah I've never had it come up either, but it really had nothing to do with the trinomials. See this User talk:Donald Albury#Use of trinomials message for an explanation. User talk:Donald Albury doesn't seem to have been onwiki for several weeks, so not sure when he will get back to me, so maybe you would like to weigh in on the matter? As I mentioned there, maybe the other editor has a point. Seeing as how this matter has the potential to come up at other articles (there are hundreds with the trinomial in the position the other editor objects to), what are your thoughts on the matter? I've never seen a discussion on the matter anywhere onwiki before. I, and every other editor I've seen, just use standard practice from the literature and add the trinomials in parenthesis after the site name. It is also how I've seen the NPS and NRHP use the numbers. Now that an article has been created about the trinomials, we at least have an explanation to link them to, and personally I think that suffices with no need to explain what the numbers mean on every article. Should we start a thread at Talk:Smithsonian trinomial and hammer out a consensus on the issue? I took this matter to Donald because he created the article and would presumably be a neutral editor in the matter, didn't want to run to everyone I know on here and have it seem like I was drawing people into a content conflict I was having with The long road homw. But now that you have mentioned the matter, any thoughts on the situation would be appreciated. Thanks, Heiro 01:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Ahhh, I see from your message at User talk:Bbb23 you realize it wasn't just about the trinomials, lol. Thanks for the kind words about me there, Heiro 01:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Per [9], I agree we should just keep using them in the same way the professional literature does, with the link to the article explaining them (that actually puts us one up on the actual archaeologists, lol, who never explain them). Like you, it took me a little while to figure out what the numbers meant. I always wanted an article on them, but a year or 3 ago when I had last checked I couldn't really find any sources to build a decent article. I am so glad Donald took the initiative and did it, it was sorely needed. Maybe a thread to build a consensus just to have for future referral is not a bad idea. I would prefer to have it at the article talk page for Smithsonian trinomial with a notice at Wikiproject:Archaeology asking for participation (just thinking it would be easier in the future if we ever had to refer anyone to it), but if you think it would be better at the wikiproject page I'll defer to your judgment. Let me know if you decide we should pursue this. I've been holding off, trying to let the situation with TLRH die down. Over the last year I have ended up in a few too many acrimonious altercations with other users over piddly little nonsense like this and I am trying not let this build into another one. Cheers, and hope you are well and the blizzards up that way aren't too bad (it's been in the 60's and 70's down here just about all winter :-)) Heiro 01:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, the guideline is here and I fail to see how retaining a general template that does not even mention the article in question is justified when you have an appropriate template that does mention the specific article. If one were to follow your line of reasoning, that first article should also include {{Putnam County, Ohio}}, {{Ohio}} and any number of other templates. The retained template does provide for any needed navigation per the guideline. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Pro vs Am
"Do we know better than the professionals?" When I was a member of a voluntary first aid organisation, it was often pointed out that we were professionals. We just didn't get paid... Peridon (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
BTW can you remember a sock master who often used "I made a page" as the edit summary when making a new (and usually useless) page? Probably youngish. May not really be, though. Peridon (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Misuse of admin powers
Nyttend, I see you deleted a tagged redirect and moved back a page that I had moved some months back to conform with MOS:DASH. See Talk:Harrison-Crawford State Forest#Requested move. This seems like something that only an admin could do, and so you've used your admin powers to gain an advantage in a simple title dispute (that had not come up yet). This is not OK, is it? Dicklyon (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I have sent in a CheckUser request on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard to hopefully get my problem solved. Thanks again!--DrWho42 (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
IP Editor
This editor has been nothing but trouble lately. He has been banned for sockpuppetry, copyvio edits, and posting incorrect information. I've warned him many times, yet he does not learn his lesson. I've reverted many of his edits for the past 3 days, yet he doesn't learn to stop. Platinum Star (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I'll be on the lookout, thanks again. Platinum Star (talk) 17:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harrison Township, Pickaway County, Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Renick Farm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. Message added 11:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I would really appreciate it if the small group of editors who hang out at categories for deletion would stop deleting categories like "Algonquian loanwords", without ever notifying the Native American projects that a small group of editors are making these decisions nobody else was informed of, and no opportunity for wider discussion. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Reply: I didn't assume it was your idea. But this is a recurring problem that maybe you can help with. I watch several of the articles that were in that category and when I see several of them at the top with the category suddenly removed as a fait accompli, and this has happened several times lately with any category giving information about Algonquian language. The solution would be more openness about the vote on the correct wikiprojects so it doesn't appear like a team with some agenda is doing this behind the project's back. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
OK I went to see if Category:French loanwords is being treated the same way. No it's not. The category is still fully populated, but there is a nice little note at the top: "After this discussion, it was decided that this category should be replaced by a list. Once a list is created that includes all the information found here, this category may be speedily deleted." Was the same consideration given to preserving the information in the Category Algonquian loanwords, and if not, what difference is being made between these two categories? Especially since no one thought fit to involve the Native American project or anyone apart from this small team of deletionists, and everyone else on the actual articles only finds out about it after their "decision" has been handed down? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
No, that's not what I want. Listify obviously means creating an article in the form of a list; that's obviously what is intended for the French loanword material. I also want you to acknowledge my basic premise, that it would be more fair to communicate with the Native American wikiproject, and let them know these categories are being voted on, otherwise it is starting to look like the voters might prefer to do it and rush it through without the knowledge or involvement of Native American project participants who cannot be expected to know when their work is being deleted somewhere else. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
It happened with Category: Arabic loan words, too. IMHO, it was a stupid idea, and I only stumbled across it when they deleted the category from Ablaq. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I have repeatedly implored you to be considerate and inform the Native American wikiproject and other involved wikiprojects when their categories are being deleted. Now finally the only response I get from you is basically saying what I'd feared the most is the case. "No, we're not going to do that, because the small group who participates in category deletion knows what's best for all the other projects, and all the other projects will just have to swallow it as the People Who Know Best feed it to them, when they come to find out the vote was already held in their absence and it's too late for them to object." I will now be bringing this up in a few other places, because this is a recurring issue that I find particularly irksome. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
TB
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page. Message added 18:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Feel free to listify Category:French loanwords. There are so many I do not know that this will be an easy task, but it needs to be done.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I would like to request a semi-protection for Por Ella Soy Eva. This IP editor keepsclaimingthat the telenovela already ended when in fact it didn't. Now he reverted his edit, pretending that nothing happened. I've warned him for introducing incorrect info; if this continues, he will be warned for edit-warring. Platinum Star (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I sincerely apologize, I shall keep that in mind for next time and simply stick with warning problematic users and just notify you if the problem is serious. Platinum Star (talk) 04:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
This is for your fantastic decision to delete Pesecution of Serbs and non-Albanians in Kosovo despite the grief you no doubt got from the Serian nationalist and POV editors trying their mighty hand to keeping that article. Please note that a similar discussion is currently taking place over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Serb sentiment where you might feel the need to step in! Thanks Keithstanton (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
DRV
An article which you deleted[10] yesterday was recreated today by the same user that started the DRV[11] along with a similar title[12](possibly a redirect of the deleted article) as a redirect to Anti-Serb sentiment. The refusal to accept consensus is also linked with an ongoing feud between the user that started the DRV and another user(Keithstanton)[13]. As far as I'm concerned both users must be constrained as their inability to deal with consensus, proper argumentation and constructive editing has become very disruptive. I've left the same message on the talkpage of the admin, who endorsed your original deletion.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 18:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
If you can deal with the whole mess that another typical Balkan feud created, I'd greatly appreciate it. I have absolutely no idea about the course of action that should be taken about deleted articles that are recreated (just a day after a failed DRV) as redirects (in this case the title itself was a serious component of the deletion arguments). About the two users, any meaningful message towards them would be welcome especially as regards consensus acceptance and proper debating.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 18:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for closing that badly written AfD. If they choose to escalate their "feud", it'll probably end up on WP:AE.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 18:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Hehe, user above tried very hard to represent this as a political and national matter, with "refusal to accept" and "inability to deal with", but in fact, it is only maintenance. This page was used on a number of pages, so i just redirect it to the next related place. Sorry, my dear Nyttend, that you are pushed in the middle of this nationalistic struggles, but that quite fine barn from thread above is quite enough to gain an opinion about neutrality of editors in here. If you have any question about my redirects, (or anything), i will be more then happy to answer any. Be well. --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Umm, actually, i am not? Where did you get that from? That was years ago, i dont have any personal restriction... --WhiteWriterspeaks 18:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Could you take a look and if possible review a DYK entry I started[14], which WhiteWriter decided to "review" too. Personally, I consider it disruptive when someone decides to join such a debate only to accuse the nominator of POV-pushing, although content has been written per the sources and mention ARBMAC. Note that he joined another DYK entry I had nominated in January and kept stalling the proper review with WP:IDONTLIKEIT and accusations until I asked from an admin to review it, which of course led WW to stop disrupting it[15]--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 12:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Please, read this very carefully. Other users already commented the same info on article's talk, while user Zjarri was informed before that presenting sources like that is misleading. I didnt review it, i just stated the problem with it. This kind of reporting to admin is very bad faith toward me, as user didnt even talked to me, and presented you falsely that i stalk edits. But you, Nyttend, as involved in all of this, can see that problem actually exist, and it should be fixed. Please, Nyttend, read this with care, as that info is actually unsourced, violation of agreement, and at the end questionable info, and all of that in DYK, and on the main page. Also, Zjarri added this person on Đakovica page, while moving only Serbian on that list down below everyone, based on what criteria? Head of central national television is more important that some minor folk singers. You are welcomed to join article talk and say your opinion in this. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
P.S. That "disruptions", as presented to you, on former DYK article was fixed and corrected in current version by other users. It looks like those were not disruptions, but wiki guidelines. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
P.P.S. Unfortunately, i will not be at home and near internet in the next seven days (or maybe more), so i will not be able to check your respond, as i will soon have to go... Please, look at that discussion for more info, and i hope that everything will be solved in the meantime. I doubt that this will stay opened question until then, anyway... --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Ah, makes perfect sense. When I googled it there seemed to be a few ProQuests (products and companies) in various industries and none seemed to obviously be a publishing company. But your explanation connects the dots. Agree entirely - such a source is reliable. I might strike my query after that link. Thanks for taking the time to drop me a note - much appreciated! Stalwart111 06:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Very helpful - I've also amended my note accordingly. Cheers, Stalwart111 06:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Volcanism categories
You have to understand the topic in order to know what you are talking about. This is the case at the CFD. Volcanoguy 14:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lawler's Tavern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mechanicsburg (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
User:Eekster
Nyttend,
The primary ones I'm frustrated about are the photos (e.g., File:SBS infield.png) in which I did receive permission from the author to post them. WP has acknowledged this permission.JaMikePA (talk) 21:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Why are you refusing to reprimand Eeekster for violating the 3R rule? He violated it, too. Also, WP has a policy against posing as an admin and making empty threats to block people. Why aren't you enforcing it? JaMikePA (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I am recommending keeping this article, and have brought to the deletion debate quite a few references in newspapers, magazines and books discussing the event in detail over a period of five years. I respectfully request that you take a look at what I've found, and reconsider your deletion nomination. Thank you. Cullen328Let's discuss it 03:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
An arbitration case regarding Doncram has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
Doncram is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Doncram repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. These sanctions may include blocks, page or topic bans, instructions to refrain from a particular behavior, or any other sanction that the administrator deems appropriate. Sanctions imposed under this remedy may be appealed as if they were discretionary sanctions. Doncram may not appeal this restriction for one year and is limited to an appeal once every six months thereafter.
Doncram is indefinitely restricted from creating new pages, except for redirects, in article space. He may create new content pages in his user space, at Articles for Creation, in a sandbox area within a WikiProject's area, or in similar areas outside of article space. Such pages may only be moved to article space by other users after review. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee after one year.
For edit warring with Doncram, SarekOfVulcan is strongly admonished to behave with the level of professionalism expected of an administrator.
SarekOfVulcan and Doncram are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with each other (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
The question of how substantive the content of a stub must be before it can legitimately be introduced to the mainspace as a stand-alone article cannot be decided by the Arbitration Committee. If the project is to avoid the stub guideline becoming a recurring problem in the future, we suggest to the community that this question may need to be decided through a deliberate attempt at conducting focussed, structured discussions in the usual way.
For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk) · @277 · 05:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Please reconsider this. It's getting a lot of response beyond the couple of people involved and forcing us to start a fresh discussion just seems like a pointy and bureaucratic burden considering that the same group of people will simply have to repeat the same arguments. Mangoe (talk) 13:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, fair enough response, if rather bureaucratic. Thank you. Mangoe (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Please re-open it -- there's no reason I should have to make further comments. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I merged these two comments into one section, since they're on the same subject. Nyttend (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Nickelodeon Studios
This editor has been vandalizing Nickelodeon Studios, claiming that the studios will reopen next year without source. According to the edit history, this has been happening since last month and MegastarLV has warned the editor to stop adding unsourced info. Platinum Star (talk) 04:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Article Feedback deployment
Hey Nyttend; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering what you think of my recent change at Petroglyph National Monument, i.e. inserting the external media template with a link to C-SPAN. Is it a useful addition to the article?
Some people seem to think this type of thing is against WP:EL but actually there is a specific mention of this template in footnote 1 and it's pretty clear when it's allowed and when it's not.
BTW, the article seems to have some problems so I'll likely make some more edits there.
Thanks for the info. I intentionally left out some people's names as it's usually more of a "distaste of external links" matter - folks are afraid that if you let any external link out of the prison at the bottom of the article, then you've opened up Pandora's box. I seem to be doing a lot of unusual external links thing recently - for a NRHP related one see my question at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Society_of_Architectural_Historians. There are lots of NRHP related things at C-SPAN as well (tours of the statehouse, etc.) But my main effort of beating my head against the wall is at WP:GLAM/smarthistory.
Yes, this is not all accidental - I just think it's time that Wikipedia start making better use of video - especially where it relates to educational non-profits and MOOCs
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Mediran's talk page. Message added 03:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Mediran's talk page. Message added 11:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks for your reply and I have a question now then. Thanks! Mediran (t • c) 11:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Zemun article revert
Hello. I've just recently reverted your edit on Zemun article believing you were just one of those anon/multiple account users who are edit warring there. Looking at your edits I've noticed you were simply reverting the edits made by user User:IvanOS who has been blocked for disruptive edits. However I would like to point out that the section he restored on that article has been part of it for months but was removed recently by another blocked user User:Oldhouse2012. If you believe my revert on this article may have been disruptive as well please feel free to revert it back or let me know and I'll revert my changes myself. Regards. Shokatz (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Why are you blocking IvanOS? Here's an explanation that is not at fault [16]. WhiteWriter not a neutral person. Please fix your mistakes.--Sokac121 (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for replying to me. The whole issue with Ivan was completely unknown to me until I have looked into your contributions via the Zemun article. Anyway I don't really have a opinion in the matter nor do I know much about it. The problem with the article in question is that we have a known banned sockpuppet who is still editing and disrupting that article as a anon. Another user Nado158 who has been supporting him on that article is also recently topic banned on all articles regarding Albania, Kosovo and Serbia. While I know the issue is unknown to you nor do I ask for you to contribute; and mediation is impossible since we are dealing with banned or semi-banned users who refuse to even discus what exactly is the problem with decently sourced and supported minor section; can you at least semi-protect the page for a week or two. It will hardly help since Oldhouse2012 is quite persistent in his trolling but at least there will be a break with all the disruptive behavior for a while. Shokatz (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
OMG, you are right! Sorry about that and thanks for pointing out. Just fixed it... --Pkuczynski (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Re: Translation request
I will be glad to translate it, though it might well take me a month or two. I also need to see what the standard translation of the name is in English. Thanks for the heads up, Ruhrfisch><>°° 03:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
re: edit summary
link. Yea, I caught that too. I could make a wild guess or two, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if this was a once very well respected "registered" editor. Being disillusioned with the project wouldn't exactly put him in a particularly small minority either. Seems to be a pretty common theme these days. Sigh — Ched : ? 01:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Revdel and indef needed
Could you please take a look at Spakegreg2 (talk·contribs) and set the approbriate actions in motion? Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick action. But it seems very likely to be a sock of Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/JarlaxleArtemis which has a long time history of harrasment. I think denial of talk page access and email privileges is needed, and I am also concerned about this edit which needs revdel, unless of course it needs to stay for police investigation. --Saddhiyama (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi friendly talkpage stalker! Thanks for commenting - I'd come to the same conclusion (and edit conflicted with you in replying), but having your opinion was very helpful given that (as you're probably aware from my talkpage) I've managed to make a mess of history merges before... I've done the move now, but if you see any more students asking similar questions on my talk, do feel free to go ahead and do the merge if you deem it appropriate; I'm more than happy for you to do so. Much obliged, thanks again. Yunshui雲水 19:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
RMS Queen Mary
Have undone your edit as a related sense of the term troop refers to soldiers collectively, as in the troops; see Troop (disambiguation). User:Clevs (User talk:Clevs) 19:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Focus status image
Someone just posted on WT:NRHP saying that six new states were added to Focus recently, and I went to update the status image. I saw where User:DePiep had edited the color of Indiana to be a state with all nominations online rather than a state with only some back on February 19 of this year. Not knowing his username, I figured he wasn't part of WP:NRHP, so I just reverted it when I added the new Focus states. Doing a little research, though, I see that it was you who requested the change. Do you have some sources I don't see? At WP:NRHPHELP#Indiana, I only see sources indicating that some are online, not all. If there is some other source, could you please add it to that section, and I'll update the SVG? Thanks!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
And on an unrelated topic, Doncram is calling you out here.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Murphy Mound
I do have the book, you wouldn't have the page numbers or chapter right off would you? As for bundle burials, they were pretty common at various times and places in native North America, but gauging from a quick reading of Funeral bundle were slightly different, so dont know if that should be expanded or another started. In Woodland and Mississippian (and some historic southeastern tribes <-- Choctaw? Chickasaw? Muscogee? one of them had a specialized priest who grew their nails long for the express removal of flesh from bones so they cold be interred as bundles) context, a bundle burial was often the de-fleshed bones collected as a bundle and then stored in a mortuary house until a later reburial, often in a mound. See [24]. From what I remember the thinking is that the deaths through a certain time period were collected in mortuary structures and then buried en masse for specific occasions (special time of year? or every couple of years? death of a great personage so they could all be buried with him?<---this actually happened at the famous Mound 72 at Cahokia, or a possible variety of other reasons I'm not remembering right now). Shoot me the page numbers or chapter and I will check your addition over. Did not realize there was a section on this site in that book, has been at least 10 years since I read it, lol. Heiro 03:37, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
No, actually Mississippian and the earlier Hopewell bundles are somewhat similar, as many Mississippian mortuary mounds and burial mounds started out as structures, but there were probably variances over the several thousand years and many cultures who employed the techniques. I believe many of the Adena and Hopewell burial mounds were built up in episodes, starting with a charnel house that is burnt and covered over, then successive layers contain many bundle burials that were stored up and then lain down in each new layer. See Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 14: Southeast edited by William Sturtevant, explains it some.
Looked at the book and your changes. Made a slight change to the article dates, went from 1550 to 1541 as the online source states. In this area specifically, if they say 1541 it is better to keep it at that, just to be safe. This is one of the areas that had specific impact from the de Soto entrada in the early 1540s, many of which have signs of European contact and then immediate abandonment as populations in the area crashed dramatically. While no European artifacts may have been found at the site itself (I dont know personally), if the ceramic sequences match up to the same time period at sites that did have European contact, they will usually give that as a tentative time for abandonment. I also expanded the cite some to include the chapter and author for the book. Cheers, Heiro 04:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Addendum-Personally I'd rather have a source dealing specifically with the site and more in depth. From looking at the pottery in the online source and from looking at Mississippian culture pottery#Hemphill style pottery from the 14th to 15th century at Moundville Archaeological Site (they are related), the earlier dates are probably more likely to be accurate. Until we can find such a better source, I say we keep both sets of dates. Heiro 04:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
If its not too leafed out yet, Rowlandton Mound Site might be a nice one to have better images of. When I took pics years ago it was mid summer and it was completely covered in trees and underbrush. Tolu Site, Turk Site, Marshall Site, Twin Mounds Site, and Adams Site might be nice too, but have never been to these myself, not sure how hard they are to get to. Some sites mentioned here Mill Creek chert and on the map I made for the article might be nice too, but havent even gotten around to making articles on them yet, so they are pretty low priority. When are you planning on being in the area? I'm making a 3 to 5 trip to Paducah from roughly the 19th to the 23rd of April (includes the 2 days of driving time) to install an exhibition and have a reception on the 21st. If you are there I invite you to come to the reception, and if not make sure to stop by the murals on the floodwall downtown. Heiro 06:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Good work on the Cambell mound article. I added a few wikilinks and some minor wording tweaks. I also created this recently Mound 72, and in the process found an article (Brown, James A. (2012). "Cosmological layouts of secondary burials as political instruments". In Sullivan, Lynne P.; Mainfort, Robert C. (eds.). Mississippian Mortuary Practices: Beyond Hierarchy and the Representationist Perspective. University Press of Florida. ISBN978-0813042015.) that discusses bundle burials if you are interested. Cheers, Heiro 00:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Human Factors Lab
Hello, I am writing in regards to the wiki page for the band Human Factors Lab. This page cans under attack in 2010 by former band members citing it was not notable. We believe Human Factors Lab meets all requirements to have a wiki page. What can be done to re instate,or recreate a page for Human Factors Lab? Here is some basic info.
Human Factors Lab is an Industrial Metal band based out of Orlando, Florida.
Established in 2004 ,Touring Nationally since 2006 . Independently released 3 full length albums and 2 EP's. We have also independently toured the United States and Canada 11 times.
As a live band Human Factors Lab is known for their highly visual imagery and sometimes bizarre stage shows they are armed to the teeth with crunch guitars, live keyboard arrangements,pulse pounding drums,and aggressive vocals
NOTABLE TOURS :
-Support for Mushroomhead-
April , 2008 October, 2008 December, 2011
-Support for KMFDM-
August, 2011
DISCOGRAPHY :
Plastik : 2004 - 10,000 sold
Pap3r : 2008 - 28,000 sold
L1V3 : 2009 - 600 downloads (digital only / limited time release)
We All Fall Down (EP) : 2011 - 1,700 sold
The Blade (EP) : October, 2012
The Blood (EP) : March, 2013
We are currently in the process of releasing a new series of EP's to eventually be combined to form a full length album entitled "The Suicide Diaries" produced by Chris Vrenna, best known as drummer for Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson, as well as his own project called Tweaker. We did the recording at the world famous KDS Studios in Orlando, FL. This studio gave the band access to cutting-edge technology and equipment as well as staff that are no strangers to breeding successful artists. It was formerly known as TransContinental Studios where many of the Orlando Pop bands such as NSYNC, Backstreet Boys and Britney Spears got their start. We are recording vocal tracks and conducting final mixes at Chris Vrenna's personal studio in Los Angeles, CA.
Polish culture in the Interbellum
Sorry for bothering you about such tiny little things, Nyttend. This DYK of mine was archived as "Pyotr Verzilov" (see top section) from the previous set on 27 March 2013.[25] Would you please rename it? Thanks in advance, Poeticbenttalk 22:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
dispute resolution or other process to address disambiguation
Hi Nyttend, I've noticed your recent edits to several NRHP disambiguation pages and have reverted one or more of them and have made other revisions. These include Pythian Castle, Commercial Building (disambiguation), O'Connor House and perhaps others. I want to head off a low-grade edit war where you are making changes and I am reversing them in multiple scattered articles. I assume you have good faith and are wanting to improve the disambiguation pages, but I believe some of your changes are against good policies and practices for various reasons, and are against consensus and general precedent. Much of this has been discussed out with other editors previously, including notable discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation/Archive 13#what is wp:NRHP doing wrong RE disambiguation? back in 2008. Covered there is some reasoning about why supporting bluelinks are required by policy; some of your edits have violated explicit policy. And there are smaller issues that come down to practice and judgment, less than policy requirement, but where a lot of thinking has already gone on.
I request that you engage with me and other editors in some central discussion at a neutral place, perhaps a discussion section at Talk page of WikiProject Disambiguation, about the policy and guidelines and practices of disambiguation for NRHP places. Or perhaps at WikiProject NRHP, and leading to some explicit treatment in the NRHPmos guideline. And to avoid the appearance of creating a battleground about this. Towards setting up a successful discussion involving other editors, I request you to help me identify dab pages and issues of interest to discuss, collecting them for a while, before opening a discussion. If you don't want to proceed in such away, would you agree to a mediation process about you and me and disambiguation?
This is pretty boring and technical stuff; I should hope no one has really strong emotions about any of this. But low-grade edit warring is a drag on the development of Wikipedia, and I want to avoid having this drag you and me down and depressing/affecting others as well.
Relatedly, I see that you recently used Speedy Deletion with reason wp:G6 to delete Tower Rock (disambiguation). Could you please provide a copy of that page with its edit history, to my Userspace? --doncram 14:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, sort of, for your reply this edit providing a copy but not the actual page with history. I see that provides some justification for your deletion, but it also is concerning to me because it destroyed awareness of one other notable Tower Rock, the NRHP-listed one in Montana that was a landmark in the Lewis and Clark expedition (cf this MT state parks page). Tower Rock (Cascade, Montana) is currently a redlink, but it is plausible that it is relatively important and that in fact the Mississippi River one should not retain primary usage. The existence of the disambiguation page kept some information alive, and deleting it represents a small setback, IMO.
Would you please provide a copy of the page with its edit history, and with its Talk page, to my Userspace. I would like to see the edit history of the page and any Talk page discussion to reconstruct what happened there. --doncram 14:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Okay, as you noted at my Talk another editor, Bkonrad, restored the page. The history does clarify/refresh me on what happened there, and I note that these edits by another editor, not by me, put the page into MOSDAB policy-noncompliant status.
Right, i further see that it was me that had created the page originally, and technically should not have removed the speedy tag. I had focused on responsibility for the page being as it was, being someone else's. It would be a sensible application of wp:IAR to remove the speedy and post to the Talk page as I did in this case, though, to facilitate discussion and prevent some uninvolved person from re-deleting. And it is arguably wp:POINTY or something else bad for you have to put the speedy tag on again, after it was restored, given that it was under discussion. The undelete by another person suggested some support for there being an issue perceived, in addition to my having raised it. Anyhow, this is moot as I think the further revised page is policy-compliant and stable. --doncram 15:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Bot job
Do you intend to resubmit your bot job request, for dates in NRHP articles? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:54, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the vandalism on my talk page
Thanks greatly for reverting the recent page blanking and vandalism on my talk page.
I suspect it was occurring at college. I've spoken to my tutor who has spoken to the person believed to be causing this. That person has been asked to stop his actions.
Hopefully, that should clear up the matter, feel free though to keep watching over my pages in case it resumes.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "John D._Haynes_House".
Guide for participants
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBotoperator / talk 17:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Could you please explain your comment in declining the G4 deletion request ("Not the same as what was deleted before"). Thank you. — Malik ShabazzTalk/Stalk 13:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
The code on the page is substantially different from what it was when deleted in 2007. Criterion G4 "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". Nyttend (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Northamerica1000#Happy New Year to you too!'s talk page. Message added 03:14, 1 January 2013 (UTC).
