User talk:Nyttend/Archive 39

Four years ago ...
historic places
	... you were recipient; no. 130 of Precious,; a prize of QAI!

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.

Barnstar

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For all your help on getting WP:NRHP 75% Illustrated (spread it around!) Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Nyttend. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lassie may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[Pal (dog)|Pal]], the first Lassie, in the ''[[Lassie (1954 TV series)|Lassie]]'' television series]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Crişeni/version 2 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Crişeni/version 2. Since you had some involvement with the Crişeni/version 2 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 12:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Panamagate

Hi Nyttend. Replied on my talk page. Regs, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Trinity Lutheran Church Canton, Ohio

Trinity Lutheran Church (Canton, Ohio) Hi, those links and details are all from various newspaper articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtsouers (talk • contribs) 14:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The link mentioning the canton club was in the article it was http://www.cantonrep.com/article/20120321/NEWS/303219878 "...Chuck Schuster, managing partner of the Canton Club Event Center, will book the weddings while offering to cater receptions at the historic Canton Club in Chase Tower in downtown Canton.It really made sense,said Coon, who owns or part-owns some other downtown properties, including Chase Tower and the former Martin Luther Lutheran Church site on Walnut Avenue NE. Now were a one-stop church. Schuster agrees. We just felt it was a natural tie-in with the historical nature of the Canton Club and the historical nature of the church..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtsouers (talk • contribs) 14:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Government of Visakhapatnam

There is no such government exists, it is part of Andhra Pradesh. Only local government or corporation is its administration.--Vin09 (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thurston Howell III

Thank you for removing the comma after Howell. Sandcherry (talk) 02:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Nyttend. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:HONORIFIC question

Hello. Since you helped me before, does WP:HONORIFIC apply to military posts (Capt., Gen., etc.) in the Infoboxes? I keep removing it from The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina article, but another user keeps re-adding them. I'm just not sure and if they do apply to honorific, then I'll tell to stop and why. Thanks, ☔️ Corkythehornetfan 🌺 16:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a grey situation. I question their relevance here: how does it matter to the Citadel whether its provost is a brigadier general or a colonel, how does it matter whether the president is retired from the Air Force, etc? Perhaps it doesn't hugely matter (e.g. when Rosa retires, they might look for a retired Army colonel?), and if so, it isn't big enough to matter to us. Perhaps it matters hugely (only South Carolinians retired from Navy captainships are eligible to be commandant?), but if so, that can be assumed in the infobox, and we can discuss that in the article text. Either way, merely providing the names ("John W. Rosa", "Connie L. Book", "Eugene F. Paluso") seems best to me. However, HONORIFIC is meant for things like His Honour, Dr., Mr., and other titles that aren't particularly relevant in infoboxes. These being military ranks, they're not mere academic or professional titles, so HONORIFIC doesn't apply. This isn't a situation in which either of you looks to be in the wrong: please discuss. Nyttend (talk) 16:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I guess the user started a discussion before I left a message here, I just didn't see it! I don't think it has a real significant meaning to the article and like you said why does it matter? We don't use Dr. in the infoboxes, we shouldn't use military ranks to be consistent among the articles. Thanks! ☔️ Corkythehornetfan 🌺 17:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Neyttend, now the user is starting to call me names. I will not put up with this. I've agreed to leave the titles, however the display of Captain (Capt.) I'm disagreeing with. I've told the user per MOS:CAPS it should be lowercased, and I see no where in MOS:MILTERMS that says it should be in caps, though he provides a source from the US Dept. of Defense website (but that isn't a Wikipedia guideline...). Name calling makes it 10 times harder for to work with a person... and I'll end up saying something that I shouldn't. So it's best that I stay away from talking to them directly for awhile. The name doesn't offend me, but I still will not put up with the name calling. What are your thoughts? Thanks again! ☔️ Corkythehornetfan 🌺 19:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

BACK in the saddle

Hey There, I am back after taking care of a few million real world things,. I can walk again, AND not be in pain, woo hoo....Had my knee scoped and a few other physical things, but I am able to contribute again. Many Thanks for the message on my talkCoal town guy (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Indian national cricket team

Hi Nyttend. I see you have decided to protect Indian national cricket team in response to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Marchjuly reported by User:Bozzio (Result: Page protected). That's fine and I am not challenging that decision. My question is why you've protected a version of the page that includes File:Cricket India Crest.svg in the infobox. As I stated in that discusison, this file's non-free usage was nominated by me for discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 18#File:Cricket India Crest.svg and the close by Explicit was to remove the file from the article. I have no objection to the close being discussed, reviewed or changed by Explicit or other administrators, but saving the article in this version seems contrary to his close. Just curious as to why you've done that. This was not so much a content dispute as is what on whether the file's non-free usage in the article complies with WP:NFCC, and Explicit's close was that it did not. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Your words make it sound as if this is an unambiguous situation, not a situation in which both sides are making good-faith and policy-based points. Per WP:PREFER, when protecting a page because of a content dispute, an admin must protect the current version, unless it has a clear problem such as vandalism or a blatant copyright infringement. I hope that you're unaware of this provision, because fulfilling your request would violate that section of the protection policy. Nyttend (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware of WP:PREFER, but based upon your explanation of that policy then I still am not sure why the image was not removed. The file's non-free usage was discussed at the proper venue (FFD). The file's non-free usage was determined to be non-compliant by the admin who closed that discussion. WP:COPYVIO states "The situation for images and other media is slightly different, as a wider variety of licenses is accepted. But, in short, media which is not available under a suitable free license and which does not meet the non-free content criteria, should be assumed to be unacceptable" which brings us back to Explicit's close. He removed the file from the article because apparently he felt its usage did not satisfy the NFCC. Doesn't that make file's usage in the article a clear copyright violation? -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Is part of the page subject to speedy-deletion criteria G12 or F9? Once again, there's a good-faith dispute over the situation, and protection must not favor one side. Now that you're aware of the policy, I suggest that you cease trying to convince me to ignore it: if you persist, I'll unprotect the page, because protection is unnecessary when one of two edit-warriors has been blocked. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

My intent was not to try and convince you to do something that you feel is against Wikipedia policy. So, I apologize if it came off as such. I am also not trying to get anyone (at least of all myself) blocked. I just wanted some clarification on why that particular version of the page was saved. You provided that and I am not going to press that point anymore. My question, however, is what do advise should happen when the page protection runs out. The file's non-free usage has been "discussed" at WP:FFD and was properly closed by an administrator, so opening another discussion about a previously closed matter is not something typically done on FFD. I've asked the closing admin about this and am waiting upon his response. If he reaffirms his close and says that the file should be removed, then would doing so be considered edit warring. I am asking this in good faith, so hopefully it will be seen as such. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your further comments; I indeed thought you were trying to convince me thus. That particular version of the page was saved because it was the latest revision when I decided to run through the AN3 reports and resolve a bunch of them; had I visited AN3 before the last edit to the team's article, I would have protected it without the image. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Images

Could you reverse your closure of Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 April 21#File:Constantinople(1878)-Turkish Goverment information brocure (1950s) – Istanbul coffee house.png and the preceding image? I don't think these come from the 1878 book Constantinople -- they (1) are a different style than all the rest of the images (I've gone through the uploaders images and added page numbers to dozens of images from that book) (2) don't have the captions that are characteristic of the book and which the uploader left on for all other images from that book (3) and are the uploader's only images that both reference the 1878 book and a 1950s government brochure. I'm fairly sure they're actually from the latter, which likely wouldn't be public domain and can't be verified in any case. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, nothing in the image index for the book contains "caffe" "caffetteria" or "mar nero" which you would expect to see (the book is in Italian). Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

File:Liberation of Belgrade by Katarina Ivanović.jpg

I'm afraid you're wrong. This is the exact same artwork. I have no idea why you would think otherwise. Yes, the tone, orientation and scope are different, but it's the same painting. 23 editor (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

You obviously haven't look closely enough. The "discrepancies" are due to the fact that I rotated the image by 180 degrees to conform to its real-life appearance (it was previously a mirror image and had everything backwards). I assure you, it's the exact same picture, only the previous version was of much poorer quality. 23 editor (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Hijiri88

Hey, I think 2 weeks is a bit much. It's been 4 days, can we call it good?--v/r – T P 01:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

United Church of Canada membership

Hi! I love how many of us are interested in improving and keeping pages on faith accurate. You asked how the UCC could have 2 million members when it picked at 1.1 million. Well, the UCC uses two metrics for this number. In addition to registered membership on church rolls, the UCC also counts those people who identify as 'UCC' in the Canadian census. The last census reported over 2 million Canadians claiming UCC membership. SeminarianJohn (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Jr. in AmEng

Your edit summary on adding to comma to Cal Ripken Jr. said "WP:ENGVAR, American English generally uses commas here; see the article's text". This is pretty clearly not true. See news and magazines. Per WP:JR, we prefer to not use the comma. So I took it out. I've never heard of any ENGVAR connection here before, and don't see it. Dicklyon (talk) 02:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of David Arshakyan

I was hoping I could get you to change your mind regarding the speedy deletion of this article, because with edits like this one, the article's author is very obviously a sockpuppet of KunoxTxa. Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

So no chance of getting you to delete it then? Because the article is still not notable, and unsourced (Transfermarkt is largely user-generated). I'll take it to AfD if I have to, but to me that seems like a poor allocation of resources. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The explanatory at WP:NFOOTY should answer your questions. He's not actually played for Armenia. Apart from Transfermarkt, I can't find any evidence that he's even been called up to the national team, so I suspect this is a result of someone adding incorrect information to Transfermarkt. In any case, I've taken the matter to AfD like you've suggested. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Turtle-dove

I would like an apology for this edit summary. Before you restored the pre-2016 versions, I had no way of knowing the article had any history before this month; so it is totally unfair to characterize my edit as "Bad-faith tagging". What's more: the 2016 versions are in no way derived from any of the pre-2016 versions. The pre-2016 versions were at first about biblical references to "turtle-doves" and then redirects. So the 2016 versions truly constitute a new article, which is a POV fork of Streptopelia. Not only is does it have the same subject, but it is substantially a copy of that article. —teb728 t c 09:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Phone booth, Lois Lane, Fort

I'm almost sure they'll have phone booth somewhere. They also have a nice statue of Lois Lane (too bad it's likely copyrighted), and Superman (ditto – maybe you can do it from a distance). You're more likely interested in the fort at the edge of town. Enjoy. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Harford

Harford, Pennsylvania => Harford Township, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania is a perfectly sound redirect. Not sure if that's what it was when you deleted it, but that's what it should be.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC).

I recreated it, so that I can forget about this issue. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC).

Youngston request

Your request has been completed. If satisfied please place a resolve tag on your request entry here, so we may close it. - many thanks FOX 52 (talk) 23:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Collect essay; second bite at the cherry

You participated in an MfD discussion about an essay by Collect that was in mainspace. The result was userfy and it was moved to user space accordingly. The essay has been moved back to mainspace. There is a discussion as to whether it should be renamed and moved. The discussion is here. Writegeist (talk) 00:39, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Old Stone Arch Bridge

Hello, Nyttend. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

you understand my oa frustration in that other groups get a pass

KeenWh (talk) 03:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Ibet1234

Blackhammer27 (talk · contribs)

I'm thinking that this account is from the same person that you just blocked. What do you think? 172.56.42.13 (talk) 03:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed site ban of Mangoeater1000 AN thread

Hi, Why did you close this thread with a post accusing people of wasting admin time? These kinds of threads to formalise de-facto bans are pretty standard, and had been started and participated-in in total good faith. I'd suggest that you re-close it noting that the ban is in place, and pointing the participating editors to whatever guidance says that formal threads aren't necessary for their future reference. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Whenever I hear someone say "They are defacto banned, no administrator is going to unblock them!" I just think to myself 'Remember Kumioko – no one thought he would be unblocked either.' I know these 'ban blocked editor' discussions are tedious, but they perform one function – they require a community discussion to unban them rather than just an admin with a surfeit of good will. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

So you think that any admin will be willing to unblock someone with 366 confirmed sockpuppets? Nyttend (talk) 11:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I think the administrative pool is sufficiently large enough that someone in it could be swimming with no trunks. If you want me to *name* admins who I think might unblock editors with that many socks, well I am not going to point fingers. I did not think any admin would unblock a serial sockpuppeter either. Then one did it. I am generally of the opinion now that if people are 'banned' they should be banned by process, since process is what will enable their return. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

A bit disappointed in your close of my proposal. The reason for the proposal was use of rollback tools and, as others mentioned, formalization of a ban. I and others are not permitted to use rollback on socking blocked editors... either we need to change that or put up with some tedious proposals. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Nice to go a full 30 seconds without the orange bar popping up! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thank you for your formatting help!

Allaboutjane8181 (talk) 03:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Revert on Black swan emblems and popular culture

Hi there! I just wanted to explain my revert of your edit in relation to the "discovery" of the black swan. In Australia, it is generally not politically correct to use the term "discovery" in relation to European first sightings of Australian things well-known to the Australian indigenous people. See [1] for some general guidelines related to this. So that's why the article was using the rather cumbersome wording that you were trying to simplify. Kerry (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Lake X/X Lake

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Assumed License images

Template:Assumed license , can you flesh out the details? 18:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Sfan00 IMG's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Two more templates

which I'd like you to review..

The first is intended for use where it's reasonably obvious the media would under current terms be considered {{own}} or self because the uploader either says so or there's other compeling reasons like EXIF, OTRS etc..

The second is for dealing with the sitauon where a 'third-party' other than the uploader has added {{information}} and has assumed that's it's self work, even though the file information doesn't say so, and there's not other compelling reason. (I unfortunately did this a lot a few year ago, in good faith based on an IRC discussion.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Sfan00 IMG's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Me "tattling"

Ok, I'm here. :) Yeah, it's obviously User:FrozenFan2, since the edits are the same kind on the same articles. They literally did the same thing on my TARDIS Wikia talk page, which I had longterm semi-protected. Could the same thing be done at my Wikimedia talk page? Also, after deleting my vandalism report there twice, they put one on about me. I added my addendum, here, so that should help. It's amazing how if you treat people nicely, they will be likely to help you back. Who'd'a thunk? Any and all aid would be appreciated. Cheers, mate! :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 21:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Ebyabe, has this individual been doing anything at en:wp since he became active at Commons? Might as well levy any needed sanctions here, if applicable. I've blocked the IP for a week at Commons, since it's basic vandalism to delete a good-faith vandalism report made against you, and worse if you victimise the reporting user with personal attacks and a bad-faith vandalism report. I'll give you short-term protection, but Commons:COM:P doesn't mention userspace as far as I could see, so I hesitate to give you indefinite protection; I'll leave a request for advice at Commons:COM:AN/B. Let me know if I can do anything more. And finally, let me be a little pedantic: everything here is Wikimedia, so your message initially confused me as to whether you were talking about Commons or Meta. Hopefully this will resolve the situation, so you have time to learn scuba diving and find those fish cabins. Nyttend (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Yeah, I guess I should have said Commons. But you're smart, you figured it out. As opposed to... Anyway, on the TARDIS Wikia I had my talk page protected for a month. They started up right after that expired, so I had them protect it for six months. We'll see what the short term stuff does. The IP did harass Sjones23 here, but it's already been blocked for... 2 years?! Wow. Oh, worse, it's a RANGE BLOCK for 2 years. Anyway, continued thanks. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 21:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, that long-term abusive vandal has also harassed me on Simple English Wikipedia ([2]). Lord Sjones23 (talk – contributions) 21:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Nyttend. I first encountered this person as FrozenFan2. At some point it was discovered that the original account is Bigshowandkane64 (talk · contribs) and all SPIs have been filed under that name in the last several months. Back in Jan and Feb I was attacked at Wikinews as can be seen here. Thanks for your help in dealing with this problem. MarnetteD|Talk 22:17, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

And BSK64 was also community banned back in late 2014. Lord Sjones23 (talk – contributions) 22:36, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I thought I remembered that FF2 wasn't the original sockmaster. Will remember for future reference. Btw, I thought I heard. A voice. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 23:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Huh? Aside from a single bot edit, that page hasn't been touched since 2014. Nyttend (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi again N. Ebyabe is making an inside joke reference to one of the lines that character has in that Dr Who story. It made me smile but that is because that is one of my favorite fourth Dr stories and I've seen it many times over the years. In fact a bot edit on an article about a bot gives me another chuckle. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 01:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to confuse you, Ny. I keep forgetting everyone isn't as crazy a Doctor Who fan as I. Almost used a "mouse in the wainscotting" comment, since that would have worked with the reverts of you-know-who you did in this thread, Marn. But it is all good. Build high for happiness. ;) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 01:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

MarnetteD, if you find that funny, check [3] and another edit from 25 minutes later. Nyttend (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Good stuff N :-) MarnetteD|Talk 01:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

He's back as 50.79.183.249 (talk · contribs). Can you deal with it? Lord Sjones23 (talk – contributions) 17:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Even if they appear to be helpful, bans apply to all edits, good or bad. All of the IPs edits have been reverted per WP:BAN, immune to WP:3RR. Lord Sjones23 (talk – contributions) 17:33, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

You will also please note that this comment is a WP:NPA by the IPs. "U have no right too tell users what to do and what not too do, stop bossing them around and mind your own business" is also uncivil as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk – contributions) 17:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Posts like this which are laced personal attacks merit a block. MarnetteD|Talk 17:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with MarnetteD. This IP's edit summary is basically giving me the middle finger to tell me "F*ck you", and that is a clear violation of WP:CIVIL. I recognize this user from my past experience, since I had a lot of issues with BSK64 a few years back. Since BSK64's community banned, every edit that his sockpuppets will make will be reverted regardless of its quality. I've been here for nearly 10 years and I know what I am doing. I would rather jump the gun than submit to that level of disruption and harassment again. The Idris Elba and Grey DeLisle pages were protected because of that IP. Lord Sjones23 (talk – contributions) 17:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Diffy qs

This is tangentially related at best, but my all-time favorite WP:Hatnote was Whac-A-Mole's {{For|the avocado-based dip|Guacamole}} added back in 2011 and removed the following year. -- ToE 11:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

State names

You commented on the requested move for Abia State, which has gone through. But a requested move from Zamfara back to Zamfara State just got rejected. I suppose it is not really important, but it is bugging me.

The Google search evidence is clear that the name is usually given as "Zamfara State".
Two editors supported the proposed move for that reason
One opposed on the basis that the evidence was cherry-picked, which was not the case
The editor who moved the article from Zamfara State to Zamfara defended their action, ignoring the evidence

Yes, there was no consensus. But the original move was made without discussion. I think that since there is no consensus on what the title should be, the long-standing title should be restored. Of the 36 states there are a dozen that now have names like "XYZ" rather than "XYZ State". I have not (yet) proposed moves back to their earlier names, and do not want to waste time. Sort of a nitpicking subject, but ... any thoughts? Aymatth2 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Old Union County Courthouse (Blairsville, Georgia)

Aside from being created by a blocked or banned user, what was wrong with the article on Old Union County Courthouse (Blairsville, Georgia)? ---------User:DanTD (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm a strong opponent of G4 deletions in cases when an article is useful; had this been a decent article, I wouldn't have deleted it. It was basically a substub. Do you feel like writing a new article? Aside from NRIS, the only source used in the article was [4]. Nyttend (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Remember that Georgia nominations have recently gotten online; you can find more information (which wasn't online when the article was deleted) at [5], plus the Georgia County Courthouses TR form. Nyttend (talk) 15:07, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm busy writing an article on at least one road that loops around that courthouse, but I can always keep a new version of the article in mind. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Me cutting my nose off threat

Don't write those type of comments too users who make mistakes. Saying legal threats like that don't solve anything. Don't ever speak too me that way. 50.79.183.249 (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Templates

I updated {{Media by uploader}} to reflect what it what was actually being used for. It may need a little tweaking, but it's a pragmatic approach to the issue of a large number of nominaly self-identfied works that aren't explicitly marked as {{own}} but where that status CAN be determined from the Meta-data. It shouldn't be used on stuff that's already under a "self" license.

The hope is that a suitable adminitration guideline could be apllied about 'migrating' clearly self images to the appropriate self licenses if the images are "claimed" in some way, see the additional logic I added to the relevant template.

Currently, I am doing {{subst:uw-imgclaim1|name.ext}} on user talk pages of uploders (as I havent reached May 2006 in the images I am reviewing yet. If the wording could be improved or the advice made clearer it would be appreciated. Adding some advice for patrollers and administrators to the template would be appreciated, even if it doesn't need the full background like the other template you helped improve. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

And I would call this Special:Diff/723696664 as result! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Unincorporated towns

Hey there! So a question about unincorporated towns has arisen and was wondering if you had an opinion. A user has added every former post office and unincorporated town in Portage County, Ohio and I redirected several of them to their township, especially ones like Suffield, Ohio and Shalersville, Ohio, which are just the center settlement of the respective township. I seem to remember that being the precedent since most of these places are just historical post offices and have no history separate from the township. See User talk:JonRidinger#Unincorporated towns in Ohio when you have a chance. Thanks!--JonRidinger (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Carthage Jail

Any chance you have a photo of the Carthage Jail? The previous photo was deleted, and while I was able to replace it with an 1885 etching for now it would be nice to have a modern photo. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Washington Township, Wood County, Ohio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Otsego, Ohio (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) 10:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Soundofthesea

There is no OR here pal. Every line is tagged & sourced from newspapers. If you have an objection please send me the text & I will reply to your queries. User:Soundofthesea 10-Jun-2016 8:49 PM —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The Battalion Drum and Bugle Corps

You responded to the speedy deletion tag placed by User:Dodger67 before it could be contested (less than an hour and a half after the post).

As stated to Dodgers67, every currently active competitive junior drum and bugle corps in the U.S. and Canada is and has been included in the Wikipedia. After the activity was devastated by the economic crash of 2007-08, the mere existence of any new drum corps is, in and of itself, notable to the hundreds of thousands of attendees at drum corps competitions.

Please reconsider your action and reinstate the article. GWFrog (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Big Horn County, Wyoming may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Missouri]]), Teton ([[Teton County, Idaho|Idaho]] and [[Teton County, Wyoming|Wyoming]]), Park ([[Park County, Montana|Montana]] and [[Park County, Wyoming|Wyoming]], and San Juan ([[San Juan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Need help/advice regarding a BLP

Hi Nyttend, don't remember why I'm watching or "stalking" your page, you're the first experienced editor (besides Jimbo) that appeared on my watchlist and I don't know what to do. Someone added some potential BLP violation and I deleted it saying it needed a reference. They re-added it with a ref but I think the ref is original research and don't want to get into an edit war. Did I do the right thing contacting you or should I have gone to a forum first? (I checked the rules for BLP/N and RfC and it seems to not apply.) Here's the dif for the BLP. Best Wishes Raquel Baranow (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Ohio Wikimedians User Group: Join us!

Hi Nyttend!

In Columbus Ohio, several members of Wikipedia Connection are forming the Ohio Wikimedians User Group. Our goal is to expand our efforts beyond Columbus to create an organized group that promotes Wikipedia, puts together events, and forms a better local community here in Ohio. We'd love to have you on-board as one of our founding members! Being a part of the user group will allow easy communication between active Ohio editors, notifications of upcoming events in the Ohio area, and, if you're interested, the opportunity to help organize events such as edit-a-thons or workshops. If our User Group is approved in time, we plan for our first event to be a Wiknic this summer.

If interested, feel free to add yourself to the list at the bottom of our page on Meta. Also feel free to contribute to the page itself, or ask any questions to myself or on the group's talk page. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to Thomas Pogge

You write the following: "Those are all news reports, and in history (which a biography is, by definition) news reports are primary sources. Biographies must depend on what the secondary sources say, if for no other reason than determining what's significant in the long run. Proven charges of sexual harassment may be long-run significant, and a long trial concluding in exoneration just might be significant, but we have no business deciding that mere accusations are going to be significant in the long run. "

This statement is baffling to me. If "news reports" are primary sources, then shouldn't we have to delete the articles on, for example, the Orlando shootings, since the only coverage we have of these events is from the news (no one has written any books on these events yet?) I think you are conflating two possible understandings of primary sources. On your understanding, the news is a primary source for historians, since they turn news into history; history is a secondary source. Unfortunately, this may be accurate enough for the use of historians, but it is not suitable here. The more useful distinction is the one between the primary documents with which the historian OR the journalist or the anthropologist or whomever derives information-- say, unsealed legal testimony or decisions, archival records, legislation, anthropological notes, diaries, records of experiments, personal letters, e-mails, etc.--and the secondary sources which analyze and summarize this information, whether this is the work of a journalist or a historian. The distinction between journalism and history is not relevant here, although historians may sometimes make this distinction to erroneously inflate their professional position above journalists.

The real distinction at issue is whether there are sources that analyze primary unalyzed documents, not whether a journalist or a historian is writing, nor whether a source is considered "news" or "history". News vs history is just simply not the same as the distinction between primary and secondary sources, wherever you acquired this false idea. Period. I don't know how much clearer I can be in disabusing you of this misunderstanding. Think about it: if you were correct, Wikipedia would be unable to cover events until historical books on the events were released. While there are additions from the last several months that are plainly Primary sources, such as the primary source in which Pogge has himself responded with a 6 page public statement, and the copy of the letter signed by 200 philosophers including every single tenured member of his department who risked their necks to sign a statement condemning Pogge for his inappropriate behavior with his students on multiple occasions- there are at least 5 accusers of harassment by my count. (And let's not dismiss the opinions of 200 philosophers, for whom assessment of quality of evidence for claims is literally their job, and who have nothing to gain by attacking such a respected colleague and embroiling the field in further public controversy.) I think you are confusing the loose distinction between primary/secondary sources that is sometimes used by historians with that which is appropriate for a reference work that aims to cover recent events.

It is perfectly reasonable to say "200 philosophers signed a letter of condemnation against Pogge over allegations from several former students that Pogge engaged in sexual harassment and misuse of his professorial power, as has been alleged in several notable news reports and sworn testimony within legal preceedings. Pogge issued a 6 page denial of the allegations." In my opinion, that would be adequate to add to the article; to have no mention whatsoever indicates that this encylopedia has become an administrative failure, whose arcane bureacracy has rendered it incapable of impartially covering events where editors may send their devoted friends to protect their pages. Please note that the only non-administrator arguing for exclusion is user:davidcpearce. As someone who has been trained in the discipline, I can tell you with certainty that this is David Pearce, a marginal member of the philosophy profession who is known to be a friend of Pogge's. He is well-known within the Philosophical community to sadly try to edit pages on his own generally dismissed philosophical ideas to gain wider currency for them. Judging from his writings, as well as his edits, in which he made incoherent comments about Buzzfeed to try to justify mass deletion of neutral, sourced content, I'd also place a wager on Pearce being schizophrenic. He has no business editing here.

Furthermore, the allegations against Pogge have been publicly known since 2014. No one is suggesting Pogge is Bill Cosby or should be going to jail, but when there are multiple reports of professional misconduct within one's profession that grossly violate all professional norms (attempting to trade letters of recommendation for sexual favors from young female philosophers, for instance) and the evidence is strong enough to draw public condemnation by a significant percentage of the field (at least 2 percent of all living philosophers by my count), it is foolish to say we need to wait another several years until someone writes a book about this to add in a neutral statement that "200 philosophers have signed a statement condemning Pogge's alleged harassment and sexual misconduct toward female philosophers who were his thesis advisees or mentees."

I repeat: It is perfectly reasonable to say "200 philosophers signed a letter of condemnation against Pogge over allegations from several former students that Pogge engaged in sexual harassment and misuse of his professorial power, as has been alleged in several notable news reports and sworn testimony within legal preceedings. Pogge issued a 6 page denial of the allegations." In my opinion, that would be adequate to add to the article; to have no mention whatsoever indicates that this encylopedia has become an administrative failure, whose arcane bureacracy has rendered it incapable of impartially covering events where editors may send their devoted friends to protect their pages. Please note that the only non-administrator arguing for exclusion is User:davidcpearce. As someone who has been trained in the discipline, I can tell you with certainty that this is David Pearce, a marginal member of the philosophy profession who is known to be a friend of Pogge's. He is well-known within the Philosophical community to sadly try to edit pages on his own generally dismissed philosophical ideas to gain wider currency for them. Judging from his writings, as well as his edits, in which he made incoherent comments about Buzzfeed to try to justify mass deletion of neutral, sourced content, I'd also place a wager on Pearce being schizophrenic. He has no business editing here, and I hope he seeks help for his unhinged behavior. Devotee of Truth (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

TLDR. I'll just note that yes, very recent events like shootings from nine days ago have no business in an encyclopedia, because we have no idea whether they'll be significant in the long run. Nyttend (talk) 18:54, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron block

Hey, I'm finding it hard to find your block of LavaBaron justified. Could you please explain how their comment at WT:DYK constituted a "hoax"? — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 02:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

LavaBaron introduced hoaxes into the Seattle steps article, claiming that several sources said something that they didn't. This is blatant dishonesty, something that would warrant a failure in any academic assignment, and it must not be tolerated here either. His comment at WT:DYK said basically "Yes, you're right, but that doesn't matter because the information comes from elsewhere". The WT:DYK comment both acknowledges that he introduced such hoaxes and demonstrates that he didn't care or didn't understand the severity of the situation; had he said it about someone else's actions, I would be suspicious of his editing, but as he said it about his own actions, he got rid of any grounds for questioning Fram's statements about the situation. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm talking specifically about this comment regarding the Roya Sadat hook. LavaBaron took no part in creating that hook, nor in editing that article. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

That's about something different? Then I misunderstood something badly and will have to look it all over again, and there's a chance of an unblock with apology. I'm about to go to bed (it's 2AM here), but I'll definitely go back in the morning. Nyttend (talk) 05:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I would appreciate that. I almost always trust your judgement, so I had hoped this was just a misunderstanding on your part. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 06:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking that step. FWIW, I decided that I would not perform an unblock, because of some concerns about the way I was brought into the discussion. However, I did believe it was acceptable to review the situation, and ~~other~~ offer some comments.

Unfortunately, it is not at all a simple situation. I've spent the last couple hours reviewing talk page comments, DYK nominations and other material. While I see some signs of concern in @LavaBaron:'s History, I didn't see the documentation of warnings that I would expect to see leading up to a block much less a one-month block. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting the editor is pristine — I'm very troubled about the Howe Street incident, but I'm also firmly of the belief that our normal course of events is Warn, Strongly Warn, and sometimes issue a Last Warning before actually blocking. I fully understand there are situations that deserve a block without warning but I don't see this as one of them.

I haven't fully reviewed all that I need to review but I think the block issue is now moot. I do think there are concerns about the editor that need to be addressed, but I see a prolific engaged editor who needs a little guidance. I hope we can provide it.--S Philbrick (Talk) 14:43, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

revision

These changes await review--Toppolila (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

already it has been approved, good studies --Toppolila (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Making of We Are The World Video

Can you please help me make the article you removed be fixed to appear on Wikipedia, please? Hgmalley (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please read my new article. Perhaps it should be how we are the world was made for free im 71 and want to get this story out. Please help me. Hgmalley (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

list of star systems 25-30

That link would be List of star systems within 25–30 light-years. --Izno (talk) 13:38, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC Dutch/Netherlands Lion

User:Nyttend, you might be interested in this RfC. Thank you. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Nyttend, looking at what happened earlier and at your edit summary: "Actions must not taken based upon one user's ideas when others disagree, especially when those ideas are eight years old" I suspect that you may not have understood that the title "Order of the Netherlands Lion" has stood for eight years, after discussion at the time, until a recent (last week) change. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the way I understand your edit summary. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

About your remark on my talkpage: User:Nyttend, I had simply not read the second section until later today, which was hardly a discussion but an isolated statement by one user, that went against the long standing name of the article, which was discussed in an actual discussion before on the same talkpage. Now I'm not saying that I did everything right, but I informed the users involved (the ones who made earlier edits to the article and the categories) of the situation and moved the article once, and a second time after your intervention, restoring the long standing name the article had for eight years. I frankly resent your qualifications like "edit warring", "pretending" and "persistent deception" and even the implicit talk of sanctions, which I frankly would not expect from an admin or moderator, and I suggest that you alter your tone in this matter. Never forget that we communicate here by typing to each other and to third parties, which is not the best way to actually communicate. It's a limited tool and misunderstandings come very, very easy. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

You're invited! Great Buckeye Wiknic 2016

Hello there! You are invited to attend the Great Buckeye Wiknic in Columbus, Ohio on Sunday, July 10th from 1:00 to 5:00 PM! Join us for a day in the park for food and socializing with others from the Wikimedia movement. We'll be meeting up at Fred Beekman Park, a park on Ohio State University's campus.

If you're interested, please take a look at our events page for more information, including parking info, food options, and available activities. If you plan on attending, please add your name to the attendees list. We look forward to seeing you!

If you have any questions, feel free to leave one on my talk page. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

(Note: If you would like to stop receiving notifications regarding Wikimedia events around Ohio, you may remove your username from this list.)