This 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.

Hey there. I wanted to drop you a note to see if you'd be interested in joining the Guild of Copy Editors July 2013 backlog elimination drive. You've helped out the Guild in the past, and I was hoping you'd do so again. We've made lots of progress on the backlog, cutting it by two third since we started three years ago, but have stalled out in recent months. We need more help to keep pushing down the number of articles that still need copy editing. The current drive is already halfway over! Please consider joining it and chipping in a few articles. I hope to see you there. Cheers. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 13:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You're listed as an active member of the Bot Approvals Group. I would like to draw your attention to the outstanding WP:BRFA requests (including requests that are specificly flagging as need BAG attention). Please take a few minutes out of your busy schedule and take a look at the open requests. Thank you Hasteur (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

For taking the time to comment on Batman: Arkham Asylum's FAC process. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you, please, take a look at this? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for working with me with respect to the first HastuerBot BRFAs. Hasteur (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

alert
Thank you for quality articles such as Bikernieki Memorial and Game art design, for alerting us by a helpful bot, for translating, copyediting and striking graphic design, and for going "above and beyond as a reviewer", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure on the correct process for editing a currently approved bot task but since you were the one to approve my bot I thought this would be a good place to start. I would like to change the search regex the task uses from;

 \[\[Category:(Year of birth|Year of death|Living people|Possibly living people)

to;

\[\[Category:(Year of birth|Year of death|Living people|Possibly living people|[1-9][0-9][0-9][0-9] (births|deaths))

I have checked this regex and I'm convinced it works as expected. It will mean that the BOT will also tag pages that have a birth/death year category on them which should increase it's coverage of bio articles still with low/zero false positives. Let me know what I have to do to start using this please. Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for dropping a note. It's perfectly fine to make changes to the approved task as long as they still fall within or close to the original task and are there to improve the task. For example, it's totally fine that you add more cases because you didn't think of them (i.e. XXXX births/deaths). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know! Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you, please, take a look at this? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for approving the BRFA for AstRoBot. I just wanted to check, do I need to wait for a bot flag to be assigned before I run the bot again, and is there anything I need to do in the meantime to request/obtain that flag? --W. D. Graham 08:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Given the edit rate here, it isn't an issue if you run it without a flag until it's flagged. Someone will flag it eventually, though you can drop a note at WP:BN if you want to speed it up. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:56, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks --W. D. Graham 08:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hellknowz. I came across your name here when I was trying to get in touch with Rotlink about repairing the link to a page that serves as a source in an article I've nominated at GAN. I don't know about the reasons for Rotlink's block, but they have done some excellent work on tracking down "lost" pages, from what I've seen. Anyway, I know it's a long shot, but would you happen to know where I should go to see if the link can be repaired, or rather, the lost page re-found and then archived? If it's of interest, the page in question was (as per the citation):

James Sullivan, "George Harrison's Concert for Bangladesh Featured Drug Trouble for Eric Clapton, Stage Fright for Bob Dylan", spinner.com, 1 August 2011 (retrieved 12 June 2013).

Many thanks. JG66 (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey. A good bet is archive.org, in this case, here on June 20, 2013. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Aha – fabulous. Thank you. (Now all I have to do is figure out how to use the archive!) Best, JG66 (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that you just received the protected template editor userright. Are there any full protected templates that you'd like to edit? Let me know and I'll downgrade the protection so you can do so. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, nothing off the top of my head though. The few I occasionally pass by are already deprotected. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a suggestion on Wikipedia:Bot requests#New REFBot for a new REFBot working as DPL bot and BracketBot do. I beg politely for consideration. Please leave a comment if you wish. Maybe you could work on it like you did it with other projects? That would be fine. Thanks a lot in anticipation. -- Frze (talk · contribs) 10:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Good Evening,

I have made another request for Bot, I need a chance to show what the Bot can do, Please, do not give an already judge, if it was bad, you do not deny, you block it . --العراقي (talk) 21:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"if it was bad, you do not deny, you block it" Please read the WP:BOTPOL on how we actually do things. I'm afraid your response does not change any of my concerns. You didn't actually make a new BRFA, you simply reverted my closure, removed my comment and did not expand on any details. If you have an issue with my closure, leave a message at WT:BRFA and/or consult other WP:BAG members. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It was a mistake, I did not know I have deleted your edit. I want to contribute here using a bot, OK, it is contrary to policies, block the bot & avoid embarrassing. thank you --العراقي (talk) 22:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Why do you want your bot blocked? You disagreed with my closure and reverted it, now someone else can deal with it. I'm not going to make any further decisions and I definitely have no interest into having your bot blocked. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I know you have no interest into that, I asked you to block it cause it may be a problem with Bot Policies. Thats why I said block it, I do not want to be me or my bot a problem maker here. Thank you --العراقي (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

	The Half Barnstar
	Have this barnstar as a token of my appreciation for your cooperation. Don't want to see Minecraft page become a source of false info like way too many other video game pages already have. Good edit! ProKro (talk) 23:42, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you please review the 100 edits for the last trial at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot 21? It seems like that's the next step in moving that one along. Josh Parris 10:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I knew this day would come :) Anyway, reviewed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Which is why I hate big trials: too much homework. Josh Parris 11:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I expected corner cases there since it works with raw user text and can't catch those with small trials. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Naturally. Josh Parris 21:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

In other homework related news, I believe Anomie is calling for you at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AnomieBOT 71. Josh Parris 21:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Good evening.

Yesterday, I've put up a quick edit on the page of MOBA games that was meant to be a basic backbone of a separate topic of information when it comes to that genre. The edit was quick and dirty, so I have no problem with it being removed, however, I'd still like to add a section to that page about this topic, this time, hopefully, for good.

Thus I came here asking for a guideline. My edit was shut down stating: "...provide reliable non-primary sources covering this," as a basic area it needs to be better in to be accepted. After some thinking about it, I've still got problems settling on what exactly was meant by that. Do I have to find references from gaming journalist sites to legitimze my edit (like this one: "Gamasutra Q&A with Gabe Newell", Gamasutra.com, 3. question and the response to it), or is there something else in particular that needs to be done to make the edit fit your idea of a proper way of putting the topic to the public?

Thank you for your help. 94.136.138.30 (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. What you need are reliable, secondary sources covering the exact material you add. I'm afraid MOBA and the naming issue is a contested area and high quality sourcing is expected to make broad changes or bold statements. For example, "There is a persistent naming issue when it comes to this genre of games, which splits the general public into two groups" is a very big statement and it should be trivial to find dozens of sources to support this if it is indeed accurate.

Interview with Newell is a primary source and not a secondary one, because he himself talks about something his own company is making and promoting. This is a serious conflict of interest, and we cannot use his Q&A to source anything but the fact that he "calls the game ARTS" (he doesn't even say "genre"). In the end, we go by what the media (such as WP:VG/RS) says. A good rule of thumb is to first find a source and then add the material from it instead of thinking up material and then finding sources for it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, again.

I guess I'll have to put this behind for the moment and wait how the situation develops (both with Blizz/Valve pushing their own names and general public reaction) until any good sourcing can be provided upon the issue. 94.136.138.30 (talk) 18:31, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

As stated on the Template:Infobox VG documentation, the producer field is for:

The popular name(s) of the game producer(s), who were in charge of the overall production of the game. The name(s) can be wikilinked.

1. List only the person credited specifically with the title "producer"
2. Do not list the "executive producer" or other "sub"-producer credits, as they are not generally as intimately involved in a game's development
3. If three or more people are credited as "co-producer" discuss who is the "main" producer and list that person
4. List the "creative producer" only if said person's involvement in the game is discussed in the development section

Seeing as Mark Morris is the producer of the game, and he fits in with criteria 1 in the above list, I have a hard time seeing why you feel it is not. Osarius - Want a chat? 14:26, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, I was thinking publisher not producer. Yeah, producer can have known/notable persons listed. I'm not sure Morris fits the "popular" part, but I won't argue about that. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:44, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed this addition to the Reference Library and wanted to say thanks. Non-English sources are relatively rarer and WP:VG could stand to see a lot more diversity of its sources. Early Russian sources in particular are fascinating to me due to their guileless coverage of obvious pirate material. You get the same thing to a lesser extent in early Portuguese sources. And I'm guessing older Chinese sources may be the same but I have no idea if sources like that even exist. Anyway it was nice of you to offer to share this source. -Thibbs (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I noticed the lack of foreign language sources and I happen to speak Russian, so I can review those, Igromania being the largest (although they have many of the reviews online). And yes, they were ridiculously non-caring about pirated games. But then again, you could hardly buy any full legal games short of importing; everything was sold on cheap CDs in actual stores with cracks included. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Is that the right place to ask? I don't know how often that page is maintained, but I do see you responding to several requests. Just wondering! BOZ (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It does not appear you were notified of this (now resolved) BN thread: Wikipedia:Bn#Approved bot doesn't have a bot flag. I've marked it resolved as far as bureaucrats go, but feel free to comment further there if necessary. –xeno^talk 22:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The policy is incomplete. How about making an actual contribution and writing on the subject, instead of removing other people's contribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Born on Setons (talk • contribs) 19:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to make a major change to our internal guidelines, you need to propose and discuss it properly. That page is a guideline of how we approach all video game articles. You cannot just add something and claim it part of the guideline if that will potentially affect all the video game pages without at least discussing it first. Especially not if the addition is controversial and doesn't represent our practices. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the Cart Life upload :) Samwalton9 (talk) 14:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hellknowz. Re: your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Straw poll, it would be great if you could note down some of your suggestions and concerns, either here, or at my talkpage, or at WT:Flow and WT:Flow/Design FAQ. I can happily extrapolate from brief bullet-points, or long-form posts would also be welcome! Whichever you have time and inclination for.

The Flow team really does want to meet our (the various communities) needs, but they need our feedback and ideas to do so. The more feature ideas they have, and the more descriptions of problems & perspectives they have, the better (and faster) Flow will morph into what we all need. They're trying to improve some very tough complex and intertwined issues, and they need all the insights we can bring. Best wishes, Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your comments around Flow :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

About your edit summary: Me, too! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to get Jakebot to make test edits at User:Jakebot/Test report but nothing happens unless I use the API sandbox, so how am I supposed to do a post request? --Jakob (talk) 23:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You probably don't have the edit token. Check the reply the api sends you -- it tells you of any errors, including missing token. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The exact url I'm using is "en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=edit&format=json&title=User%3AJakebot%2FTest%20report&text=test&token=9567fcd18f2e0606b0333c71d53c17d3e%2B%5C&summary=Test&bot=&assert=user". --Jakob (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Then you are probably using a GET and not a POST request. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The full code is

       Socket s = new Socket("en.wikipedia.org", 80);
       PrintWriter out = new PrintWriter(s.getOutputStream());
       out.print("POST "+ "/w/api.php" + " ?action=edit&format=json&title="
       + "User%3AJakebot%2FTest%20report&text=test&"
       + "token=9567fcd18f2e0606b0333c71d53c17d3e&"
       + "summary=Test&bot=&assert=user");
       out.flush();

Seems like a post request to me. --Jakob (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you sending the same token every time? It changes every session. Also, I'm pretty sure you need to store cookies after requesting the token. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I am making sure to update the token. And my preferences are set to keep cookies. --Jakob (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what to tell you. It's probably a syntax or language problem, something you haven't done. I don't code in Java and you haven't given enough code or responses from servers for more guesses. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I get this error when I load the URL into the URL bar and hit enter: {"servedby":"mw1135","error":{"code":"badtoken","info":"Invalid token")) (and I made sure to get the correct token from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=tokens&type=edit. --Jakob (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, it says it -- bad token -- the first thing I suggested. And what "URL bar" are you talking about? Are you entering the URL in your browser? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. --Jakob (talk) 19:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to do by using api in your browser. How does this relate to your bot? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can't do anything with it if I can't figure out how the automated editing works. --Jakob (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what else to advise. You get a login token, then you login, then you get an edit token, and you make an edit. You need cookies, probably user agent, POST request for editing. If something fails, the api almost always returns the error text. Unless you tell me what exactly you are doing, I can't think of anything else that is going wrong. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:30, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I see a spurious space before ?action - perhaps you should use a library that deals with these things for you. Josh Parris 20:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I probably should. What library would you recommend using? --Jakob (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey—Thibbs mentioned that you might be able to help me locate this article I found in a Google Scholar search:

WTF? Unpredictable Views on" Light gun"
O Birling - Издательство Pubmix. com

If you have a sec, I'd appreciate the assist.  czar ♔ 03:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey. Sorry, but I can't find this "book" anywhere. It looks to be self-published. The Pubmix website has no results on any combination of Menacer and that title in any language. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

All right—thank you for looking.  czar ♔ 15:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if I'm supposed to post this here but since you advised me on "the settlers" navbox I guess it's ok. Do you know why the navbox links (T/V/E) on the game pages transport me to "the settlers series" which redirects to "the settlers"? Instead of just going directly to "the settlers" navbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elite Peasant (talk • contribs) 18:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That's because updates aren't instant. Every time you edit the template, each page that uses it has to be updated by the system. There are thousands of templates on Wikipedia and hundreds of edits to them all the time. So it takes a (short) while to update. If you edit the page in question (WP:PURGE), it will update it then. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Could you look into this please? Rehman 01:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a backlog at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and therefore it would be nice if you, as a member of the Bot Approvals Group, could take a look at some of them. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! I left this message on the SteamWorld Dig page wondering how I would go about to add a company page. Would you be so kind and help me?

"Thanks! I wonder if you could help me? How would I go about if I wanted to add a company page for the company I'm doing my internship at? It's called Image & Form and we're based in Gothenburg, Sweden. We tried a year ago or something but our user was blocked. I guess we didn't read through the rules enough. Thanks in advance! Baconfiesta (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi! If you mean to create a new article, then the first stop is WP:GNG -- has the company been the subject of multiple, independent, reliable in-depth sources/references? That is the minimum threshold for inclusion. If you are in doubt, better consider WP:ARTWIZ. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

How could you approve a bot to edit war with human editors? I'm talking about Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 4. A minimum requirement for that bot to resume operations would be for it be exclusion compliant, which at present it is not. By the way, there is significant discrepancy between the claim on the approval page, which says "Exclusion compliant (Yes/No): Yes", and the Bot's page, which says "Exclusion compliant? No". It's also not listed at Category:Wikipedia bots which are exclusion compliant. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've had a BRFA open for a while now and it's not received any comments or input. I mistakenly added the template to the bottom of the list rather than the top and I'm wondering if that has caused something I'm unaware of to (not) happen. I was hoping you could take a look since you've reviewed a few of my BOT's tasks before. Sorry to sound impatient, I'm not really in a rush to get it approved, just thinking it might have fallen through the net because I messed up adding to to the BAG page! Jamesmcmahon0 (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User talk:Hasteur#HasteurBot being naughty?. Thank you. — ((U|Technical 13)) ^{(t • e • c)} 18:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hellknowz! There are quite a few Requests for bot approval that are awaiting BAG assistance. Would you be willing to look at some of these? Thanks in advance! GoingBatty (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Archive.is headache. Thank you. Tito☸Dutta 18:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

• Here is the thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Archive.is_headache Tito☸Dutta 23:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, there is an ongoing discussion at the moment at WP:ANI#User:Werieth_runs_unapproved_bot. Maybe you are interested to join it. Thanks. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

alert
Thank you for quality articles such as Bikernieki Memorial and Game art design, for alerting us by a helpful bot, for translating, copyediting and striking graphic design, and for going "above and beyond as a reviewer", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 590th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Hellknowz. 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.

Feel free to follow-up with me here or on my talk page if you'd prefer. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

AAlertBot has been down for a few days.

Sorry to ignore your note to post at H3llBot's talk page or Article alerts discussion page but the former doesn't seem to have been active since 2013, and the latter doesn't seem to leading to any resolution. Nfitz (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Hellknowz, thanks for your hard work this year, you deserve wonderful holidays! I wish you success and happiness in your endeavours for this coming year, and I hope we'll be able to carry on improving the wonderful project that is Wikipedia together! Keep rocking on! :) Salvidrim!, wrapping up another great year of collaboration with y'all!

Hi, about two years ago you posted a comment here. I was wondering if you could enlighten me. I recently wrote a template ((Books and Writers)) which is for a dead site accessible only through the Wayback Machine. The template produces output like this:

Petri Liukkonen. "Arthur Schopenhauer". Books and Writers.

Is this OK or am I doing it wrong? Doing it as a template made the job of replacing existing instances much easier as I could just swap in the new template replacing the previous text. Plus it creates a consistent look and easy to update URLs in the future in a single place. -- GreenC 18:28, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey. I think WP:CITET is the most relevant here. Personally, I would avoid new templates. I'm not 100% sure what the guidelines on new templates are at the moment. I'm pretty sure you'd need some sort of consensus first. There is a lot of work done to standardize the templates, their internal workings, and the code they produce. But despite that, different styles are still allowed, so your template would only fit one of them and only in a basic form. This is probably a better question at WT:CITE. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's also for external links sections like ((Wayback)). We have lots of site-specific external link templates. As a citation template I don't know you may be right it's better to stick with existing cite templates. Just makes maintenance of links much harder, as Books and Writers might return from the dead, or change how the information is displayed, or keep track of which articles use it via Special WhatLinksHere. -- GreenC 20:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the site-specific templates are in external links, usually because they can be identified by some ID and the template can build the full address. I think that's fine. But using that as inline citation/reference, I am not sure. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've AWB'd the set and changed all the inline cites to ((cite web)), for example. Thanks for your input. -- GreenC 16:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

There are 2 comments waiting for you. :-)—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 19:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

And more comments. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Again. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 22:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid my time is very limited, so I won't be able to follow the BRFA in detail. I only posted a few immediate thoughts. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, regardless, thanks for your input. Do you think I should re-apply for BAG to help contribute? It seems BAG could use another volunteer. :-)—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 22:54, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Article Alerts is a fantastic piece of software and I am immensely grateful to see it so actively and attentively maintained. Thank you. – czar 16:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're welcome. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	This is for all your work on Loopz! Also, since I've had the misfortune to encounter a deletionist cabal while attempting to save worthwhile articles from AfD (and want to behave nothing like them) anyone who chooses to disagree with my nominations is okay by me! MurderByDeadcopy"bang!" 21:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Old video game sources are definitely hard to locate unless you already know where to look. Chagunitzu was the only one I couldn't find anything for. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I could just un-nominate it if you'd like? --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 22:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's going to be notable. If no 1990 period magazines even mention it (that I can find), there's fat chance it has reviews from anything we consider reliable. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Not notable seems wholly subjective. And appears to rely strongly on what one finds through google which tends to favor certain topics. Anyway, my original point is that I believe a nominator can un-nominate an article to save it! --MurderByDeadcopy^"bang!" 22:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Wasn't Chagunitzu shareware or something? I do recall seeing it on public domain BBS's back in the day. And if I remember that far back, Softdisk Magazine used to include floppy diskettes with software such as this on it. So.. maybe not shareware, but I don't know, magazine-ware? heh, in any case, I'm not so sure about the notability of magazine insert floppy games. But I could be wrong about this one. -- œ^™ 07:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Ahh yes.. Big Blue Disk. Just found it ;) -- œ^™ 07:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I'm on a scouting mission for suitable admin candidates. You appear to fit the profile ;). So what do you think? Would you be interested in trying WP:RfA? -- œ^™ 07:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Do you reckon I would pass an RfA? I think my reluctance so far has been that I don't have much created content and I tend to focus on niche internal places. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:05, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

All I can say is I think you should give it a try and that you'd definitely have my support. -- œ^™ 22:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me on this. I'm primarily looking for articles that cover production and sort of give it a timeline. Additionally I'm looking for reception. Its quite scarce. But if you have that info. Let me know. I think Glover has the potential of being a GA. Lucia Black (talk) 23:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

• Next Generation (Imagine Media) #45 (Sep 1998) p.60 preview section
• Computer Gaming World (Ziff Davis) #177 (April 1999) p.177 short review
• PlayStation US Official Magazine (Ziff Davis) #2.10 (July 1999) p.48 tiny preview

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! i'm looking at them as we speak. Lucia Black (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll look into some others later. I'm sure I can scrounge some actual reviews. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again. Some of the info is a little inaccurate on Next Generation, but it still has some valuable information. Lucia Black (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean the magazine has inaccurate info or did I make a mistake with something? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The info in the Magazine. no mistakes on your part. It credits Hasbro as publisher but "interactive studios" as the developer when its blitz. Theres some mention of "snow ball" and "beachball" so this will be beneficial for development section. Lucia Black (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Unless Interactive Studios became Blitz. Lucia Black (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there's tons of renames and rebrands along the way, but the magazines can also get certain things wrong. In this case, per Blitz Games Studios, it seems that was their name at the time. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. This will benefit the article. I'm also looking for any room for "production" info. So if you happen to find something like that, even when it was announced, that would really help the article. but for older games like these, i know its hard to come by. Lucia Black (talk) 00:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

From reference library, I don't have US PC Gamer or UK PlayStation magazines for those dates; try asking the editors listed there as contact. DailyRadar link is here if you haven't grabbed it yet. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Some more:

• Edge #65 review
• PC Zone #72 short review
• PC Zone #80 short review
• Retro Gamer #66 Blitz Games owner interview
• GamePro #127, Velikiy Drakon #19 and Igromania #17 has cheat codes.

There are probably more, but most of the scanned magazines that I have aren't OCRed, so I cannot easily search. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

OK well this was really helpful. This will vastly improve the article. Thanks. Lucia Black (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, if you happen to have the ISSN numbers for these magazines (just in case this might be able to get to FA/GA status). that would be great too. Thea rticle is now C-class. So its pretty good for now. Once it hits B-class, it can easily turn into GA. Lucia Black (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I can never find where or if magazines list their ISSNs. A lot of them simply don't, especially older ones. Our articles have them listed for most of them, but I really have no idea when exactly those magazines got them or if that matters for citing. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The issn number is the located in the same place as the ISBN. The numbers sitting on the bar code. But if it doesn't have it. Then that's fine. Sometimes they're listed as isbns too for the older ones. Lucia Black (talk) 17:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

They just don't show them directly anywhere and I have no idea why, trust me -- I've looked... They are often above the barcode for newer ones, but older ones don't have it. In the barcode, for example, main EAN number sometimes has ISSN "embedded" [1]. So like 977135015904532 -> 135001593 (Edge #196). At that point, it's easier to just google it. You can find them in our articles or on the Internet. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I see. I thought you meant you didn't know where they we're located. Yes, I'll Google them and see what comes up. Lucia Black (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you happen to have anything older than Q4 1998 in case there are some interviews ou there? i'm sure you already checked, but just in case. Lucia Black (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It's possible, but it would take me forever to manually check the stuff that I don't have OCRed or that isn't in our reference library. I'll let you know if I dig up anything else. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Well if you also see any repeating articles about any non-japanese game too. i'd be happy to look into it. Just trying to do my best. Lucia Black (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm hoping to slowly expand our Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library to include all the games from all the magazines, so we can easily search that. But that means that I first need to get all those magazines that don't have some kind of online issue content or review/game list. At that point it would be easy to see repeating redlinks. You can look through the current stuff there and see if anythign catches your eye and I can give a quick search through my stuff. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Electronic Gaming Monthly #109 (Aug 1998) - preview
• Electronic Gaming Monthly #113 (Dec 1998) - preview #2

@Lucia Black: Here's a couple pieces in EGM. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the scans. They are actually pretty helpful. I think i'm getting close to making a production section. Lucia Black (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hellknowz. Just wanted to let you know I mentioned you in WT:FFD#Substituting templates. Just asking for clarification regarding whether certain FFD templates should be substituted. Any clarification you might be able to provide would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, I'll reply there. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 01:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey HK, when you have a chance, can I get your opinion on the reliability of the sources used in Gamer (2011 film)? They're in Russian. I had previously removed the first two listings but they were added back. Not sure what to make of the other outlets either. czar 10:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• [2] - just a data entry like IMDB. It's a video delivery/streaming site ("online-cinema" is what they call themselves), they stream some big names and apparently have good traffic, apparently they got a bunch of nominations/rewards, though for streaming and their apps and such, not factual content; they don't have anything editorial-related; ratings are user.
• [3] - no author info, looks like catalogue entry almost, overall a bloggy Ukrainian movie website, ratings are user, authors have no real info, no other info. Main page sidebar says "Авторы и блоги (TOP-12)" (Authors and blogs Top-12), so yeah. Doesn't look like any editorial stuff happens there.
• [4], [5] - magazine since 1931, probably reliable, have an editor team and all that
• [6] - looks like news aggregate (or whatever they are called, kind of like Reuters), the article itself is a press release (it looks like it and I get more search hits on its text)

Very quick checks. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:23, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate it. Do you have any major hits for replacement references or do you think it's worth taking to AfD? czar 14:21, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Haha, are you asking to search for "Gamer"? Anyway, [7] here's a generic search, [8] her's with word "review".

• [9][10] nominated for best Ukrainian movie and won "special prize" at "Одесский кинофестиваль 2012" (Odessa International Film Festival). Sort of a point in WP:FILMNOT.
• [11] a review-ish article and "Сеанс" is a print magazine
• [12] review at what seems like an okay site, they have editorial listing [13]
• Sort of like RT [14] - 2 reviews [15][16], they look sort of okayish

There's probably more. It's big feature film with an international (Russian speaking countries) release. Unfortunately, it's Ukrainian, so it didn't get the same coverage as a Russian movie would (which isn't that much either). I think it's probably notable, but trying to search through unorganized unveted sources is... well, yeah. The difference in culture regarding product reviews is palpable when trying to search for sources. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, why did H3llBot stop it's tasks back in 2013? I think it did a great job! Just curious. I know Cyberpower678 has a bot that is trying to start some of these tasks himself, however, if you had any sourcecode, or insight I bet that it will be appriciated. Myself, I'm just curious why the bot stopped. (t) Josve05a (c) 12:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey! I didn't really have the time to maintain it because of real world stuff. The archiving task had a lot of tiny issues on various sites. I've detailed a lot of them in various BRFAs about archiving since. Unfortunately, I also lost one of my hard drives and a significant portion of updates to the code, which I haven't had the motivation to redo. I also have my hands full with User:AAlertBot when I get some more free time. I keep thinking about the task, but I really don't have the voluntary time I had before. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot is making good progress in development actually. Adding features is becoming easier and easier.—^cyberpower_{Be my Valentine:Online} 13:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

On 2 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ace (video game), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that several journalists regarded the low-budget ACE (1985) as one of the best flight simulators of the time? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ace (video game). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, ), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The article Hex Frvr has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not prove notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Hellknowz, I was hoping you could help me with a bit of Russian I want to include in the next issue of the WP:VG Newsletter. My question isn't so much about the translation as it is about the transliteration. I understand that there is more than one system for Romanization of Russian, so whatever is the most common or the most intuitive to you would be all I need. The phrase is: "Проект:Компьютерные игры" and this was my attempt, but I need a doublecheck at least. The next newsletter's not out for months, so you have time but hopefully it's just a quick question. Thanks in advance for any advice you can give. -Thibbs (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Thibbs: Sure thing. It's most likely "Proyekt:Kompyuternye igry". From your version, "yye" is (probably) phonetically redundant. You know, this is a really weird topic for me. Nothing looks, reads, or sounds right to me. Transliteration is such a butchery of either language. Like "y" in "proyekt" is pronounced like "yellow", "yu" in "Kompyuternye" as in "stuart", while "y" in "Kompyuternye" and "igry" is kind of like a "clenched exhale cut short"[17] and basically has no equivalent in English. So yeah... it's really hard to go between English and Russian (just think how bad a stereotypical Russian's English accent is and then double that when Hollywood attempts Russian). Hope that helps. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 22:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, yes that's perfect! And I know what you mean about the butchery of either language. I remember years ago finding a transliteration of the Hungarian letter "ő" as "er" in the Wikipedia article on Paul Erdős. If I remember properly the last name had become "Dersh". That's nearly as bad as "Darsh", and nothing like the proper pronunciation. Anyway thanks again. I'll update the newsletter draft right now. -Thibbs (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

BAG News August 2016

Greetings Bot Approvals Group member! Please take a moment to review and update your status at the membership page. If you have been semi-inactive, we would love to have you back in action! We currently have 15 active bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help reviewing and approving! If you have not already, you may want to consider adding Wikipedia:BAG/Status to your watchlist, it is a bot generated list of all in progress requests. For general BAG discussion, please stop by Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group. Thank you! — xaosflux Talk 23:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC) (You can unsubscribe from future BAG Spam by removing your name from this list.)

Three years ago ...

alert
... you were recipient no. 590 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, Thanks for your edits to this article; however, I've removed the references you added. One of them effectively covered the same ground as an existing one pointing to the same issue.

The other one was being used to support the assertion that the name change occurred in May 1988. This is incorrect; the magazine was still known as "Page 6", and Atari User was still being published at that point.

Although your reference only gives the issue number and no more detail, I'm guessing this is a misinterpretation of the *subtitle* on the front cover which states "Atari Users' Magazine" (as it did on a number of earlier issues).

I've added a reference supporting the correct dates. No hard feelings; it was an understandable mistake. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Hi HeelKnowz. I would like to comment that your remark on my BAG nomination differs form the others. As far as I understand you say that this kind of edits should be done by bots. I think some of the others claim that these edits should not happen at all. Recall, that the edit I did is part of WP:CHECKWIKI and any editor is asked to participate. This tasks are not addressed only to bots. I sometimes even ask my students to do this as part of getting familiar with the wikicode. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I replied on the nomination page. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

BAG News February 2017

Greetings Bot Approvals Group member! Welcome to our newest member, MusikAnimal. We currently have 25 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing! 2017 has been busy, with 37 closed BRFA's so far this year. If you have not already, you may want to consider adding Wikipedia:BAG/Status to your watchlist, it is a bot generated list of all in progress requests. There are multiple discussions ongoing at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy regarding updates to portions of the bot policy. Please be sure to follow for any policy changes upcoming. For general BAG discussion, please stop by Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group. Thank you! 17:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC) (You can unsubscribe from future BAG Spam by removing your name from this list.)

You comments in Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 37 were really useful because they are in the direction of expanding the detection beyond the detection we had so far. A great thank you for that. I think this thanks represents not only me but all the people who work in the WP:CHECKWIKI project. Magioladitis (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, April 2017

Greetings! The BAG Newsletter is now the Bots Newsletter, per discussion. As such, we've subscribed all bot operators to the newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list. Highlights for this newsletter include: Arbcom Magioladitis ARBCOM case has closed. The remedies of the case include: Community encouraged to review common fixes Community encouraged to review policy on cosmetic edits Developers encouraged to improve AWB interface Bot approvals group encouraged to carefully review BRFA scope Reminders/Restrictions specific to Magioladitis BRFAs We currently have 27 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing! Discussions There are multiple ongoing discussions surrounding bot-related matters. In particular: RFC on COSMETICBOT Efforts at WP:CHECKWIKI to identify cosmetic fixes Requested move for the Bot Owners' Noticeboard A phabricator ticket T162685 has been made to have a "bots" tag, so issues related to bot frameworks can be tracked New things Several new things are around: A BAG Guide has been created (WP:BAGG, discussion). Users now have the option to hide AWB from their watchlists via a script (WP:HIDEAWB, discussion) The guidance on how to deal with bot issues has been overhauled (WP:BOTISSUE, discussion) The bot policy has been updated to clarify that bot operators are required to register accounts. (WP:BOTACCOUNT, discussion) Wikimania Wikimania 2017 is happening in Montreal, during 9–13 August. If you plan to attend, or give a talk, let us know! Thank you! edited by:Headbomb 11:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC) (You can unsubscribe from future newsletters by removing your name from this list.)

Hello Hellknowz! I would like to invite you to help beta test the interface for InternetArchiveBot. IABot is a bot designed to help mitigate link rot on Wikipedia. Users can control the bot by using a Management Interface that was designed to be integrated with and similar to Wikipedia (For example, only autoconfirmed users can run the bot; on-wiki administrators have admin access on the tool; user permissions on the tool are flag based; logs are kept; etc.)

If you'd like to help out, feel free to give the interface a go to check for bugs/anomalies/other weird things and send your feedback to Cyberpower678, the bot operator. Again, the interface is at http://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/ (If it's down for maintenance right now, it'll be back up shortly). If you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message. Thanks, —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 22:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Game.EXE you can be contacted for reviews from this magazine. Do you have anything to add on Dragon Dice (video game)? 65.126.152.254 (talk) 18:32, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

@65.126.152.254: The review: scans OCR. I don't really have time to go through it though. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:48, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't have the Russian langauage skills, but I can at least link to the review. :) 65.126.152.254 (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You should link here [18]. Didn't realize IA had it. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:53, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand your objection to the first few revisions I made to Minecraft mods, but the last time, I was only building on the established source with a bit more information. I think that, in this instance, self-published sources are acceptable. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 09:56, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The article is well-sourced, so we don't want to go back to primary and unsourced statements. The simplest reason is WP:BURDEN -- whoever adds material has to show it is verifiable. Self-published sources are only acceptable for small, unambiguous facts. Anything that goes beyond simple "sky is blue" is undue weight to primary sources. The article is not lacking details, because we couldn't write them -- we don't write them, because it's not described in reliable secondary sources. To quote policy, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." Reliable sources don't cover extended gameplay details for mods, and neither should we in an overview page in an encyclopedia.

To elaborate why such additions work counter to good sourcing. Mixing primary sources is what WP:SYNTH explains to avoid. We might write "BC has machines and pipes". Then source "machines" part to a reliable source and "pipes" part to a forum post by developer. The problem is that this isn't accurate. In fact, the semi-right way would be to say "BC has machines. The developer also said it has pipes." When we don't mix sourcing, it's much clearer what the issue is. What if the developer says BC has space suits. We would then need to say "The developer also said it has space suits". We know it's wrong, but if we accept primary sources, we have to include it. Or what if one developer has hundreds of pages about their tiny mod and another huge mod has none? We would have to only covert the tiny mod for additional details even though reliable sources might do the opposite. In other words, you added information you know is true and relevant, because you likely have played the mods yourself. But it doesn't mean we can reliably show it to be true. One can find all kinds of outdated, biased, incomplete and plain incorrect posts by developers. This is why we use independent sources that do fact-checking. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so mixing sources is counter to verifiability. That makes sense, and I'll keep that in mind. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering if you could translate the following English Articles into Russian:

• Nurkhon Yuldasheva to RU:Нурхон Йўлдошхўжаева
• Tursunoy Saidazimova to RU:Турсуной Саидазимова
• Hujum (era) to Худжум

Russian articles into English:

• Aeroflot Flight 630 from RU:Катастрофа Ил-18 под Ленинабадом
• 1976 Anapa mid-air collision from RU:Столкновение над Анапой
• Aeroflot Flight 25 from RU:Катастрофа Ил-18 под Казанью
• Aeroflot Flight 4 from RU:Катастрофа Ту-104 под Хабаровском (1958)
• Aeroflot Flight 20 from RU:Катастрофа Ил-18 в Алма-Ате (1965)
• Aeroflot Flight 5484 from RU:Катастрофа Ту-124 под Кирсановом
• Aeroflot Flight 6551 from RU:Катастрофа Ил-18 под Семипалатинском
• Aeroflot Flight 245 from RU:Катастрофа Ил-18 под Миллеровом
• Aeroflot Flight 2174 from RU:Катастрофа Ан-24 под Саратовом
• Aeroflot Flight 13 from RU:Катастрофа Ан-24 под Баку

Thanks! --PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors. Your signature is also causing Tidy bug affecting font tags wrapping links.

You are encouraged to change

— <small> [[user:Hellknowz|<font color="#B00">HELL</font>KNOWZ]]  ▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> → —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK

to

— <small> [[user:Hellknowz|<span style="color: #B00;">HELL</span>KNOWZ]]  ▎[[User talk:Hellknowz|TALK]]</small> → —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:42, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Anomalocaris: No problem. Thanks for informing people about something they'd not even think about! —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:Flaming/MC2008)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, March 2018

Greetings! Here is the 5th issue of the Bots Newsletter (formerly the BAG Newletter). You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list. Highlights for this newsletter include: ARBCOM Magioladitis 2 happened, leading to further restrictions on Magioladitis (decision, summary). Betacommand 3 was proposed to be amended to lift the indefinite ban on Δ, but was unsuccessful (decision). A motion concerning Crosswiki issues (mostly concerning Wikidata) was passed (see discussion). BAG Hersfold was removed from the BAG due to long term inactivity. BRFAs We currently have 6 open bot requests at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, and could use your help processing! Discussions While there were no large-scale bot-related discussion in the past few months, you can check WP:BOTN and WT:BOTPOL (and their corresponding archives) for smaller issues that came up. New things WP:BOTDICT, a dictionary of common bot-related terms (see discussion). 6 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion). The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey happened. Two bot-related proposal passed, #6 deploy Article Alerts to other languages and #10 Commons deletion notification bot, although other entries may affect bots as well. Category:Wikipedia bots and its subcategories has had some cleanup. Bot-related pages that were historically important but are no longer of interests can be found in Category:Wikipedia bots (historical) The edit summary limit has been increased to 1000 characters (see T6715). If a bot you operate relied on the old truncation limit (255 characters), please review/update your code, as overly long summaries can be disruptive/annoying. If you want to use extra characters to have more information in your edit summary, please do so intelligently. You will soon be able to ping users from the edit summary (see T188469). If you wish to use this feature in your bot, please do so intelligently. Upcoming HTML Tidy will be phased out in June 2018, or possibly earlier. This may affect some bots (see FAQ). Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 03:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC) (You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how ((infobox ship)) is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hellknowz, as I understand you had approved the above bot here for taking over NoomBot to create the book report. However, the bot has stopped updating the book report and its owner Cyberpower seems to be extremely busy IRL to respond to any questions. Can you check what's the issue or guide to someone who can update about it? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey! Unless someone wants to code the bot from scratch, there isn't anything I can do beyond contacting the operator and asking if they can run it or share the code for someone else to run it. But that's basically between them. There isn't really any process for this as 99% of bots are volunteers and could (and often do, unless they are open source) disappear suddenly to great o_O of the community. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, can you try to contact the operator once and see if they wanna share the code for someone else? I tried but don't know PHP that much. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 07:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm too busy with real life myself to get involved in extended communications. If they don't respond to you, I don't see why they would to me. You can try WP:BOTREQ to ask someone else to take up the task or try to get the code. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 11:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

In your edit of 11:08, 7 May 2011 of Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects, you introduced ((/Article alerts)) with edit summary →‎Article alerts: Convert deprecated ((ArticleAlertbotSubscription)) to direct transclusion ((/Article alerts)) using AWB. I have two questions:

1. What is the effect of the slash in the template call, and where is this documented?
2. Is "direct transclusion" the same as "transclusion", and if not, what is the difference?

—Anomalocaris (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Slash means subpage of the current page. So "/Whatever" on page "Something" is the same as "Something/Whatever". Wikipedia:Transclusion#Subpages.

By "direct" I meant that instead of transcluding a template which is then transcluding the subpage (so, indirectly) it is now transcluding the subpage (thus, directly). —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:57, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for you work there: much appreciated.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, August 2018

Greetings! Here is the 6th issue of the Bots Newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list. Highlights for this newsletter include: ARBCOM Nothing particular important happened. Those who care already know, those who don't know wouldn't care. The curious can dig ARBCOM archives themselves. BAG There were no changes in BAG membership since the last Bots Newsletter. Headbomb went from semi-active to active. In the last 3 months, only 3 BAG members have closed requests - help is needed with the backlog. BOTREQs and BRFAs As of writing, we have... 24 active BOTREQs, please help if you can! 5 open BRFAs and 3 BRFAs in need of BAG attention (see live status). 54 approved bot tasks since the start of 2018. Of note, Community Tech bot 5 (the #10 Wish on the 2017 Community Survey) was approved to notify users concerning problematic images and files from Wikimedia Commons. Also If you're a bot operator that can help with Tidy/Linter error cleanup (see discussion, discussion), please file a BRFA! 8 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion, discussion, discussion). Discussions These are some of the discussions that happened / are still happening since the last Bots Newsletter. Many are stale, but some are still active. Use of tags by bots – Exploring the use of a new 'bot' tag. Mass page moves – Bot policy question/clarification about mass moves. Creation of redirects – Bot policy question/clarification about the creation of redirects. Guidance on disruptive use of semi–automated tools? – Related to meatbots (see also MOS discussion, which resulted in small addition to MOS:VAR). Discussion concerning WP:BOTFLAG/WP:RC – A reminder that bots should use the bot flag when it makes sense to use it (see also VPT discussion and CREATEBOT update). Out of curiosity... (to all bot operators) – BotPasswords vs OAuth usage amongst bot operators. Introducing Toolhub – Toolhub is looking for feedback. New things ((Automated tools)), a new template linking to user-activated tools and scripts has been created. It can be used in articles previews, and can be placed on any non-mainspace page/template (e.g. ((Draft article))) to provide convenient links to editors. AWB 5.10.0.0 is out, after nearly 20 months without updates. If you run an old version, you will be prompted to install the new version automatically. See the changelog for what's new. Note that the next version will require .NET Framework 4.5. Many thanks to Reedy and the AWB team. BotWatch, "a listing of editors that have made >2 edits per minute [without] a bot flag", is being developed by SQL (see discussion). Massive updates and improvements have been made to Citation bot in the past few months (see discussions, discussions, discussions). You can activate the bot here, amongst other methods. HTML Tidy has been phased out (see Tech News #28). ((Newbot)) has been reorganized a bit (diff). In particular, it links to previously approved BRFAs (see discussion). Wikipedia:Bots#See also has been reorganized a bit (diff). The bot dictionary has two new entries, context bot and context-sensitive edit. The bot request header has been updated to include better guidance (see discussion). The subcategories of Category:Wikipedia bot requests for approval have been sorted in a consistent manner to make past BRFAs easier to find. Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 15:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC) (You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Hellknowz. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

BOZ (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:Flaming/MC2008)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :) BOZ (talk) 15:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello Hellknowz, I am writing to you to reach an agreement on the article Hypixel. In first, my edition is not disruptive, for the simple reason that I did not harm the article. About that it has no references; if they have (less the first because it would be primary source because it would arrive a YouTube link or the Hypixel forum). If you do not respond to the message, I suppose I will revert your edition. Regards. --Furawi (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I already left a message on your talk page. You keep adding primary sources and removing problem tags. Wikipedia uses reliable secondary sources and rarely primary sources. Citing some sort of a record, like the edits you are referring to, most definitely requires a reliable secondary source. It is up to your to cite a reliable source if the material is contested. This is explained at WP:V and WP:RS and WP:BURDEN. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:04, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Hellknowz. Concerning the use of the HTML tags strong and var: Generally, typeface is coded using wikimarkup. However, if the typeface has a textual meaning, it should be rendered using HTML tags (see, for example, MOS:EMPHASIS). Unlike wikimarkup, HTML tags are accessible, because the textual purpose of the typeface is communicated to accessibility tools like screen readers, and also because they are rendered by the browser, meaning users with accessibility issues can change their default rendering to make them more accessible. Concerning the use of Template:If empty, there is a balance to using templates like this (templates that substitute for everyday parser functions or magic words). On the one hand, they might save a little space and be a little easier to type and use. On the other hand, they make it more difficult to read the code because the user has to be familiar with both the parser function or magic word and the template that transcludes it, essentially hiding the code in another template. Sometimes the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, like when, in this case of this template, you have multiple, conditional "if empty" variables. But here, when you only have one variable, in my opinion, the benefits do not outweigh the drawbacks. As there is no guideline on the matter, if you feel strongly the template should be used, I won't oppose it. --Bsherr (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your points. I didn't really consider formatting versus intention, since few other templates use this (as far as I know). It seems <strong> could be appropriate in this case as the intent. I don't think <var> is appropriate at all, because its meaning is literally for math/variables. <em> seems to be what you wanted, which I can also agree could be more appropriate for the intent. That said, I don't think they are more appropriate here, because the intention for the formatting is to make it visually quicker to scan, not that one should read the bolded text with emphasis. I may be wrong.

At a broader level, this sounds like it should have a wider discussion and consensus and then all templates updated to one style or the other. I've never seen any non-article space policy/guideline about stuff like this. Even in articles, it's rare in articles to see non-markup tags.

I don't think I generally agree with the raw parser function use versus cleaner templates, when it's shorter and clearer about its purpose. But I also don't feel strongly about this. There are far worse examples of complex template code. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 18:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Hellknoz. You're half right about var. It is used for mathematical variables, but it is also used for programmatic variables, in connection with code, samp, and kbd. As both variables and emphasis are italicized, the question is which of the two you are attempting to communicate to the reader. Here, is the template name italicized to be emphatic, or to indicate the variable part of the message? To me, it's clearly the latter. But if you take away that option (and there's probably still an argument to be made that this isn't the right circumstance to use var since this isn't strictly representing a description of the programming), perhaps it shouldn't be italicized at all, because it doesn't seem appropriate to emphasize it. Likewise with strong. Unless that text is bolded for a purely decorative purpose (for example, keeping with a convention of bolding the subject in the lede), then its purpose is emphasis. I know you don't mean it, but the distinction you're drawing, between emphasis and making it visually quicker to scan, is at least in this situation reflective of an implicit ablest bias (consider what "visually quicker to scan" means to a visually impaired person).

I think there are three reasons you haven't noticed accessibility improvements, and particularly on project pages, before. Firstly, Wikipedia has been slow to adopt robust accessibility guidelines. Secondly, there is a misconception that the MoS does not apply to project pages. Thirdly, there generally is an inattention to these kinds of improvements, because they aren't always intuitive and they don't affect most people (for example, the use of wikimarkup or HTML tags probably makes no difference in how the page is rendered to you). Of course, we should still try to build an accessible Wikipedia. --Bsherr (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think there needs to be a VP/RfC level discussion before such changes are implemented. I don't disagree with you in principle, but I don't agree that current policies or guidelines prescribe such changes. I won't re-revert you if you wish to restore your edits. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 22:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Hellknowz. You may be interested in this – I have already done some work; but I'm still in process of uploading GameLand ones. --Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, cool. I didn't realize there was a page on this on Russian Wikipedia. Thanks for letting me know. I see there is some missing stuff. I will prioritize adding content from magazines not on Ru WP and then may be sync up the list. There are probably differences though, because I don't really have time to actually go through the whole magazine, I just list games from the table of contents. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. From now, I plan on running Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PkbwcgsBot 8 hourly rather than once a day from now on. This is so that users who look at the ISBN and ISSN errors can find the latest information there. This will be fully automated and will run through the WPCleaner command line automatically without needing me to actually run it. Does this need a new BRFA? I will use the task scheduler so that this runs hourly. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey, you don't need a new BRFA, but leave a note at WT:BRFA, which is how it is generally handled. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I have left a note at Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has invited the various Wikimedia communities, including the English Wikipedia, to participate in a consultation on improving communication methods within the Wikimedia projects. As such, a request for comment has been created at Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019. You are invited to express your views in the discussion. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hellknowz, I was wondering if you could share your opinion here. I feel like most of the people who are commenting there are completely unfamiliar with the magazine and that they have no idea why Velikiy Drakon uses the initialisms "ВД" and "ВD". If the vote goes negatively then so be it, but I thought that someone who actually knew about the magazine should have a look. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 23:23, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Commented in the discussion with some details on the spelling. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 07:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Bots Newsletter, August 2019

Greetings! Here is the 7th issue of the Bots Newsletter, a lot happened since last year's newsletter! You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list. Highlights for this newsletter include: ARBCOM Nothing of note happened. Just like we like it. BAG Several (1 + 12 = 13) users have been retired/resigned from the BAG due to inactivity, per our new activity requirements (discussion). BAG members are expected to be active on Wikipedia to have their finger on the pulse of the community. After two years without any bot-related activity (such as posting on bot-related pages, posting on a bot's talk page, or operating a bot), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice. Retired members can re-apply for BAG membership as normal if they wish to rejoin the BAG. Two BAG members retired Madman (talk · contribs) retired. BU Rob13 (talk · contribs) vanished and retired. Three new BAG members have been voted in, welcome to the BAG! Primefac (talk · contribs) joined on 2018-12-12 (RfBAG). Primefac operates PrimeBOT (talk · contribs) which does a plethora of tasks. TheSandDoctor (talk · contribs) joined on 2019-01-21 (RfBAG). TheSandDoctor operates several bots including DeprecatedFixerBot (talk · contribs). Enterprisey (talk · contribs) joined on 2019-08-07 (RfBAG). Enterprisey operates EnterpriseyBot (talk · contribs), which does a plethora of tasks, RemindMeBot (talk · contribs) which posts reminders, and codes several scripts. We thank former members for their service and wish Madman a happy retirement. We note that Madman and BU Rob13 were not inactive and could resume their BAG positions if they so wished, should their retirements happens to be temporary. BOTDICT Two new entries feature in the bots dictionary Editor-hostile wikitext – describes wikitext structuring that is editor hostile, even if it renders correctly Spectrum of usefulness – describes how tasks are deemed useful or not BOTPOL Activity requirements: BAG members now have an activity requirement. The requirements are very light, one only needs to be involved in a bot-related area at some point within the last two years. For purpose of meeting these requirements, discussing a bot-related matter anywhere on Wikipedia counts, as does operating a bot (RFC). Copyvio flag: Bot accounts may be additionally marked by a bureaucrat upon BAG request as being in the "copyviobot" user group on Wikipedia. This flag allows using the API to add metadata to edits for use in the New pages feed (discussion). There is currently 1 bot using this functionality. Mass creation: The restriction on mass-creation (semi-automated or automated) was extended from articles, to all content-pages. There are subtleties, but content here broadly means whatever a reader could land on when browsing the mainspace in normal circumstances (e.g. Mainspace, Books, most Categories, Portals, ...). There is also a warning that WP:MEATBOT still applies in other areas (e.g. Redirects, Wikipedia namespace, Help, maintenance categories, ...) not explicitely covered by WP:MASSCREATION. BOTREQs and BRFAs As of writing, we have... 20 active BOTREQs, please help if you can! 14 open BRFAs and 1 BRFA in need of BAG attention (see live status). In 2018, 96 bot task were approved. An AWB search shows approximately 29 were withdrawn/expired, and 6 were denied. Since the start of 2019, 97 bot task were approved. Logs show 15 were withdrawn/expired, and 15 were denied. 10 inactive bots have been deflagged (see discussion). 5 other bots have been deflagged per operator requests or similar (see discussion). New things All bot-related discussion pages now have a centralized and searchable archive box (see discussion). Discussions are searchable per noticeboard, or globally. ((Bot)) now supports |status=expired (see discussion). This led to the deletion of Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia bots as useless (see discussion). WP:BOTREQ now mentions WP:SCRIPTREQ and WP:AWBTASKS as alternatives to bot requests. The bot creation guide now mentions bot flags, and two new languages Awk and MATLAB. Other minor tweaks have been made. AAlertBot has received major code updates. In particular, WP:AALERTS will now report splits, mergers, and AFC submissions. Citation bot has received several updates (User talk:Citation bot/Archive 10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17). In particular, the bot stopped the automated removal of |publisher= from ((cite journal)), and stopped the automated addition of CiteSeerX links, and now uses OAuth to authenticate those who make requests of the bot. Other discussions These are some of the discussions that happened / are still happening since the last Bots Newsletter. Many are stale, but some are still active. Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Adminbots requests page Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Double-redirect tagging (2019) Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 12#Long and Winding Road to Parsoid Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Bot-like user scripts Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 13#WP:URLREQ Wikipedia:Bots/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Wikipedia:Bots/Status Wikipedia talk:Bot Approvals Group#Minimum edits Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Minor update to WP:BOTISSUE Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Semi-automated Portal creation Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Clarification on "Bots operated by multiple users" Wikipedia talk:Bot policy#Bots triggered by multiple users Wikipedia talk:Bots#How to use Special:ApiFeatureUsage See also the latest discussions at the bot noticeboard. Thank you! edited by: Headbomb 17:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC) (You can subscribe or unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding or removing your name from this list.)

Hi HELLKNOWZ,

Thank you for responding to my post on August 2019 review of submission of 'Draft:Hero Cai'. I have seen that the key issue here is to prove that person is sufficiently 'notable'.

I have followed the links you gave and found that the wiki policy says 'Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable'. And one of these conditions is 'The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g., a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor (e.g., Fellow of the IEEE).[2]' ^[1]

Can I ask why the fellowship of the CIOL was not thought to meet this condition, while Fellow if the IEEE, which is an association for technical professionals, is? Can I assume that the CIOL, despite being the only lingiustic institution that has got chartership in the UK, is not considered as prestigious as bodies like IEEE? Would you suggest other institutions for linguists that MIGHT BE considered more prestigeous?

Thank you!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SophiaMMY (talk • contribs) 01:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I will copy your message and reply at the AfC Help Desk. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satyanarayanan Chakravarthy. BigDwiki (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hellknowz, Thank you for your feedback on my draft HelioHost. Do you have any tips on how to make this article not sound like an advertisement? I put in some positive and negative attributes on this service in the article (ex. The servers keep crashing.) I strongly believe that this topic should be on Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, Xincoletta (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I will copy your message and reply at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#08:51:53,_17_August_2019_review_of_draft_by_Xincoletta. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey man, so i saw that you didnt accept "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:2b2t_(server)". I'd like to dispute that because 2b2t is actually a very impactufl server. i assume you didnt accept it because of the first pillar? "Advertising" perhaps? because 2b2t does not need advertisements, and a server like this is very impactful and should be documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.157.99 (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

I explained the reason in the comment on the draft. It was written by 2 banned users and there is no usable content there. Draft:2b2t is where material should be added properly, with quality sources. You should raise further concerns at the Articles for Creation help desk. However, follow the proper procedure for this. Don't remove previous banners or content. You literally stripped the Draft:2b2t of all references. It will never be approved in that shape. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 21:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

hey man thanks for the reply. not regarding the post i made, is there any edits you suggest i can make to that draft? because youre right its messy however it has lots of information. also, do you think an article on 2b2t would be allowed? or maybe just a footnote in Minecraft's article? cus 2b2t is a pretty big thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.157.99 (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You need to add reliable sources, such as these. And remove content not directly supported by sources. As well as avoid trivia and gamecruft. In the grand scheme of things, a Minecraft server is not any sort of significant topic and isn't likely to become an article. It's possible it could be mentioned in Minecraft article, but it would likely be a very brief note among examples of larger community servers. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 08:55, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hey, I noticed your conversation about my draft. I completely agree with Hellknowz. I doubt that Draft:2b2t will become an article anytime soon, although the server's 10th anniversary is upcoming, so I predict there'll be a lot of attention from the media. Maybe then the topic would be worthy of an article. Melofors (talk) 16:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I want to show you few articel:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube#See_also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook#See_also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Play#See_also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_(company)#See_also

Hi. There is already a navbox in the article to link to other streaming services. WP:SEEALSO section is for related concepts normally not otherwise mentioned, not to just other articles the same "type". That is a job for categories. In all examples above, most links are to related articles. Even so, those article are not even good articles yet, so they are not good examples of this. Some of the entries they have are not even suitable. Well-written articles shouldn't even need a "see also" section, because any related content would be properly described in the article itself. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Why are you removing it? It is one of the most popular esports, and I find it appropriate to keep it on the list -Qylux — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qylux (talk • contribs) 20:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Discuss your addition on the article's talk page first rather than readding it (WP:BRD), regardless if it's appropriate or not in your opinion. Given you have already been blocked for edit warring twice, reinstating the same edit is completely inappropriate and normally blockable. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The only reason I didn't reblock Qylux already is that he actually reached out to someone this time. Let's see what happens... -- ferret (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It does not requires any Source or Reference as it happens on Weekend in Bigg Boss. So it is not trivia. It is just part of show. Kaustubh42 (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires content to be supported by reliable sources and does not include random info. The article is in a horrible state and removing valid tags is not appropriate without fixing the issues. Your claim that it does not require sources is false and against Wikipedia policy. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:44, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey, there. I’ve noticed your work on Minecraft-related articles, and if you don’t mind, I’d appreciate your opinion on the following deletion nomination of a file on 2b2t.

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:IronException_2b2t_Spawn_Render_July_2019.png

Melofors 04:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hellknows,

About your comment: As I commented on the help page: why is this list necessary when we have List of video game developers? I see no need to break it down by country, this only hinders navigation. The additional columns here are arbitrarily selected and ORish (number of employees in particular is completely unsourced). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Number of employees was collected from an institution called Swedish Companies Registration Office (Bolagsverket). Do you want me to refer to it in the article? How do you think the columns should be selected? You commented "ORish", what does that mean?

All the best

Tony — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyWestling-Dataspelsbranschen (talk • contribs) 11:24, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses secondary sources so that we don't have to make decisions about what content to include. That's one facet of what WP:OR (original research) discusses. In this case, you chose to include the number of employees. But may be I believe that the company age is more important? Or another editor thinks that yearly turnover is most important? This is no way to decide on content, which is why we fall back asking: "what information do reliable secondary sources cover?" This is what I meant by "ORish". Sorry I wasn't clear, my comment was aimed at reviewers rather than you. But this is just a specific issue in the article. My main concern is still the same -- I don't see the need to split Sweden away from the main List of video game developers list. This is something you'd bring up at WT:WPVG and it's unlikely to gain consensus. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 14:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi! Are you sure that page has been accepted via AFC? Because I saw it was declined twice by User:AngusWOOF[19] and User:CaptainEek[20]. The draft was moved to the mainspace by the creator[21]. Jikaoli Kol (talk) 05:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Jikaoli Kol, creator has a conflict of interest as well. You could also send it to AFD if the company is not notable and if it still has promotional material that can't be cleaned up. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 06:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jikaoli Kol: My bad, I forgot the exact details of that particular article. The discussion was at the help desk. I was planning to review it, but as you say, the author moved it. I still think it's notable, even if the actual article needs some scrubbing. Since the author has declared their COI, so I'm acting in good faith here. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there,

Just wanted to drop you a note about the CSD. It was definitely a legitimate nomination, and I came within an inch of doing it, but I just felt the references were just different enough to warrant a review. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:45, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: Hey! Thanks for the note. I can't compare to the deleted versions (not a sysop). But it seemed unlikely that this SPI account had added anything to previous versions, so I assumed they copy-pasted it and didn't spare it too close of a look. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:57, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep, given the veritable avalanche of recreations, that seemed distinctly likely. TTFN Nosebagbear (talk)

Hi there, you will have seen my comments in the AFD regarding your nomination for deletion of an article. I am just contacting you regarding your other concerns regarding the category that has been created etc. In my view the category should indeed go, or at the very least be renamed. The creation of the category was clearly premature. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey! The category and mentions in other articles (check author's contributions) should all go in my opinion until properly soruced. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I have edited all the articles that were in category "Media Synthesis" removing them from the category and with edit summary pointing to Category talk:Media synthesis. The category is now empty and if it remains empty for 7 days should qualify for speedy deletion. I considered speedy rename of the category to "Synthetic Media" but decided not to because (1) there is no master article for the category and (2) it is not clear yet that the category is even required. Are there other mentions of Media Synthesis other than these? If so, they can be edited to read "synthetic media". -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, the only mentions of "media synthesis" are by the article's author. I had never even heard the term before that. I am yet to see a prevalence of reliable sources that call it that and state that certain fields are under it. If it really is such a big field and term used by sources, then literally every article on generated content would start with "Whatever is a field of synthetic media that blah blah". This sounds highly unlikely to me. The author gave some 5 sources that use the term and none of them explicitly mentioned al those other fields. Nor do sources of those fields describe the fields as being under this term. The author has massive COI issues here and I don't trust them to make unbiased edits and represent sources proportionally without a lot of guidance. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Recently you reverted a few of my edits citing, "Secondary reliable source needed (primary source stats should be avoided)". Can you please explain what this means? The source I used was no different than the source used in the previous "Steam Awards" citations on the very same page (except I'm using the 2019 version). If you are requiring a secondary source referencing Steam Awards, you ought to revert ALL the steam references, as people are using the steam page as the primary and only source for all of them. So, I'm confused as to why you only reverted mine.

Thanks for any clarification you can offer,

EmptyBalloon (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@EmptyBalloon: Hi! You're right, I removed the previous mention too because of the same concern. Primary sources should not be used for anything but basic facts. Wikipedia is concerned that material is verifiable and proportional to reliable sources, and not just true. Steam awards are user awards (WP:USERG) and should not be used unless covered by reliable secondary source(s). For example, a citation like this would be appropriate, but not all the additional information one could find about the awards that doesn't appear in the source. Of course, there's many other editors and opinions and it's hard to judge each case. Video games is a popular subject and there are many articles that have bad sourcing or no sourcing at all. In general, secondary sources should be used for everything. Exceptions include plot/gameplay for video games. Also occasionally, primary sources like interviews for some insider/development info. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 17:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hellknowz:That makes sense, thanks. In this particular case though, the award I cited wasn't a user award -- the award is that of total concurrent players, which, to my mind, is factual (it's not opinion like a Rotten Tomatoes score; these are just numbers pulled from the Steam servers). So, I'm not really sure it's "user-generated content". Either way, if I were to also cite a well-known video game site referencing the same Steam Award, would that count as a secondary source here? Thanks, EmptyBalloon (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@EmptyBalloon: Yes, but that's textbook WP:CRUFT. If you can cite a reliable video game source for stuff like that, then may be. But you'll find that sources rarely cover these kinds of stats. Consequently, we rarely include them in articles. But occasionally someone does report that game X got Y players or some such. For example, this article mention the list, but only mentions a few games and doesn't mention numbers. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 20:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on the article Prostitution in Latvia John B123 (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi... ok I’m new to this, so.. I can’t find the tag that theroadislong left. I looked all over the site but I keep seeing that big yellow block that says it’s been declined and that I need to cite it better. Is it reference #1, 2, or 5....? If I know which number it is I can delete it or fix it. Rleighty855 (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Hellknowz, today I looked at my draft but I have seen you have deleted it. Am asking you if you could restore it for further reviews. Thanks You--Sandrah.Akol (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@Sandrah.Akol: Hi! I did not delete the draft myself and I see you already contacted User talk:Scottywong. The discussion took place at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ntinda Vocational Training Institute-Kampala. You can see the deletion log for this particular page here. You can ask for undeletion here, but it very unlikely to happen because a discussion was held. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any block in place on any of Boongalings's accounts at the time Herlene Budol was created. How is it eligible for WP:G5? If I'm missing something please let me know. In the meantime I'm removing the G5 tag. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Boongalings was socking and their block was for socking (all three account's that edited the article are them). I assumed this qualifies for G5, since socking is an automatic site-wide ban. Is there a different way to handle this other than leaving an article as a fait acompli? —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 10:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

G5 applies to material created after the first block to any of the master's accounts. In this case all four accounts were blocked at the same time, so there's nothing G5-able.

As for Herlene, the sources I can understand are IMDb (WP:UGC), the TV network she appears on (not WP:IS), a re-publisher of press releases... I can't speak for the Tagalog sources, but the English language ones don't pass WP:ENT. Would an AFD succeed? Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and the automatic ban is on the third check-user confirmed block, WP:3X. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Cabayi: I didn't know about 3X, thanks. I guess the cases I saw had socking that had exceeded this threshold long ago and admins deleted their creations under G5. I'll consider AfD, but I only saw this article in passing and I really have no motivation to review sources for these random bio articles. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I have now corrected the links.Glammazon (talk) 12:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

You have not. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 12:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

The problems with the links have now been fixed, l changed links one and three back to .com.Glammazon (talk) 12:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I blanked the draft, because an article with same name already exists in main space, not to make a test edit. Thank you ALM Aadeez (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@ALM Aadeez: Yes, I see what happened now. You should use an edit summary in the future, because it wasn't clear why you blanked. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 13:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

hey man this is about the article in the title. so yeah i don't get your revert of my edit. other articles in the mc template don't have Minecraft in the infobox —this my profile, complain at me and my work HERE 11:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yall are smart (talk • contribs)

yoooooooooooo hello?? —this my profile, complain at me and my work HERE 22:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yall are smart (talk • contribs)

Hi.. I saw you have reverted the change I made by removing the deletion message. I did that as per the comment that "Its okay to remove the message". Please let me know what are the steps to proceed with the discussion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshrnath (talk • contribs) 23:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rakeshrnath: The message says "this notice must not be removed". Where did you see the "Its okay to remove the message"? You can add comments about nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anoop Krishnan to address the nominator's concern. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)