This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Talk page archives Current talk Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6 Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9 Archive 10 • Archive 11 • Archive 12 Archive 13 • Archive 14 • Archive 15 Archive 16 • Archive 17 • Archive 18 Archive 19 • Archive 20 • Archive 21 Archive 22 • Archive 23 • Archive 24 Archive 25 • Archive 26 • Archive 27 Archive 28 • Archive 29 • Archive 30 Archive 31 • Archive 32 • Archive 33 Archive 34 • Archive 35 • Archive 36 Archive 37 • Archive 38 • Archive 39 Archive 40 • Archive 41 • Archive 42 Archive 43 • Archive 44 • Archive 45 Archive 46 • Archive 47 • Archive 48 Archive 49 • Archive 50 • Archive 51 Archive 52 • Archive 53 • Archive 54 Archive 55 • Archive 56 • Archive 57 (template link) (revert point)

I'm leaving this at your talkpage because the AN/I thread was already closed by the time I saw it and there was a little more I wanted to add. Pinging Guy Macon since he initiated the AN/I and no one else commented. In the decision, Nyttend said, "Note that all of his previous blocks were either unrelated to the topic ban or were sockpuppetry-related (or both); that's why I didn't do a significantly longer one." I'm pretty sure that's actually not the case, but I can see how it might seem that way at first glance because the account was blocked from March 2015 to March 2016, so he wasn't active during that time. That year-long block was for "continued ban evasion" in addition to sockpuppetry though. He was blocked 4 times (not including this one) since his Christianity topic ban started in 2012 and 2 of the 4 blocklog entries only mention sockpuppetry, but all of those SPIs were actually precipitated by topic ban evasions.

The topics he edits are so obscure that there aren't a lot of eyes on them, so I imagine he can use socks for months at a time before it's noticed by someone who is familiar enough with his editing style to connect it to him. The part that kills me the most though is that I still can't figure out what his endgame is. Like, I can't tell if he loves or hates Jack T. Chick and Chick Tracks or what the heck he actually thinks the Christ myth theory is. Anyway, I'm not familiar enough with how decisions are made about sanctions to have an opinion, so I'm not suggesting you change his block. I just wanted to document some of the stuff I found recently since I didn't get to put it on the AN/I before it closed. Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 05:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the response on my talkpage. I wasn't sure exactly what you meant, but let me preface my question by saying that this specific situation isn't something I'm especially concerned about, but I do want to start trying to understand what editors are talking about when sanctions come up. Usually I just skip over those parts of the thread because I don't really know what they're talking about. First I just want to make sure we're on the same page about these 4 incidents on his blocklog:

• 15 March 2015 — sockpuppetry and breaking his ban
• 18 March 2014 — sockpuppetry and breaking his ban
• 25 September 2013 — sockpuppetry
• 18 October 2012 — sockpuppetry

What I was trying to say in my first comment was that both the October 2012 and September 2013 blocks did directly involve topic ban evasions as evidenced by the SPI reports, but for whatever reason that didn't get translated into the block log, so it ends up looking like those were just sockpuppetry issues, even though the sockpuppets had been exclusively editing articles that Bruce was topic banned from with the same exact pattern of disruptive behavior. I guess I couldn't tell from your response if you were saying that you were aware of that, but even though breaking his ban was involved, it's not relevant either because (a) it wasn't documented on the blocklog or (b) because all of those incidents involved both sockpuppetry and breaking his ban, so this situation is different since this was the first time he was only reported for breaking his ban or (c) I wasn't sure if I hadn't articulated myself clearly in my first comment and maybe we were talking about slightly different things, so I wanted to double check that I was understanding you correctly and that you had understood me correctly. :) Thanks! —PermStrump(talk) 15:28, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Re message: I reset the protection back to semi-protection. Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. I had some offline issues that took up all of my attention for awhile. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you please undelete this image, I think it's part of the article. Marole3 (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I left a message at WP:REFUND and my talk page. Marole3 (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I want to work on it. Marole3 (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WWikipedia:Your first article. Since you had some involvement with the WWikipedia:Your first article redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 03:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not know how Wiki works too well, but I just wanted to say that I appreciate your pix of the buildings in Sandusky that are on the National Register of Historic Places. Would it be possible to add this link to your image of the Wagner Palace?

http://sanduskyhistory.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-wagner-palace-at-junction-of.html

Sincerely,

Dorene Paul Sandusky Library

dpaul@sanduskylib.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpaul2211 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to object to your speedy deletion of Karrigan, as I believe the subject does in fact meet notability requirements. Also, as you may or may not know we are having a discussion about the general notability of competitive video gaming articles on Wikipedia, and in case you didn't get pinged it's taking place here.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:25, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

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

• On the Deep in the Heart of Texas page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ran across your WP:RDL thread after discussion has died. As someone who lived nearby it for several years, I can point out Lake Monroe (Indiana), which has three names — "Lake Monroe", "Monroe Lake", and "Monroe Reservoir". The last isn't as common, but you'll see citations in the article for each of the other two forms. U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: Nyttend/Archive 40 doesn't even include "Lake Monroe", but this is definitely the predominating usage among locals. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the updated information. Yeah, it's an interesting question. And I guess there's no clear-cut answer. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I am closing out this thread. Thanks again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

While lurking I saw your post to Fastily.[1] The broader issue is being discussed here and here so perhaps you'd like to express an opinion? Thincat (talk) 20:11, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you restore this image to page Super Mario 64 DS. YoshiFan155 (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2016 (UTC) I uploaded the page, but it was empty, but should be undeleted. The picture shows the plumbers outside the castle. Is it possible for File:Fattymariosm64ds.jpg to be restored. It was deleted almost 10 years ago.

Why're the previously deleted images I try to reupload are empty? How do I fix it? YoshiFan155 (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

thank u because u delete accident,but someone restore it ,if u have any solution with this problem will be great,seems u like formal speaking like me so i dont want to see any article speak about education like newspaper ,thanks--Mohamed1900q (talk) 23:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend Why did you remove this content from El Shorouk Academy? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

i dont want to see any article speak about education like newspaper ,thanks--Mohamed1900q (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

wikipedia not newspaper ,we are in encyclopedia .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars

Wikipedia has no firm rules: Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view--Mohamed1900q (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

are u have any solution --Mohamed1900q (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm startubg a new discussion at WP:CFD about the naming of river categories. Since you have participated in t least one of the recent discussions in the matterm you nay want to express your opinion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 11#Rivers. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

What is the procedure for requesting an admin close for an AfD or is there such a procedure? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that recently you made an edit removing the word "infamously" from an article, with the sensible comment that the word is "hardly neutral". Unfortunately, you replaced it with "famously", which, in terms of its unsuitability for use in a neutrally written encyclopaedia, is identical. Please reedit the article accordingly. 82.132.245.186 (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

"Famous" merely means "well known", while "infamous" means "well known for negative reasons". They're not opposites. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

No-one said they were opposites. I actually said, ironically, exactly the opposite of that. And as you missed the point, I'll say it again: in terms of their unsuitability for use in a neutrally written encyclopaedia, the words are identical. 195.69.54.210 (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

If you didn't consider them to be opposites, why is it a problem to replace one with the other? At the same time, they're a vast difference from being identical, as any dictionary will tell you. Anyone from any perspective will agree that the secrecy of the recipe is well known: the secrecy is far from obscure. Nyttend (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Your question doesn't make any sense. Replacing a word with another word can be problematic whether they are opposites or not, obviously. And as you missed the point, again, I'll repeat what I said, again, but this time with highlighting: in terms of their unsuitability for use in a neutrally written encyclopaedia, the words are identical. It is absurd to claim that "anyone will agree" with you. I agree that the recipe is secret; I do not agree that this fact is "famous". Everything is famous to someone; nothing is famous to everyone. The word adds nothing of any value to the article. It only adds bias. Either we add the word "famous" to any statement we like, or we add it to none; it was decided right at the very beginning of Wikipedia that the latter would be the case. 195.69.62.217 (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Since you appear to be holding a unique definition of "famous", and unwilling to accept the ordinary definition, I don't see the point in further responses. Nyttend (talk) 04:35, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You seem oddly determined not to understand a very simple policy. 195.69.62.217 (talk) 05:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Good morning, Nyttend. I hope you are well. It has been some time since we last communicated.

Some recent changes have been made to my article that are not accurate and I wonder if you would be kind enough to have a look. The first is that I have been labeled as a Democrat and having political party affiliation of being a member of the Democratic Party. This is factually not correct. I have never registered with the Democratic Party in the USA, although I did contribute in the 1990s to Bill Clinton's campaigns and other Democratic causes. It is factually untrue to say I am a member of the Democratic Party, which I am not, and neither am I a member of any other political party in the USA. Can you kindly fix this and correct it?

Secondly, a change was made today to update my origin. I am now in the first sentence listed as a Pakistani-American, which is not correct. Pakistani-American generally refers to those people who migrated from Pakistan (born there) and became either naturalized citizens or American permanent residents. I was born in the United States in 1961 and am therefore an American, as was listed when the article passed through Good Article status checks. Can you kindly revert? If someone wanted to be more specific, the answer would be that I am an American of Pakistani ancestry, as was just stated in a Financial Times op-ed piece that appeared on Saturday, July 16, 2016.

I would appreciate your attention to these corrections. Mansoor Ijaz (talk)

Your point is noted. Thanks for the clarification -- I didn't pay attention to the embedded article link or read it. Apologies. Mansoor Ijaz (talk)

Hi there,

I just did my firt section of neelix cleanup in Anomies list 2, section 11. could you take a look and let me know if I'm doing everything correctly/in accordance with community norms. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you for your input. I will loosen up a little and keep plugging along. Tazerdadog (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Cheers for doing a bunch of these, but did you update the links when you replaced one page with another? I only checked one (Rainbow kiss) and the 2004 one is now transcluded on both the 2004 and 2007 log, while the 2007 one is on neither. What has been done previously to make it a bit easier, i.e. no need to fix links, is to use "(0th nomination)". Also in general I think we weren't moving historical pages like Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/-Ril-'s suggestion, but I suppose it's not a big deal either way. Best, Jenks24 (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries. And I assumed this was what you were working off, but if not you might want to see Wikipedia:Requested moves/Misplaced XfDs. Thinking about it a bit more, you're probably right about moving the historical subpages too – it certainly does no harm at least. Jenks24 (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Grandfather clause ? I don't see how a possible shared account can be dismissed just because no one has noticed the violation. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places#WLM_photo_contest_and_related_ideas and Wikipedia:NRHP/Road trips all comments welcomed. The money is very likely available and my goal is mainly to make this available to young photogs, e.g. college students. I think it would work, but it would need some supervision or at least input from experienced editors. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your continued work as a brilliant admin, and for the time you've taken recently to tackle reviewing WP:UAA reports -- samtar talk or stalk 12:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks like you left a block notice on Yusnierv's talk page but never actually blocked them. --Majora (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

noping can be used when you want user links without pinging the user. Example: ((noping|Fizz is my homeboy)) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Their username appears to be a reference to a fictitious company in the Grand Theft Auto V videogame. I don't see anything in the policy specifically about fictitious companies; know of any other applicable policies or precedents? I did revert an unrelated edit they made per WP:NPOV. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The user's records indicate Meteor sandwich yum has been silent (no activity) since June 6, 2015 and still has the template editor user group right. According to criterion 5 of the template editor criteria for revocation, the user's template editor privilege may be removed. Eyesnore 17:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism? Really? Okay, so I seem to have made a mistake in that, from what you've said, the G4 doesn't apply after there have been a number of edits, but I'd like to think that it's pretty obvious that it wasn't vandalism. I know you have to wade through a morass of amateurs trying to apply WP policies, but Holy Empire of Reunion was deleted and has been readded by the same "president" that created the first page. He's the only editor who's added significant content. Incidentally, if I'd spotted it when he first deployed it, I assume the G4 would have applied?

Would you suggest a G11, or do you think it needs to go through a normal deletion process? Cheers, Bromley86 (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I should mention that I've started another Speedy. Given my record, you might want to check to see if I was right in starting an A7 on Centino Kemp. Bromley86 (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the CSD decline on User:Simmaco and User:Simmaco Quinto, your edit summary says "That's the whole point of the ((doppelganger)) template)". Unless I'm mistaken, Template:Doppelganger doesn't apply here, as the accounts were never actually made. Of the 2,648 pages in Category:Wikipedia doppelganger accounts added by this template, almost all others are actual accounts. Merely templating a userpage without actually registering the username doesn't achieve anything. Respectfully, I'd like to ask you to reconsider the decline. ^Avic_ennasis @ 11:09, 22 Tamuz 5776 / 11:09, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

(Copied from User talk:Avicennasis) Thanks for the note. I just checked the U2 criterion, and I'd say it's between the position you advocate and my rationale for declining. You say that the account doesn't exist, so U2 is good. I said that U2 doesn't apply to doppelgangers, regardless of existence. Turns out that it excludes redirects from misspellings of an established user's userpage, which of course these aren't. However, I'd argue that the exclusive use of the doppelganger template is functionally the same (what's the practical difference?), so deleting these pages would go against the spirit of the criterion.

I'm not willing to delete these under U2. However, if you'd like, I'll create an MFD nomination for them: laying out what happened, copy/pasting your rationale and mine, and asking for others to decide. What do you think? Nyttend (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and explanation. MfD may be the route to go with things as is. That being said, doppelganger accounts are permissible reason to register such a username. I would think it only fair to the actual user in question if we ask if they would like to register those usernames first, before starting an MfD. If you don't have any opposition, I'll drop them a line explaining this and asking if they'd like to register them. ^Avic_ennasis @ 15:41, 22 Tamuz 5776 / 15:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith. Did you even look at the previous AfD? Or do you know anything about WP:NCRIC? The answer is no to both those questions. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

WP:ROLLBACK clearly states "On Wikipedia, rollback is used to undo problematic edits such as vandalism." .... I made the stupid mistake of not checking the dates correctly and that's entirely my fault however did my CSD-adding really require rollbacking I mean really ?, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes: you tagged the page without looking at the deleted content (obviously), so you tagged it without even bothering to discover whether the page qualified. This is no different from other kinds of bad tagging, e.g. putting ((db-a7)) on a school article; both situations are quite disruptive. If you have not looked at the deleted content, and/or if there are no hints (e.g. article created in 2016, and it has maintenance tags from 2014), tagging is reckless and almost always wrong. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Hang on so how do you propose I see the deleted content If I'm not an admin ? ..... Non-admins cannot view deleted content as far as I'm aware, The article was this where there's not one maintenance tag, As I said it's entirely my fault for misreading the dates however rollbacking that edit tho is just as disruptive as me CSDing the article - Assuming Good Faith would've been alot better than essentially treating me like a vandal, Anyway no point moaning over it what's done is done but I would ask infuture you that you Assume good faith more and yes infuture I won't recklessly tag something either, Happy editing. –Davey2010^Talk 14:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Note Davey that Nyttend completly dodges the question of possibly mis-using the rollback tool. I count three editors (inc. myself) pointing out WP:AGF within one hour to him. Maybe Nyttend now is a good time to refresh yourself with WP:ADMINACCT. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

If you've not viewed the deleted content, don't tag the new stuff, plain and simple. Blatantly disruptive editing, attempting to have pages deleted on grounds for which they obviously do not qualify, is something for which the reason for reversion is obvious. I'd suggest that you stop attempting to convince me that such pages qualify for speedy deletion; if you persist, you will be totally ignored, because bad-faith tagging is reason for sanctions, not attention. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Well thanks for that. Nice to see an admin WP:AGF with editors. All three of us must be wrong, I guess. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

This edit summary was a bit harsh. Of course, the G4 nominator didn't look at the deleted content, because they're not an admin and don't have access to the deleted content. But it's a fairly reasonable assumption that if an article was deleted in late June 2016 for lack of notability, and reintroduced in mid July 2016, that the notability issue has not changed significantly in the few intervening weeks. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

See my comment (left two minutes ago) immediately above this. If you have no solid evidence that the content has already been deleted, don't tag the page for G4. G4 is for reposts, not for newly written pages on the same topic. Nyttend (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Paul_Wolfowitz#holes_in_his_socks.

Not that I explained it well there, but the anon want a paragraph on holes in his socks.

Any help appreciated,

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:45, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I was looking at the permissions etc and I think there's something technically wrong with it. File:Eastern State Penitentiary - by Art Vandelay.jpg states that the photographer is "Art Vandelay". However, an "Art Vandelay" is slang derived from Seinfeld indicating an alias used for some purpose and when I click on the Art Vendelay linkage at the file page it takes me to a Michele Schaffer/Flickr page - here. It probably doesn't mean anything but it confuses me...I suppose the photog might have used that moniker in the past when the images were uploaded to Wikimedia. If the photog is Michele Schaffer then she should be credited properly I think... Shearonink (talk) 06:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: this edit wherein you declined speedy deletion of Elixane Lechemia, stating that "professional tennis players pass WP:ATHLETE": WP:NTENNIS is a bit more stringent than just "any professional". In the case of Lechemia, she had won a single junior event, and had not won a single title as a professional. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

About Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2016_July_21#Maklergalgen:

Nicely from you that you talk here badly about my work, but it nobody holds for necessary to inform me about it. Yes, "Maklergalgen" is the official German term, and no, there is no English word for it. Therefore, the Commons category must be also named in German. Now the Commons category "Maklergalgen" is extinguished. Of course nobody adjusted the link in de.WP article, why also.

And the statement while deleting the commonscat ("Redundant or duplicate: Non-English duplicate of Category:Real estate signs") is also completely wrong, most of the pictures in category:Real estate signs are no "Maklergalgen", but different signs. So it was not a duplicate. Please restore the commonscat. Greetings --Maddl79 (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Why do you not answer? --Maddl79 (talk) 09:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I am curious as to why some fraternity pages are deleted while others are allowed to stay.They all have the same format just different wording and do not advertise products or people but inform about the existence of the organization. Can you shed some light on the subject for me as some admin say its ok while others continue to remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GammaMan (talk • contribs) 11:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nyttend

How do you do?

I noticed that you declined the speedy deletion of Template:Latest preview software release/Internet Explorer. So, before I take it to TFD, let's make sure I have understood your declining reason correct. You are saying there is something wrong with the reason of "the article no longer needs" it. (Mind you, it is a Template:Latest preview software release/ sub page. When we don't need them, we delete them.) Could you please elaborate?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Er... excuse me? I requested G6, not G8, i.e. uncontroversial "housekeeping" task. It is a blank template, designed and used for one article, and has expended its use. If this is not uncontroversial housekeeping, then I am at a loss as to what construes as such. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I assure you, as far as the reading is concerned, I did you justice. But to my understanding, G6 is not restricted to "routine maintenance" as you call it. It is for (I quote) "technical deletions"; i.e. deletions that do not remove contents and only make the gears of Wikipedia run smoother. Of course, this isn't the first time I request a G6. And curiously, this isn't the first time you decline where any other admin grants the request.

But no hard feelings. I'll take it to TfD. Have a nice one.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I've been going through the courthouses in Georgia that are on the NRHP. In December 2014 you deleted a lot of the articles because they were created by a user that was blocked as a sockpuppet (Worth County Courthouse (Sylvester, Georgia), for instance). Can we get those articles back? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:21, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Got your message. A small number of them were moved to user space, e.g. User:Candleabracadabra/Schley County Courthouse. That looks like enough for a stub. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

"The entire contents of those articles were (1) an Elkman infobox, with nothing beyond the default content and the image from the county list, (2) (({PAGENAME))} is a historic courthouse in [PLACE], Georgia, United States. It was listed on the NRHP on [DATE], and (3) the categories provided by Elkman."

Even that will save someone (probably me) a lot of time and effort in starting an article. I have a list of 10 such articles that were deleted. Could you put them in my userspace to work on before putting them in mainspace? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 19:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Please do not make such drastic changes. Start a discussion first on the talk page. BOLD is one thing, but ......... Quis separabit? 16:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Dictates at variance with policy will be ruthlessly ignored. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#BruceGrubb editing in violation of topic ban. You issued the most recent block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hamilton!. Since you had some involvement with the Hamilton! redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Could I get you to reconsider the speedy deletion of this article, seeing as how the page move was inappropriate? The reference to Jalalabad in this article title is a disambiguation and should be using a hatnote. Failing that, could I get you to move it back to the original title? Thanks in advance. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I have found that you had deleted Draft:TVPaint, but you had left an incorrect reason for it.

The reason you left is G12, but copying mostly from Wikipedia, to me, does not fall under it.

In this case I think that A10 might be used.

Thank you. NasssaNser 13:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

With regard to your redirect on Unique Object Identifier: it's not clear that the concept in question falls under the cover of Unique identifier, but rather appears to be an organized effort to compete with the much better established digital object identifier (DOI) used by academic publishers. As DOI is not included under the Unique identifiers article, it's not clear that a redirect is appropriate in this case, except as a way to implicitly delete what was a troublesome article in the first place. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

This edit summary is not only wrong, it is an uncivil assumption of bad faith and a personal attack. DrKay (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The page histories cannot possibly show what you claim: the category was nominated for deletion on 16 Aug[2] and it was added to Philip's page, a biography of a living person on which religious categories should not be added without self-identification, on the 22nd[3]. Your claim of "several" is also untrue, since there are two, only one of whom actually supported the inclusion. DrKay (talk) 15:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The above draft was recreated a few hours after you deleted it. The reason for the deletion was that it was material previously deleted at an AFD, but restored without the proper licencing. I suspect the current version is another copy/paste job, but I can't see the previously deleted material to confirm that. Could you have a look please? Thanks, AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought my draft article was factual, not promotional. Could you offer me some insight into what you found that was promotional? Thanks. Paul6182 (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Paul6182Paul6182 (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Nyttend,

I have a question on notability for academic associations. I nominated Christian Sociological Association for speedy deletion under WP:A7 for organizations. The article does not make any claim of notability. I could not find any coverage at all by independent reliable sources and the website of the organization (it's only reference) does not include any notability claim either to justify inclusion. Is just been an association of professionals o a given field enough?. I did not see Academic associations listed as an exemption from the policy at Educational institution. Please let me know if there is a notability policy or recommendation for this type of associations and if they have an inherent level of notability and if so, if it applies only to the use of the A7 criteria or also to a possible AfD. I appreciate your insight to know how to best proceed in the future. Thank you in advance and best regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 08:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:03, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Honest question (and I'm not trying to be nitpicky): Given that the country of location for most articles on municipalities is already listed in the infobox, is it essential to have it listed in the lead paragraph as well? I'm not absolutely against the idea of putting it in the lead, but I am concerned about the sentence structure. And if it is to be that way, it would seem there should be one standardized way of presenting it in order of procession. I mention this because a cursory look at a few different random articles (Fairfax, Virginia; South Euclid, Ohio and Darien, Illinois) shows more than one way of presenting said info. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Nyttend, Even though I was contesting this deletion and had replied with below mentioned reasons in the talk page to Cabayi, still the page has been deleted by you. So, I request you to kindly let us know the changes required in the article so that it can be restored. Reason mentioned to Cabayi, "We have added this article because of his role in introducing dual sim technology in India under RCOM as a head of branding in ADAG and also played a significant contribution in real estate marketing and for introducing numerous customized consumer engagement initiatives like golf, theatre, and art, music, and corporate engagement. He has also been a spokesperson of how the real estate marketing is evolving at different events. Based on your feedback, we can consider rewriting this article to make it closer to the aspects of WP:NPOV, WP:Notability" Suvidhagp (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

So how is it that we let content created by socks stand? Whether or not there was a block at the time, the account was a sock of an already existing account. MSJapan (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

That is true. However, the sock wasn't found at that time, but was banned at a later point. Policy-wise, it seems to me that we have a situation where a sock gets a pass simply because it wasn't found out, and IMO, that is really close to gaming the system. It seems to me that the whole point of G5 is to not give socks the benefit of the content being kept when created in a manner contrary to editing policy.

I seem to recall that the sockmaster got on my radar through COIN, and I SPI'd him because he was article-focused through multiple accounts. We went from no socks to 70 in about two weeks and four reports, IIRC. COIN is very stringent - if a COI comes up, we will trawl through the edits to see what they're doing, where and how, as far back as reasonably makes sense, because COI policy requires disclosure wherever it is relevant. Why don't we have a similar policy for users who are causing just as much trouble in a different way? MSJapan (talk) 03:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on American Horror Story (season one) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind if I brightened this photo then uploaded the new image into the same file? Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

In that infobox image voting thing, one user made the argument that, although polling should not replace discussion, there had been 8 days of discussion prior to the voting. (It was that discussion that produced the two leaders that went into the poll.) The implication was that the discussion phase is a necessary element, but I disagree. I think that discussion could have been replaced by a first round of voting, after the candidates had been established. The first round could last 5 days, and then the two leaders would enter a run-off (with notification of previous participants) which would last another 5 days. Including candidate selection, perhaps 12 days to establish a clear consensus for a photo, with little editor time required during that time.
I don't see why this method couldn't become widespread at high-profile or controversial articles where there is a lot of participation. What is your take on this, if any? ―Mandruss ☎ 02:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Nyttend, I have revised the Home Credit Philippines article, following your advice, and put it in draft space here. In working on the revision, I also took some time to review Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and I do believe that the topic may be considered notable due to feature coverage on CNN, Philippine Daily Inquirer and Manila Bulletin (two of the leading broadsheets in the Philippines, based on circulation) and other mainstream media. I've also made a conscious effort to keep the tone neutral and void of puffery. If you ever find a chance to take a look at the draft, would appreciate your feedback. Thanks again!

Jbmangahas (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend, thanks for your quick response! By all means, please feel free to edit the article, and thanks for offering to do so.

Jbmangahas (talk) 05:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend,

I've made some additional updates to the article, removing the mention of time-to-approve, as well as adding more details in the references section (article title, name of author and publisher) as per the advice of Abdullah Alam (talk). If you have time to take a look, please let me know how else I can improve the article. Thank you!

Jbmangahas (talk) 02:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#Interstate_24_merger where I specifically asked about this. –Fredddie™ 23:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

For some reason I see 2 different names for the removal of this article so not sure who to talk to: Championship_Rally_(Atari_Lynx) So I'm also posting here besides to Baldy Bill.

I never got notified of impending removal of this article so I was never able to respond: Championship_Rally_(Atari_Lynx). Maybe related but somehow someone else claimed my username (lucienk) so I cannot login anymore. I created a new username. I did get notified the cover art image is about to be deleted but not article deletion.

The deletion reason you gave was: "Homebrew video game with no claim to notability. Only two sources cited, one of which is the publisher's website". Actually it's a commercial video game that was reviewed by ign.com and several other web sites. I could add these additional sources but unfortunately I missed notification about problems with this article. Let me know if you would reconsider reinstating the article so I can add those sources. Also any other issues that would need to be corrected.

Thanks! Lucienen (talk) 14:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Over the course of the past several days, there have been at least four to five different IP accounts stalking and reverting my edits to articles, the only edits on each of the IP accounts. I reported this at the sockpuppet investigation noticeboard as soon as I discovered the use of several different IP addresses, but they have continued to revert my additional contributions to articles each day, and there's been no activity at the sockpuppet investigation since I posted it. I would normally just wait until someone responds, but the disruptive behavior, and brazen nature in which they continually revert my contributions across several different articles, those being their only edits, I thought it was more along the lines of WP:Hounding or breaking of some other rule on Wikipedia that I am not able to point to specifically, and wanted to get you to weigh in on this, because in one instance their edit summary was similar to that of Winkelvi, who you banned, so may be worth checking to see if these IPs are related to this user. A record of this can be found at the sockpuppet investigation. I've been reverting the IP user as they made their edits, but have decided to contact you instead as I do not want to edit war over content with someone who is clearly set on creating intentional disruption. User:Connormah reverted two of their reversions of my edits earlier today as well, however, and I reverted one a few minutes ago before thinking to contact you on your talk page. If you could take a look at this, I would appreciate it. Calibrador (talk) 01:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

The IP 75.139.158.188 immediately continued vandalizing after you blocked it a few days ago, even after warnings since then. Kiwifist (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)