![]() | 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. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
![]() Talk page archives 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) |
Hi there,
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building User Page (or category) blocking feature.
We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey about Enhanced per-user / per-article protection / blocking.
You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 23:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
Sure - I'll get to it in a moment. Sorry, I've been on the road all day. Got to Knoxville not too long ago. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 04:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
There are no more red links at User:Nyttend/ZIP! Thank you for starting it up and finishing the first twenty-odd states, and continuing to host the lists in your user space while I and various other folks finished the rest. @ RFD: thanks to you too for all your help with the lists, and to the many other people who created new articles through the years. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 17:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Block message:
Editing from Nyttend backup has been blocked (disabled) by Nyttend for the following reason(s): no reason given. This block has been set to expire: no expiry set.
Accept reason: Resolved, see below. Huon ( talk) 22:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to see the message that happens when you get autoblocked, so I blocked my alternate account, logged out of my main account, logged into the alt, and then logged out again. Having gotten the notice, I then logged back into my main account — and found that I was still autoblocked! And because I'm blocked, I can't unblock other users, so I can't remove this block. My IP address here is 75.75.127.168, although I'm about to leave (it's at a restaurant), so the correct action is unblocking User:Nyttend backup. Nyttend ( talk) 22:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for the late response - I'm still on the road. Be home tomorrow.
I used the photographs on this site as a guide. Briefly:
Once you get to Oak Hill Forest Road, and start going down it, you'll see a road off to the right with a couple of structures on it.
This is one. The path into the woods will be perpendicular to the drive you see by the structure. Take that path -
this page says a quarter mile, which sounds a decent estimate. I would follow it until about twenty paces beyond the treeline and then start tacking inward a bit. Have a look at
this image, which I took from the stone back the way I came. See that gnarly looking dead tree in the background? That should be visible from the cleared path - if you walk just past it, keeping it on your right, you should come upon the graveyard before too much longer. The obelisk was behind a tree when I came upon it - I nearly missed it. If memory serves (and it's been a few months, so I'm sorry I'm rusty),
these coordinates are more accurate than the ones in the article. (I didn't change the article because I'm not convinced mine are right, either.)
The xroads images are very useful; I was able to walk myself through most of the search using them. I also have a couple of other images at home that might be of use - are you going to try again this weekend? If not, I can get them to you when I get home tomorrow night. They don't show much, but they can show you approximately how far from the structures you need to be before you start looking.
You can always ask a ranger, also - I didn't, and I'm a bit sorry I didn't, as it was hunting season and I kept hearing guns discharging in the distance. I figured it might have been better to let someone else know I was there. :-)
That help? Sorry if not - it's been a few months. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa.
Looks like the nominator is planning to withdraw the Tyrique Jarrett Afd. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 00:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Nyttend, WikiOriginal provided proof that Jarrett played in one game. I just read WP:WDAFD, so can you officially withdraw it and do a speedy keep on my behalf, and remove the template from the article? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D ( talk) 00:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello Nyttend: |
Just to explain my revert. Rockhampton is a urban area (town) but Rockhampton City is the central suburb of that urban area (a much smaller area, and very precisely defined by a set of boundaries), so they are not the same thing. And, just to be confusing, Rockhampton City is different to City of Rockhampton (which is a former local government area, now replaced by Rockhampton Region). Alas we don't have an article on Wikipedia for Rockhampton City so it redirects back onto Rockhampton, which is one of those "best places to point it for the moment" kind of redirects. Rockhampton is not the only place that uses this nomenclature, we have the same situation with Brisbane, Brisbane City and City of Brisbane all being quite distinct things, but it's quite confusing for non-locals (and for a lot of locals as well). I'll go and create Rockhampton City to make it a little less confusing. Kerry ( talk) 02:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The list of Counties in West Virginia made the front page in Wikipedia today (10/30/2017). I wanted to say thanks for your help Coal town guy ( talk) 18:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC) |
Hi Nyttend, not sure if you can help. If using the new page editing tools, do you know how to sort items in a list? - on the old editing format there was a designated sort function, but this is now grayed and I can't access it. Kind regards Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...) 16:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Nyttend:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable
Halloween!
–
Ser Amantio di Nicolao
Che dicono a Signa?
Lo dicono a Signa.
21:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
First, the first revert is a widely-accepted and routine way to challenge any edit, per WP:BRD, and is hardly disruption worthy of an aggressive and combative "block request" threat. I'm astonished that someone with your experience—an admin, no less!—needs this explained to them. With that out of the way ... Bot de-listing is not a close, and it ends nothing except listing the RfC. The RfC can remain open as long as people feel it needs to, whether it's listed or not. If you already understand that and your opinion is that it needs to remain listed longer than 30 days (which would be extremely unusual), then state it that way and don't call de-listing a "close" and then an "end". Also explain why that needs to be decided 17 days before it would normally be de-listed. We have no idea what the level of participation will be by then. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
You did not get a response to this question. Did you find out the answer?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi. It's been a while since I last contacted you. Though I'm inviting you to comment, it's not a big deal if you don't. I will never be offended if you aren't interested in commenting on any of my invites. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
See my following question at the Help Desk: Wikipedia:Help_desk#What_rule.2Fguideline_exist_for_photo_albums_in_College_articles.3F
The page for Siftery was abruptly deleted even though it was not established that the page was "unambiguously promotional". A large number of independent publications made notable mentions or coverage of the company. There may have been recommendations for improvement; outright deletion was abrupt and not warranted on the merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleecg ( talk • contribs) 00:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Nyttend,
I wanted to raise to your attention that I have reverted the deletion of the partial alumni list and profile pictures at the University of Kansas article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=University_of_Kansas&oldid=810633485). The reason I have done this is that there was not consensus to remove that all of that information even at the Helpdesk thread. The purpose of this section per the WP:UNIGUIDE guidance was to "give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty). For most schools this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards (each with perhaps a very brief descriptive phrase), where such a list would not be excessively long. For very old, very large, or very prestigious schools it may be more appropriate to use categories ("Alumni of", "Faculty of", etc.) instead, limiting the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on."
Based on that guidance it is my position that alumni lists are helpful for readers to give a sense of the extent of well known/significant accomplished persons are related to the institution whether that be alumni, faculty or others. Some articles just have an Alumni list, some have a broader People of xyz university list. The guidance does not have specific information relating to galleries in the section or for separate list pages. I think there should at least be some discussion before editors remove information on highly notable articles such as Harvard University. As you pointed out the WP:MOSIMAGE states "images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding." I think the important question is whether alumni images are illustrative to aid in understanding in the culture/notability/significance/importance/idk of specific universities such as Harvard University. I recognize that you do not agree with this and I can see your reasoning for desiring to remove the images. I wanted to clarify if you were also advocating removal of the wikilinks for alumni lists section on the main university pages? Randomeditor1000 ( talk) 14:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll dispute your speedy deletion of Swish (payment). Swish is widely used here in Sweden and there are plenty of potential sources. [4] From what I remember and what I can see in the Google-cached version, it does not look particularly promotional. The article should at least have been given a chance at AFD. -- Hegvald ( talk) 05:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Nyttend. I felt the tone of your revert of my WP:G4 nomination of Draft:Jeffrey Guterman did not assume good faith. As a non-admin, I don't get to see the deleted article, and can only make an assumption that the subject of the new article is the same as the deleted one and the content substantially similar based on what I can access. From the deletion discussion it appeared the deleted article was about an academic. The new article, which I was reviewing as part of AfC is about a publisher of a book on mental health, which could be an academic work. I don't think it was unreasonable of me to think the two articles were about the same person. Your edit summary "Completely unrelated. Don't abuse the criterion" felt like a harsh accusation. What do you believe I should have done differently? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on 🙏🏼, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it 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 deleted 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. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the through, helpful explanation of how deleting works at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 October 30#Administrators! Also, sorry for the late reply. Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk) 02:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to make a song and dance about it but in future if you believe I'm edit warring or have broken another policy atleast have the decency to leave a warning or a note to tell me you've dragged my backside to 3RRNO or where ever! - Not doing so is very devious and considering you were on for roughly an hour after the report you would've had time to notify me or atleast warn me!. – Davey2010 Talk 10:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not disagree with your edit, but threatening sanctions for a G5 seems a little harsh, especially against an editor who (by rough count) is more than 90% accurate with CSD tagging. Primefac ( talk) 15:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to make mention of something that really seemed unnecessary, particularly this edit. I feel the need to defend myself as sanctions have been threatened with no reason to warrant them. I think most people, even those on WP who don't necessarily agree with me would say that I don't generally tag CSDs willy-nilly and certainly not G5. At the time I tagged that, the editor was blocked by a CU and had made the only significant contribution to the article. Meatgains did a lot of minor edits (and i'm not discounting them) but i'd hardly call that significant in the context of a G5 and socking. I'm sure I've erroneously tagged a small handful (less than 5, if I had to guess) of G5s in the last year but threatening sanctions, especially when my tag was in good faith and there has been no discussion and calling another editor clueless is a bit over the top. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Nyttend,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ashika Bhatia for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Mark Dask 20:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The Indefinitely blocked IPs arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, iam not able to creating an article so i want help can you please create an article about an indian television and Film Actress name : Shuman Gupta Papular seral : Baal Krishna Role : Yashoda Year : 2016-17 Film : No One Killed Jessica Role : Soma Year : 2011
If you want more information abot Shu Gupta please searching her name in google, But please create it Sir it's big request. Thank you Sir.
Hi sir i want your help because i am not able to creating an Article about an indian television and Film Actress name ; Shuman Gupta she has appeared television show Baal Krishna as Yashoda in 2016-17 and she has also appeared Film No One Killed Jessica as Soma in 2011 Please you can create an Article about Suman it's big request please sir, create it if you want more information about Shuman Gupta please seaeching her name in google thank you ,sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:A106:2369:0:0:685:50A4 ( talk) 06:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Nyttend. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:APPLCOR.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashika Bhatia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashika Bhatia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. PRehse ( talk) 09:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Nyttend, I don't understand this edit or its edit summary. Can you explain what you think this has to do with ENGVAR or buildings/structures? Dicklyon ( talk) 06:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Your "extended close" comments [5] of the RfC at WP:VPPOL#RfC: Accessibility versus convenience in indentation ( permalink) are a distortion of the facts.
I did not personally attack or otherwise characterize any editor in that discussion. You're sorely confusing comment on content with comment on contributor. I characterized the discussion as having wandered off the topic of the RfC (which was CONLEVEL policy), and characterized some of the comments in it as misguided for various reasons. Until this very post, I've refrained from calling out the canvassing of WT:MATHS as such, on an assumption of good faith and for avoidance of drama. But since you've dumped a toilet-bucket on my head, I'm going to set the record straight.
I did not modify any guideline to support this proposal (which isn't actually a proposal but a request to reaffirm that WP:CONLEVEL policy exists); WP:ACCESS already deprecated using colon markup for indentation, and did so years before [6] the main MoS did [7]. All I did is insert the simple fact that there are convenient templates as alternatives – without inserting any "rule" that people use them [8]. This was a conformance-with-the-main-MoS-page edit, is 100% fact not opinion, and it's entirely normal for MoS pages to link to convenience templates. My edit to MOS:ACCESS is still there, and the material has now been further elaborated by another accessibility-experienced editor [9] in response to a request for more information [10].
This addendum is appreciated, and your concise RfC-top close itself is arguably correct (the RfC did conclude with a result – but it's a false-consensus one that just means we have to re-address the underlying issue later – partly my fault for not writing a better RfC but mostly because WT:MATHS was blatantly canvassed with false information about the RfC [11]). However, it's difficult to see how you could have done any serious commentary analysis, rather just a "vote" count and a superficial skim, or your RfC-bottom commentary could not read anything like it does.
Please remove or very substantively redact that rant you posted about me. The only one being personally attacked is me, by you. You're quite right that "Our policies outright forbid such hostile characterization of other editors". WP:KETTLE, all 'at. What you posted in your supervote at the bottom is a pile of WP:ASPERSIONS, since I can prove my position post-by-post.
In detail:
This is necessarily long given the number of false accusations you made and the amount of material that disproves them ...
|
---|
If I bothered with diffs for each of these it would take me about an hour or so; the entire RfC is short enough that seems like wasted effort. The points I raised about the RfC and the evidence for them, which you ignored:
Misrepresentatation of the RfC and the facts behind it, including by you: See counterfactual denialism (confusion?
FUD? who knows?) by Deacon Vorbis, Sławomir Biały, D.Lazard, Bill Cherowitzo, Taku, and you all acting as if an alternative to Canvassing of a wikiproject, which you ignored or did not know about: The real canvassing was by CBM, and was posted
here, blatantly mischaracterizing the nature and would-be result of the RfC (which in reality would have been to do nothing but have MOS:MATH match WP:MOS and MOS:ACCESS in recommending templated CSS indentation over When an RfC is entirely dominated by people who do not understand accessibility and HTML specs, or CONLEVEL precedence, or the RfC itself (after having been pointedly misled about it), and can't (or post as if they can't) tell the difference between "It's what I'm used to and I like it" versus "It is a standard", then it's reasonable, not canvassing, to identify these specific problems and ask another VP page, full of people from all over the en.WP project (not a knot of like-minded, one-topic-focused editors) who mostly do understand the difference, to go have some input. I did not tell them how to !vote, I expressed skepticism that they'd agree with the assumptions and rationalizations being made as a bloc vote in the RfC so far (without even calling it out as a wikiproject bloc vote, which I certainly could have done). The typical notice left at a wikiproject talk page after an RfC has been running a while is along similar lines, and just as clear about what false-consensus issues may be in play and why more expertise is needed in the discussion (and is also a notice to a far more homogenous audience than VPPOL). Yet no one calls that canvassing even though it's closer to canvassing that my post was (while what CBM did was canvassing, period). Puerile, off-topic hostility, including by you: Finally, your and D.Lazard's stuff about me using colons myself in the RfC discussion is a cheap, BS-y shot, both an appeal to ridicule fallacy and a straw man. MoS doesn't regulate talk posts, and my opening statement was quite explicit: "we do it all the time on talk pages ... MoS has also long advised to not do this in articles" [since mid-2013, remember] restated again early on in the discussion: "it's not like we're going to stop doing it on talk pages, a lost cause until they're replaced with some kind of threaded messaging system that's also capable of rendering MediaWiki markup samples accurately" [i.e. not WP:Flow. |
The editorializing you've done in your bottom statement, echoing the subjective opinions of various !voters who were canvassed in from WT:MATHS, and making a string of provably false accusations, indicates you should not have been the closer. You've !voted and closed at the same time, and are clearly nowhere near neutral on the matter ( WP:SUPERVOTE). That said, it's surely sufficient to just strip out the hostile finger-pointing. I don't even ask that the canvassing finger be pointed at the correct party; if I were all that concerned about CBM's actions, I would have taken it to ANI. I'm actually satisfied with the productive side of the RfC outcome: We know the issue is real and people will be willing to address it. I'm decidedly not satisfied with being publicly flogged by you for no legitimate reason.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 06:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Still, it's quite clear you're threatening me with a punitive post hoc block. You've been an admin for 10 years, so you know full well that wouldn't be legit. I'll be happy to air this with you at WP:AN if you like, since I have a huge pile of evidence that every single thing I said is correct and that your accusations are false (especially with regard to "personal attacks"), while you have nothing here but your subjective opinion. The worst I've done here is tried albeit non-neutrally to draw balancing attention, at a broad venue, to an RfC that had already been derailed by someone else's canvassing (CBM did that at a narrow venue which of course resulted in a bloc vote full of off-topic, panicked hand-waving). Do you really think I'll be blocked for taking that good-faith action? I didn't actually even draw any balancing attention, anyway – you reverted my attempt to do so before it had any effect at all [13] (and you cast more WP:ASPERSIONS while doing so).
But, I'm happy to drop the matter, since the RfC has incidentally resulted in some positive discussion both at
WT:MOSMATH and the related Phabricator ticket (the first real action seen about that bug in over 10 years). All's well that ends well, and no one made any deal about anyone's lack of neutrality on either side, other than you. Any of us could have manufactured drama about this from the moment CBM made that misleading canvassing post, but instead we all made what we felt were substantive arguments, and actually moved toward two kinds of practical solutions. Except you, who chose to attack me on two different pages while ironically accusing me of attacking people because you won't distinguish between opposing an argument and opposing a person. That's not what we have admins for.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
12:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey there
I want to change name of two pages named Culture of Kashmir and Music of Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh
I want to change name of Culture of Kashmir to
Culture of Jammu and Kashmir
because Jammu and Kashmir is a state, not only Kashmir
And same goes for Music of Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh
I want to change it to Music of Jammu and Kashmir
Thanks!! Anmolbhat ( talk) 16:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Please check the recent edit history. Perhaps pending changes this time. (I protected it last time and then forgot about for several years.) Rmhermen ( talk) 00:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
For medical content we tend to reference every sentence. This makes it easier for fellow editors and readers to determine what ref supports what content. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Good Morning. You appear to be one of the main editors/blockers/rulers of the Put-in-Bay Ohio page ( /info/en/?search=Put-in-Bay,_Ohio). I was trying to fix the Chamber of Commerce link on the External Links section, but it keeps telling me that another website is blacklisted, and that the Chamber website can not be edited. You have the Chamber website listed as visitputinbay DOT org and that is NOT correct. The Chamber of Commerce website is DOT com, not DOT org. However, Wikipedia won't accept that link because it says "The following link has triggered a protection filter: putinbay.com". Is there any way you can correct this link so it doesn't go to the advertising site of DOT org and instead goes to the real Chamber site? Or provide info on how to get it done? It looks like the revert-war person changed it 3 years ago and no one else has caught it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeachBunnyGirl ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Nyttend: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Holidays |
From Stave one of Dickens
A Christmas Carol So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD| Talk 23:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC) |
See this, per NeilN. The IP is block evading and is using multiple IP's in order to harass. Also, an infobox is not standard practise. Show me the MoS guideline that says this and you may be onto something. Until then, this remains your POV. Cassianto Talk 16:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Please can you tell me the name of the award in this deleted article? The article is Emran Mahfuz. Ammarpad ( talk) 03:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Why am I no longer allowed to edit "Frequency selective surface," a page which I created and (as far as I can tell) have been the sole editor of for the past 3 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.144.170.146 ( talk)
You and I have never had a beef I can think of, so I'm not sure why you jumped straight to "cluelessness" and threats. It's not necessary. Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Nyttend,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓
23:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
![]() |
Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, — Paleo Neonate – 01:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |
![]() | 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. |
Archive 40 | ← | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | Archive 46 | Archive 47 | → | Archive 50 |
![]() Talk page archives 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) |
Hi there,
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building User Page (or category) blocking feature.
We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey about Enhanced per-user / per-article protection / blocking.
You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.
For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative ( talk) 23:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.
Sure - I'll get to it in a moment. Sorry, I've been on the road all day. Got to Knoxville not too long ago. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa. 04:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
There are no more red links at User:Nyttend/ZIP! Thank you for starting it up and finishing the first twenty-odd states, and continuing to host the lists in your user space while I and various other folks finished the rest. @ RFD: thanks to you too for all your help with the lists, and to the many other people who created new articles through the years. TheCatalyst31 Reaction• Creation 17:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Block message:
Editing from Nyttend backup has been blocked (disabled) by Nyttend for the following reason(s): no reason given. This block has been set to expire: no expiry set.
Accept reason: Resolved, see below. Huon ( talk) 22:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to see the message that happens when you get autoblocked, so I blocked my alternate account, logged out of my main account, logged into the alt, and then logged out again. Having gotten the notice, I then logged back into my main account — and found that I was still autoblocked! And because I'm blocked, I can't unblock other users, so I can't remove this block. My IP address here is 75.75.127.168, although I'm about to leave (it's at a restaurant), so the correct action is unblocking User:Nyttend backup. Nyttend ( talk) 22:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Apologies for the late response - I'm still on the road. Be home tomorrow.
I used the photographs on this site as a guide. Briefly:
Once you get to Oak Hill Forest Road, and start going down it, you'll see a road off to the right with a couple of structures on it.
This is one. The path into the woods will be perpendicular to the drive you see by the structure. Take that path -
this page says a quarter mile, which sounds a decent estimate. I would follow it until about twenty paces beyond the treeline and then start tacking inward a bit. Have a look at
this image, which I took from the stone back the way I came. See that gnarly looking dead tree in the background? That should be visible from the cleared path - if you walk just past it, keeping it on your right, you should come upon the graveyard before too much longer. The obelisk was behind a tree when I came upon it - I nearly missed it. If memory serves (and it's been a few months, so I'm sorry I'm rusty),
these coordinates are more accurate than the ones in the article. (I didn't change the article because I'm not convinced mine are right, either.)
The xroads images are very useful; I was able to walk myself through most of the search using them. I also have a couple of other images at home that might be of use - are you going to try again this weekend? If not, I can get them to you when I get home tomorrow night. They don't show much, but they can show you approximately how far from the structures you need to be before you start looking.
You can always ask a ranger, also - I didn't, and I'm a bit sorry I didn't, as it was hunting season and I kept hearing guns discharging in the distance. I figured it might have been better to let someone else know I was there. :-)
That help? Sorry if not - it's been a few months. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa? Lo dicono a Signa.
Looks like the nominator is planning to withdraw the Tyrique Jarrett Afd. WikiOriginal-9 ( talk) 00:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, Nyttend, WikiOriginal provided proof that Jarrett played in one game. I just read WP:WDAFD, so can you officially withdraw it and do a speedy keep on my behalf, and remove the template from the article? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D ( talk) 00:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello Nyttend: |
Just to explain my revert. Rockhampton is a urban area (town) but Rockhampton City is the central suburb of that urban area (a much smaller area, and very precisely defined by a set of boundaries), so they are not the same thing. And, just to be confusing, Rockhampton City is different to City of Rockhampton (which is a former local government area, now replaced by Rockhampton Region). Alas we don't have an article on Wikipedia for Rockhampton City so it redirects back onto Rockhampton, which is one of those "best places to point it for the moment" kind of redirects. Rockhampton is not the only place that uses this nomenclature, we have the same situation with Brisbane, Brisbane City and City of Brisbane all being quite distinct things, but it's quite confusing for non-locals (and for a lot of locals as well). I'll go and create Rockhampton City to make it a little less confusing. Kerry ( talk) 02:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
The list of Counties in West Virginia made the front page in Wikipedia today (10/30/2017). I wanted to say thanks for your help Coal town guy ( talk) 18:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC) |
Hi Nyttend, not sure if you can help. If using the new page editing tools, do you know how to sort items in a list? - on the old editing format there was a designated sort function, but this is now grayed and I can't access it. Kind regards Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...) 16:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Nyttend:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable
Halloween!
–
Ser Amantio di Nicolao
Che dicono a Signa?
Lo dicono a Signa.
21:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
First, the first revert is a widely-accepted and routine way to challenge any edit, per WP:BRD, and is hardly disruption worthy of an aggressive and combative "block request" threat. I'm astonished that someone with your experience—an admin, no less!—needs this explained to them. With that out of the way ... Bot de-listing is not a close, and it ends nothing except listing the RfC. The RfC can remain open as long as people feel it needs to, whether it's listed or not. If you already understand that and your opinion is that it needs to remain listed longer than 30 days (which would be extremely unusual), then state it that way and don't call de-listing a "close" and then an "end". Also explain why that needs to be decided 17 days before it would normally be de-listed. We have no idea what the level of participation will be by then. ― Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
You did not get a response to this question. Did you find out the answer?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi. It's been a while since I last contacted you. Though I'm inviting you to comment, it's not a big deal if you don't. I will never be offended if you aren't interested in commenting on any of my invites. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
See my following question at the Help Desk: Wikipedia:Help_desk#What_rule.2Fguideline_exist_for_photo_albums_in_College_articles.3F
The page for Siftery was abruptly deleted even though it was not established that the page was "unambiguously promotional". A large number of independent publications made notable mentions or coverage of the company. There may have been recommendations for improvement; outright deletion was abrupt and not warranted on the merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleecg ( talk • contribs) 00:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Nyttend,
I wanted to raise to your attention that I have reverted the deletion of the partial alumni list and profile pictures at the University of Kansas article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=University_of_Kansas&oldid=810633485). The reason I have done this is that there was not consensus to remove that all of that information even at the Helpdesk thread. The purpose of this section per the WP:UNIGUIDE guidance was to "give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty). For most schools this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards (each with perhaps a very brief descriptive phrase), where such a list would not be excessively long. For very old, very large, or very prestigious schools it may be more appropriate to use categories ("Alumni of", "Faculty of", etc.) instead, limiting the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on."
Based on that guidance it is my position that alumni lists are helpful for readers to give a sense of the extent of well known/significant accomplished persons are related to the institution whether that be alumni, faculty or others. Some articles just have an Alumni list, some have a broader People of xyz university list. The guidance does not have specific information relating to galleries in the section or for separate list pages. I think there should at least be some discussion before editors remove information on highly notable articles such as Harvard University. As you pointed out the WP:MOSIMAGE states "images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding." I think the important question is whether alumni images are illustrative to aid in understanding in the culture/notability/significance/importance/idk of specific universities such as Harvard University. I recognize that you do not agree with this and I can see your reasoning for desiring to remove the images. I wanted to clarify if you were also advocating removal of the wikilinks for alumni lists section on the main university pages? Randomeditor1000 ( talk) 14:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
I'll dispute your speedy deletion of Swish (payment). Swish is widely used here in Sweden and there are plenty of potential sources. [4] From what I remember and what I can see in the Google-cached version, it does not look particularly promotional. The article should at least have been given a chance at AFD. -- Hegvald ( talk) 05:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Nyttend. I felt the tone of your revert of my WP:G4 nomination of Draft:Jeffrey Guterman did not assume good faith. As a non-admin, I don't get to see the deleted article, and can only make an assumption that the subject of the new article is the same as the deleted one and the content substantially similar based on what I can access. From the deletion discussion it appeared the deleted article was about an academic. The new article, which I was reviewing as part of AfC is about a publisher of a book on mental health, which could be an academic work. I don't think it was unreasonable of me to think the two articles were about the same person. Your edit summary "Completely unrelated. Don't abuse the criterion" felt like a harsh accusation. What do you believe I should have done differently? Curb Safe Charmer ( talk) 09:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on 🙏🏼, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it 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 deleted 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. Steel1943 ( talk) 15:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the through, helpful explanation of how deleting works at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 October 30#Administrators! Also, sorry for the late reply. Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk) 02:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to make a song and dance about it but in future if you believe I'm edit warring or have broken another policy atleast have the decency to leave a warning or a note to tell me you've dragged my backside to 3RRNO or where ever! - Not doing so is very devious and considering you were on for roughly an hour after the report you would've had time to notify me or atleast warn me!. – Davey2010 Talk 10:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not disagree with your edit, but threatening sanctions for a G5 seems a little harsh, especially against an editor who (by rough count) is more than 90% accurate with CSD tagging. Primefac ( talk) 15:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I just wanted to make mention of something that really seemed unnecessary, particularly this edit. I feel the need to defend myself as sanctions have been threatened with no reason to warrant them. I think most people, even those on WP who don't necessarily agree with me would say that I don't generally tag CSDs willy-nilly and certainly not G5. At the time I tagged that, the editor was blocked by a CU and had made the only significant contribution to the article. Meatgains did a lot of minor edits (and i'm not discounting them) but i'd hardly call that significant in the context of a G5 and socking. I'm sure I've erroneously tagged a small handful (less than 5, if I had to guess) of G5s in the last year but threatening sanctions, especially when my tag was in good faith and there has been no discussion and calling another editor clueless is a bit over the top. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello Nyttend,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ashika Bhatia for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
Mark Dask 20:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.
The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:
If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.
Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The Indefinitely blocked IPs arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, iam not able to creating an article so i want help can you please create an article about an indian television and Film Actress name : Shuman Gupta Papular seral : Baal Krishna Role : Yashoda Year : 2016-17 Film : No One Killed Jessica Role : Soma Year : 2011
If you want more information abot Shu Gupta please searching her name in google, But please create it Sir it's big request. Thank you Sir.
Hi sir i want your help because i am not able to creating an Article about an indian television and Film Actress name ; Shuman Gupta she has appeared television show Baal Krishna as Yashoda in 2016-17 and she has also appeared Film No One Killed Jessica as Soma in 2011 Please you can create an Article about Suman it's big request please sir, create it if you want more information about Shuman Gupta please seaeching her name in google thank you ,sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:A106:2369:0:0:685:50A4 ( talk) 06:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Nyttend. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:APPLCOR.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 18:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashika Bhatia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashika Bhatia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. PRehse ( talk) 09:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Nyttend, I don't understand this edit or its edit summary. Can you explain what you think this has to do with ENGVAR or buildings/structures? Dicklyon ( talk) 06:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Your "extended close" comments [5] of the RfC at WP:VPPOL#RfC: Accessibility versus convenience in indentation ( permalink) are a distortion of the facts.
I did not personally attack or otherwise characterize any editor in that discussion. You're sorely confusing comment on content with comment on contributor. I characterized the discussion as having wandered off the topic of the RfC (which was CONLEVEL policy), and characterized some of the comments in it as misguided for various reasons. Until this very post, I've refrained from calling out the canvassing of WT:MATHS as such, on an assumption of good faith and for avoidance of drama. But since you've dumped a toilet-bucket on my head, I'm going to set the record straight.
I did not modify any guideline to support this proposal (which isn't actually a proposal but a request to reaffirm that WP:CONLEVEL policy exists); WP:ACCESS already deprecated using colon markup for indentation, and did so years before [6] the main MoS did [7]. All I did is insert the simple fact that there are convenient templates as alternatives – without inserting any "rule" that people use them [8]. This was a conformance-with-the-main-MoS-page edit, is 100% fact not opinion, and it's entirely normal for MoS pages to link to convenience templates. My edit to MOS:ACCESS is still there, and the material has now been further elaborated by another accessibility-experienced editor [9] in response to a request for more information [10].
This addendum is appreciated, and your concise RfC-top close itself is arguably correct (the RfC did conclude with a result – but it's a false-consensus one that just means we have to re-address the underlying issue later – partly my fault for not writing a better RfC but mostly because WT:MATHS was blatantly canvassed with false information about the RfC [11]). However, it's difficult to see how you could have done any serious commentary analysis, rather just a "vote" count and a superficial skim, or your RfC-bottom commentary could not read anything like it does.
Please remove or very substantively redact that rant you posted about me. The only one being personally attacked is me, by you. You're quite right that "Our policies outright forbid such hostile characterization of other editors". WP:KETTLE, all 'at. What you posted in your supervote at the bottom is a pile of WP:ASPERSIONS, since I can prove my position post-by-post.
In detail:
This is necessarily long given the number of false accusations you made and the amount of material that disproves them ...
|
---|
If I bothered with diffs for each of these it would take me about an hour or so; the entire RfC is short enough that seems like wasted effort. The points I raised about the RfC and the evidence for them, which you ignored:
Misrepresentatation of the RfC and the facts behind it, including by you: See counterfactual denialism (confusion?
FUD? who knows?) by Deacon Vorbis, Sławomir Biały, D.Lazard, Bill Cherowitzo, Taku, and you all acting as if an alternative to Canvassing of a wikiproject, which you ignored or did not know about: The real canvassing was by CBM, and was posted
here, blatantly mischaracterizing the nature and would-be result of the RfC (which in reality would have been to do nothing but have MOS:MATH match WP:MOS and MOS:ACCESS in recommending templated CSS indentation over When an RfC is entirely dominated by people who do not understand accessibility and HTML specs, or CONLEVEL precedence, or the RfC itself (after having been pointedly misled about it), and can't (or post as if they can't) tell the difference between "It's what I'm used to and I like it" versus "It is a standard", then it's reasonable, not canvassing, to identify these specific problems and ask another VP page, full of people from all over the en.WP project (not a knot of like-minded, one-topic-focused editors) who mostly do understand the difference, to go have some input. I did not tell them how to !vote, I expressed skepticism that they'd agree with the assumptions and rationalizations being made as a bloc vote in the RfC so far (without even calling it out as a wikiproject bloc vote, which I certainly could have done). The typical notice left at a wikiproject talk page after an RfC has been running a while is along similar lines, and just as clear about what false-consensus issues may be in play and why more expertise is needed in the discussion (and is also a notice to a far more homogenous audience than VPPOL). Yet no one calls that canvassing even though it's closer to canvassing that my post was (while what CBM did was canvassing, period). Puerile, off-topic hostility, including by you: Finally, your and D.Lazard's stuff about me using colons myself in the RfC discussion is a cheap, BS-y shot, both an appeal to ridicule fallacy and a straw man. MoS doesn't regulate talk posts, and my opening statement was quite explicit: "we do it all the time on talk pages ... MoS has also long advised to not do this in articles" [since mid-2013, remember] restated again early on in the discussion: "it's not like we're going to stop doing it on talk pages, a lost cause until they're replaced with some kind of threaded messaging system that's also capable of rendering MediaWiki markup samples accurately" [i.e. not WP:Flow. |
The editorializing you've done in your bottom statement, echoing the subjective opinions of various !voters who were canvassed in from WT:MATHS, and making a string of provably false accusations, indicates you should not have been the closer. You've !voted and closed at the same time, and are clearly nowhere near neutral on the matter ( WP:SUPERVOTE). That said, it's surely sufficient to just strip out the hostile finger-pointing. I don't even ask that the canvassing finger be pointed at the correct party; if I were all that concerned about CBM's actions, I would have taken it to ANI. I'm actually satisfied with the productive side of the RfC outcome: We know the issue is real and people will be willing to address it. I'm decidedly not satisfied with being publicly flogged by you for no legitimate reason.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 06:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Still, it's quite clear you're threatening me with a punitive post hoc block. You've been an admin for 10 years, so you know full well that wouldn't be legit. I'll be happy to air this with you at WP:AN if you like, since I have a huge pile of evidence that every single thing I said is correct and that your accusations are false (especially with regard to "personal attacks"), while you have nothing here but your subjective opinion. The worst I've done here is tried albeit non-neutrally to draw balancing attention, at a broad venue, to an RfC that had already been derailed by someone else's canvassing (CBM did that at a narrow venue which of course resulted in a bloc vote full of off-topic, panicked hand-waving). Do you really think I'll be blocked for taking that good-faith action? I didn't actually even draw any balancing attention, anyway – you reverted my attempt to do so before it had any effect at all [13] (and you cast more WP:ASPERSIONS while doing so).
But, I'm happy to drop the matter, since the RfC has incidentally resulted in some positive discussion both at
WT:MOSMATH and the related Phabricator ticket (the first real action seen about that bug in over 10 years). All's well that ends well, and no one made any deal about anyone's lack of neutrality on either side, other than you. Any of us could have manufactured drama about this from the moment CBM made that misleading canvassing post, but instead we all made what we felt were substantive arguments, and actually moved toward two kinds of practical solutions. Except you, who chose to attack me on two different pages while ironically accusing me of attacking people because you won't distinguish between opposing an argument and opposing a person. That's not what we have admins for.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
12:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey there
I want to change name of two pages named Culture of Kashmir and Music of Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh
I want to change name of Culture of Kashmir to
Culture of Jammu and Kashmir
because Jammu and Kashmir is a state, not only Kashmir
And same goes for Music of Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh
I want to change it to Music of Jammu and Kashmir
Thanks!! Anmolbhat ( talk) 16:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Please check the recent edit history. Perhaps pending changes this time. (I protected it last time and then forgot about for several years.) Rmhermen ( talk) 00:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
For medical content we tend to reference every sentence. This makes it easier for fellow editors and readers to determine what ref supports what content. Best Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Good Morning. You appear to be one of the main editors/blockers/rulers of the Put-in-Bay Ohio page ( /info/en/?search=Put-in-Bay,_Ohio). I was trying to fix the Chamber of Commerce link on the External Links section, but it keeps telling me that another website is blacklisted, and that the Chamber website can not be edited. You have the Chamber website listed as visitputinbay DOT org and that is NOT correct. The Chamber of Commerce website is DOT com, not DOT org. However, Wikipedia won't accept that link because it says "The following link has triggered a protection filter: putinbay.com". Is there any way you can correct this link so it doesn't go to the advertising site of DOT org and instead goes to the real Chamber site? Or provide info on how to get it done? It looks like the revert-war person changed it 3 years ago and no one else has caught it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeachBunnyGirl ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello Nyttend: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk ( talk) 16:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Holidays |
From Stave one of Dickens
A Christmas Carol So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD| Talk 23:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC) |
See this, per NeilN. The IP is block evading and is using multiple IP's in order to harass. Also, an infobox is not standard practise. Show me the MoS guideline that says this and you may be onto something. Until then, this remains your POV. Cassianto Talk 16:09, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Please can you tell me the name of the award in this deleted article? The article is Emran Mahfuz. Ammarpad ( talk) 03:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Why am I no longer allowed to edit "Frequency selective surface," a page which I created and (as far as I can tell) have been the sole editor of for the past 3 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.144.170.146 ( talk)
You and I have never had a beef I can think of, so I'm not sure why you jumped straight to "cluelessness" and threats. It's not necessary. Niteshift36 ( talk) 20:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Nyttend,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ●
✉
✓
23:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{ subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
![]() |
Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, — Paleo Neonate – 01:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC) |