User talk:TutterMouse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


Some confusion went on here. dffgd (talk) 19:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Most likely, they did seem of a vandalistic type to me and if it was you performing the edits, really should be logged in so that sorta thing doesn't happen. tutterMouse (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
If I may put in my two cents in regards to this edit war at Big Time Rush between (talk) and Dffgd (talk). I am a follower of the show, and I can say for certain that the correct spelling is this case is “Rocque”, NOT “Rock”. Therefore the anon is correct, and that Dffgd did not do his homework in this regard. He should never had issued that warning statement to the anon like he did. If anything, a warning letter should have been issued to Dffgd because he was the one putting the false edit, and seem persistent in keeping it that way. Fourviz (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
This isn't regarding those edits and I never edited it myself so don't see why you're telling me. tutterMouse (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Bring it up on my talk page, not here. dffgd (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't me, it was a vandal. I was just pointing out what happened. dffgd (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, so if I'm getting you guys right you've done some content editing elsewhere, unrelated though to vandalism which occurred on your userpage which I was confused about but did get right anyway.

Yeah, I'm still not clear, what's the issue at hand besides unrelated mainspace content edits? tutterMouse (talk) 02:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Think you mean my undoing of edits… yeah, I wasn't 100% clear on the intent but you can't undo your own undoing. tutterMouse (talk) 02:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Since I was there and in Huggle, I could revert the undo anyway. You're pretty good if you beat me to vandalism on my own userpage 3 times in a row! :) dffgd (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The edits made to the dropshipping page are correct, see Nobrainz (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


Barnstar of Reversion2.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For beating me to vandalism on Huggle many times, including three in a row on my own user page. Thanks for your work, dffgd (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


I'm sure you know this but when I look at your contribs, I don't see you warning any users for your reverts. It's best to warn the user why you reverted their edit- use q not r. Thanks!  – Tommy [message] 12:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't warn on the first revert as a gesture of WP:AGF, if however they edit inappropriately again after that then I issue a warning. tutterMouse (talk) 12:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah okay.  – Tommy [message] 12:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


Many thanks, TutterMouse, for all you do on Wikipedia—especially keeping my personal pages free of vandalism!!! Regards, Pinethicket (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for your observation for deletion tag to the Swejsantokotha_wiki_page but there is only one Individual's preaching mentioned in the page .The whole discourse is a part of very important religious reformation of society and suppressed humanity .It contains substantial materials which is sufficent for removing the Deletion tag .I hope I could make it clear to you Arniban Ssej 17:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnibanssej (talkcontribs)

Orphaned non-free image File:Canal 24c.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Canal 24c.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).


  • I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
  • I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
  • If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
  • To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
  • If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


I DID NOT VANDALIZE!!! Monsters, Inc. 2 has its own page, and it may be short, BUT ITS STILL THERE!!!! WHY REDIRECT TO ANOTHER ARTICLE? Mgangku (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Please see the note here after your edit. I have cleaned it up now, but please do not use {{expand}} like this in future. The {{stub}} tag already asks readers to expand the article.

Please have a look at pages you edit after you have pressed "Save", or use "Preview", so that you do not leave pages with error messages like this. Thanks. PamD 08:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing, I wasn't aware of the deprecation of {{expand}} so will use something a little more specific next time. tutterMouse (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Icelandic names[edit]

Please note that articles about people with Icelandic names do not use the {{DEFAULTSORT}} template. Thank you. DS (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll make a note of that but can I ask why they don't use the template? tutterMouse (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
... or, alternately, f you must use the DEFAULTSORT, make sure to put the personal name first and the patronym second. Icelandic names are sorted differently. DS (talk) 23:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that's a good enough explanation for me, really should limit DEFAULTSORT to accented initials instead of anywhere within the word. Problem with Check Wikipedia's lists I suppose. tutterMouse (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Bolívar Municipality, Barinas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simón Bolívar Municipality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Acknowledgment of review of article[edit]

I am acknowledging the message about the possible deletion of page Katie_Harwood. I will gladly follow the recommendations for improvising the article. Since this is my first attempt at a real wikipedia article from scratch, I welcome your input. I will participate in any discussions and make changes as need. I just need a little time to learn my way through the process. Thanks. Tola73 07:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tola73 (talkcontribs)

I'm not sure if I'm the right person to ask for advice but as the person who nominated your article for deletion, I don't think the likelihood for your article being kept is very high. The article could be improved but has some fundamental issues which'd prevent it being a viable article for Wikipedia such as being written like an essay and whilst very well sourced which is commendable it's also got issues of being about a fictional character with a lot of the information about them being extrapolated or based upon your own viewpoint which isn't acceptable here. If you wish to make a new article, please feel free as your skills are very useful as long as the subject is notable and opinion is sourced and not your own. Article creation is great and you should alway look to make more but I'd also advise you to look at editing other articles too as it's always much better to edit a range of articles and to be equally focussed on each one and they don't need to be articles you create either. I hope you'll be able to move onwards and make Wikipedia better as a whole as we do need editors with great research skills as yours. --tutterMouse (talk) 12:58, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


Looking at: [1]. Did you miss the sources or not find them to be enough? Either way, it's a good argument for why we limit WP:CSD... Hobit (talk) 21:29, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't agree with the CSD issue mentioned by Toddst, only the sourcing I found to be a little too limited to confer notability separate from the developer. If people can find better sourcing, I'll gladly pull the nom but right now I'm not entirely convinced. --tutterMouse (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I'd assumed you were quoting yourself. I clearly need to be more careful... Thought I don't see how those sources aren't enough to meet WP:N. Up to you though. Hobit (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
They're not enough because they feel somewhat trivial or tangentially related to the game itself but I'll sit on it a while because though WP:VG/RS has a much more lenient idea of what is reliable or non-trivial coverage than I'm used to, I'll still yield to the smarter guys in the room. tutterMouse (talk) 23:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

inre Tri-vanguard Pictures[edit]

Sorry... I denied the speedy per ('"criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines") as the article makes an assertion of notability through its "recent release". The issues of notability and sourcing will be discussed at AFD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Alright then, thanks for informing me. tutterMouse (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
However, I do agree that the company fails WP:ORG and the article should be deleted. Stated so at the AFD. Cheers, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Ephraim Stern[edit]

In a maintenence edit you put a period after a comma: ([[Persian Empire]],.<ref>). I know a minor thing. The reason for pointing it out is I see that you're using AWB and I've seen AWB cause problems in the past. Could be something to watch out for. SlightSmile 04:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the sort of issues AWB can cause but most issues are human in nature, AWB is only a tool. I'm very careful in my edits, most are incredibly small like moving commas and periods after reference cites but sometimes I don't bother to check it given how minor a slipup can be and how easily it can be ignored if you're not paying attention fully like commas right next to periods. Thanks for the considerate message though, nice to see I can't be too vigilant at this. tutterMouse (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for spending a lot of time identifying issues with the Bearsden article. When general maintenance tags were added last year, I felt a bit lost, but thanks to you, contributors can now work through issues one by one, according to our editing strengths. Wikiwayman (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

You just killed a man[edit]

Hi TutterMouse. I'm not exactly sure how that happened but your AWB edit on Robert O. Binnewies put him as dead since 1959. I've rollbacked the edit but you might want to check your setup. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure my setup of AWB is fine, it's editing these sorts of things half-asleep which is the issue so my fault, not the tools. Could have removed the erroneous category rather than wholesale reversion of the edit as I've done but I understand the issue and will try and make sure I don't kill people by accident as I did there, human errors notwithstanding. tutterMouse (talk) 00:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Quick reverts[edit]

Howdy and thanks for your anti-vandalism work! You might have a second look at your revert here; I'd bet that the edit was intended to delete uncited information and in good faith. Cheers, --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I can understand how it might have been to remove uncited info but it was a very broad way of doing it knocking it down to barely a stub and heck knows I should have known better given the edit did come from an established editor too. Mea culpa, undid my own edit. tutterMouse (talk) 03:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Automated message[edit]

Thanks for undoing your revert at the page that you accused me of vandalizing. Please take note -- there was no v. And your use of automated tools to accuse an editor of v when it was not the case is, in the eyes of some, something that could weigh against future use of such tools. I've not dealt with you before, and by your subsequent self-revert assume it was a mistake on your part, which is not a problem. But please note the tag at the top of the page, from nearly four years ago, which clearly states that "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." That simply confirms what is in our wp:v guideline. Please see WP:CHALLENGED -- an editor should not in such circumstances restore such material without providing an inline citation. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Poco Poco[edit]

Removing copyright infringement is NOT unconstructive - it is an imperative for all editors. Please check what you are saying before issuing warnings. Thankyou. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I was a little sharp there, considering all your good work removing vandalism et al. However all I did was remove apparent copyright infringement, it did look like a massacre of the article, but the correct thing to do. I have reverted your reversion. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Heads up[edit]

A number of your edits aren't working out too well. These include Türnitz, Théâtre du Soleil, and The People's Music Awards. Perhaps you can take a look. I saw the exact same thing going on yesterday with another AWB user... I think something needs to be tweaked.  -- WikHead (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, that's all intentional. Some of the refs were removed couldn't be taken as refs and the changes from <references/> to {{tl:reflist}} are usually stylistic especially where I'm removing two markup elements. All AWB is doing in this case is making some general fixes, the rest is me. Thanks for being aware of my edits though, be sure if anything is being badly messed up, that'll be on me. tutterMouse (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
So you're just going to leave the articles the way they are? I understand what you're saying about the original markup being incorrect, but nothing here has actually been fixed. It's just a big mess left behind for someone else to deal with.  -- WikHead (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Not at all but it is a mess which I'm certain shouldn't be generated on first glance. These issues have been caused by either a ref being transcluded from elsewhere which I'm very likely to miss if I'm only observing the markup (Türnitz) or because of a messy block of refs after the article (Théâtre du Soleil and The People's Music Awards) causing markup trouble. Those shouldn't be happening and whilst I want to say mea culpa for the issues, I didn't make them but in trying to fix them end up uncovering them. There will still be an issue with those articles, just there's no large red text to tell anyone about it. tutterMouse (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Understood. I am however, a very firm believer that we're all responsible for the article version we leave behind, and if something's not going as planned in preview mode, we should never save the changes. After making a save, if something we've just done makes us say "yikes", it's always best to either self-revert or continue working it through before moving on to another article. Human error is to be expected of course, and good faith should always apply when something is accidentally missed or overlooked. Nonetheless, it's a pleasure having met you... have yourself a great day, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Golden Shoe[edit]


You edited some information at this page. However the information you changed is not right.

Aleksandrs Čekulajevs scored this 46 goals for Narva Trans, not Valetta where he is currently playing.

When a player transfers to a new club, only the goals made at his former club are valid.

Kinds Regards,

Matthi1603 (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information but I was not responsible for that content, I am only implementing minor fixes, no content is changed where possible. tutterMouse (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Area code 623[edit]

Under your account, WPCleaner removed the self-referential links on Area code 623. Unfortunately they were in an imagemap tag, and the imagemap breaks if the last thing on each poly line isn't a link, so I reverted it. --Lkseitz (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2012 (UTC) Why remove my edits from Channel 4? — Preceding unsigned comment added by රණකාමි333 (talkcontribs) 18:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

heads up[edit]

The user you reverted has mentioned you here: Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, apparently I'm causing dissident by preventing the truth being heard. Anyway, seems like it's being handled elsewhere so thanks for the heads up and all. tutterMouse (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Baroness of Douglas for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Baroness of Douglas 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/Baroness of Douglas 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 template from the top of the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Galeopsis – Thanks![edit]

Thanks for your brilliant insight about what was wrong with that page. I couldn't figure out why the title wasn't formatting in italic, but you've fixed it ... Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


Approve icon.svg
This user's request to have autoblock on his/her IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
TutterMouse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · edit filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Rinpoche, banned user

Accept reason:

IP block exemption granted, since this is the only way for you to edit through this block. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

IP block exempt[edit]

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking. This will allow you to edit through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions.

Note in particular that you are not permitted to use this newly-granted right to edit Wikipedia via anonymous proxies, or disruptively. If you do, or there is a serious concern of abuse, then the right may be removed by any administrator.

Appropriate usage and compliance with the policy may be checked periodically, due to the nature of block exemption, and block exemption will be removed when no longer needed (for example, when the block it is related to expires).

I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption. Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TutterMouse. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection.
Message added 15:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

‑Scottywong| express _ 15:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

RFPP archive bot[edit]

FYI - I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#Bot archiving that you might be interested in contributing to. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 23:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

FYI - The issues you brought up here should now be fixed. Thanks again for the reminder. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 19:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

On your comment on Income tax in India[edit]

Since no other editor is currently expanding the article except me, mistakes are bound to happen. I am sure that I possess all the knowledge required to edit the article, since it forms a part of my course, but could you please enlighten me with the out of scope information on the page that needs removing. Thanks. You can reply here. Harsh (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The issue for me isn't with mistakes but with the fact that because you're the only one editing you might be including everything you think is relevant though it might not be as part of WP:NOT. For instance, a lot of it reads like a how-to guide the government might issue to take people through how the tax works which isn't what we're here to do. Even though I say all that, it's way outside my knowledge area and looking at the other income tax articles for other countries they read basically the same, dry, overlong and bureaucratic which is fine as that's what income tax is like. Remove nothing, I can't possibly steer you the right direction not knowing which way you need to go but good luck on maintaining the article without most of your energies going into correcting edits. tutterMouse (talk) 17:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Its so sad that no one is taking up the article. When I started with it, it was a complete mess, with out of date and missing information. And this is the issue with most India related articles. All I could do with it was read all feedback from AFT and add the info. Even before I started editing, there was some info which perhaps did not comply with WP:NOT, as you say. The article leaves a lot to be desired when compared to how Income tax in the United States is formatted/styled. If I remove the how-to-guide like info, then there won't be much left in the article to show. Thanks anyways. Harsh (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Did I do the right thing?[edit]

Hey. Did I do the right thing by giving a warning to that user in the "Request for page protection" area or should I just have reverted like you did? I did not really know what to do with my limited experience with the wiki but I knew SOMETHING need to be said! Andrew Wiggin (talk) 08:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Not really, it's fairly likely they won't even read it and unless you really want to explain to a combative POV pusher why they're wrong, don't bother unless you're bringing riot gear and a strong will. It wasn't the right place like you said and shouldn't even be on the RFPP talkpage seeing as it's already on the talkpage of the article in question where it should be if it's got to be anyplace. This one felt clearcut to me so I removed it though generally it's way easier to leave things like that where it's more ambiguous than this one was to an admin who's less likely to find a trout coming their way if it was the wrong decision. tutterMouse (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
lol.I always have my riot-gear ready! (Teargas, shield, baton). Anyhow I will move the page in the future. Is there a nice badge I can leave on peoples pages for warnings that you know of? Andrew Wiggin (talk) 09:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Regarding what? You can write your own warning of course. tutterMouse (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding RFPP....[edit]

....and to explain a little further: I was in a discussion with User:Scottywong about the templates which (to me and others) are not archived properly by snotbot (I had noted this especially for the not dones). The discussion can be found on Snottywongs talk-page, under RFPP and snotbot. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 11:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Yup, saw your discussion about it and would have gone and told him about it eventually. Still, should be easier now for admins clerking. tutterMouse (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Disappearing discussion[edit]

Sorry about the massive deletions. I'm investigating. Special:Contributions/Cpiral will show this is not intentional. Something else seems to be technically wrong at our Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#Doctor quality

  • The sections are not editable, yet I have not changed my preferences.
  • Large portions of documents I work on disappear a lot recently.

The two technical problems 1)no edit tags, and 2)disappearing portions of the pages I work on? These should be taken as recent technical problems I'm investigating. I've been editing with the same techniques for years, and I lack for very little to solve such problems, except time.

IMHO I would violate WP:TPG to remove "damning" or inappropriate talk page material. I don't think I violated that policy. I did modify my own discussion page material. Do you think I went to far changing my own discussion points? — CpiralCpiral 09:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The offering for debate is to try to get you on the subject matter anyone can bring. I won't do it anymore. They can be deleted without loss. It really doesn't matter who (I am, or anyone is). I happen to be an excellent editor and collaborator except for the occasional "don't do that" I get from opinionated editors like yourself. You want to investigate me? Please take a quick glance at my most recent

I've done a lot of work at Template:Val and its subpages. What I'm doing at WP:RFPP is I rewrote WP:page name and Help:page name and their talk space will reveal that wp:rfpp is a mere feeler: all your annoyance, just for my experiment. There are problems with my presence, but I firmly believe they should be solved by you, or your peers. I feel I know what I'm trying to do.

Your cooperation is invaluable. Please let's break off all personal problems, and attack the substance of the debatable points surrounding the wording on the topic page, or let's say nothing at all. I'm not going away beat by some brow, but I might go away for the love of a poor, overworked bro, running a dilapidated old template doc. — CpiralCpiral 09:23, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll accept browser issues might have led to the inadvertent page blanking but it's fine, I fixed the problem but would prefer you make sure it doesn't happen whilst you're investigating and fix it when it does. This whole other thing though, I'm done because I've said my part and whilst I would like to ignore the issues, they're not surmountable by me because of your unwillingness to speak plainly, being insulting at times when confronted on the matter and a degree of belligerence in everything you write. This is ignoring that I doubt you'll be shifted on your opinion which kind of makes it a debate as opposed to discussion and consensus building. At the end of it all, I'm not the only one who is at RFPP often and I'm not the only opinion you should be looking for. I'm still not participating any further and whilst the "dilapadated old template doc" might not suit you, it might suit someone else besides me. Please do not pursue this further on my talkpage, thanks tutterMouse (talk) 10:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Agenda: Grinding America Down[edit]

Please examine all the changes that have been made to this article from the beginning. There has been a history of persons legitimately making changes and there have been persons making changes that were not legitimate, especially by persons editing outside of user accounts. Please also look at the talk page, where I requested some sort of protection be put into place to prevent inappropriate edits.

I will say this film has no place with great films and it is a terrible documentary, as it makes no attempt to be impartial. However, search it on the internet. You will see it has a cult following amongst those on the far political right and they even sought to use it in the 2012 elections to influence voters. In my opinion, this is enough proof the film should have an article in Wikipedia. I tried to write an article that was impartial and factual when I first wrote this article. Bill Pollard (talk) 05:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I did check the history but looking outside what was written it's not exactly passing WP:NFILM like I mentioned given a lack of reliable third-party sourcing even if it has a cult following among fringe supporters. II don't believe even before the reversions that it was notable and my want for deletion has no bearing on the quality of the article past or present but I imagine the original editor who PROD'ed the article in the first place will be listing it at AfD to get a wider view. tutterMouse (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi, Tuttermouse. I thought I used the template :{{RFPP|b}} ~~~~ and that the bot would be happy, but I guess I got it wrong (I did notice it didn't come out the way I expected). Thanks very much for fixing! Bishonen | talk 11:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC).

No problem, Bish. tutterMouse (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Interview request: Your work with WP:Snuggle[edit]

I'm contacting you about a study that I'm running with TheOriginalSoni exploring newcomer mentorship activities in Wikipedia. I'd like to ask you a few questions about your work with WP:Snuggle and observe your use of it in order to figure out where the tool is and isn't working. The interview and demo session will take 30 minutes to an hour depending on how much time we spend discussing things. If you're interested, let me know.

Thanks for your consideration. --EpochFail (talkcontribs) 21:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Natanya Ross, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ER (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you![edit]

Brownie transparent.png Keep Up The Good Work! Foodie (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Huggle 3[edit]

Hey TutterMouse! I am Petrb, one of core developers of Huggle, the antivandalism tool, which you are beta testing (according to I am happy to announce that Huggle 3 is ready for some testing. You can read more about it at WP:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta. Please keep in mind that this is a development version and it is not ready for regular use. That means you must:

  • Watch your contribs - when anything happens you didn't want, fix it and report a bug
  • Frequently checkout source code and build latest version, we change it a lot

If you find any problem with a feature that is supposed to work perfectly, please let us know. Some features are not ready yet, it is listed in known problems on Huggle3 beta page, you don't need to report these - we know it! So, that's it. Have fun testing and please let us know about any problems, either using bugzilla @ or #huggle connect. Please respond to my talk page, I am not going to watch your talk page. Thank you Petrb (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Huggle 3 beta is out - and we need more feedback![edit]

Hey TutterMouse, how are you? I am Petrb, one of huggle developers, and you are currently subscribed as a beta tester of huggle on meta (meta:Huggle/Members. You may not have noticed, but this week I released first beta precompiled installers for ubuntu and microsoft windows! Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta has all the links you need. So if you can, please download it, test it and report all bugs that is really what we need now. Don't forgot that as it's just a beta it's unstable and there are some known issues. Be carefull! Thank you for helping us with huggle Petrb (talk) 16:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Cyberpower678[edit]

cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 22:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I don't celebrate personally but happy christmas to you too. tutterMouse (talk) 08:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678[edit]

cyberpower OnlineHappy 2014 00:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

double bar?[edit]

Hi, I'm really not sure what you mean by fixing double bar in your edit summary. The dab entries must have a blue link that supports the claimed usage. In this case that it's the list articles. WP: MOSDAB allows piped links to be used in the description precisely for this purpose. olderwiser 20:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

But not twice @Bkonrad:, the double bar I meant in relation to [[List of Hi-de-Hi! episodes|episode of the television series|''Hi-de-Hi!'']] which had a pipe (or bar) twice within the markup which creates a minor display issue. I'm not entirely sure it should lead to a list rather than a main article regarding these television series which is what I was trying to fix but MOSDAB is clear about it being valid so I'll admit being wrong on this count. You can remove the errant pipe if you wish seeing as you did revert me, it's a very minor error and I very rarely pass by dabs so this has been an interesting lesson for me. Happy editing! tutterMouse (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

For your contributions to Avion Pirata[edit]

Trophy.png Cool contributor award
Thanks!!!! Antonio Martin (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi TutterMouse, I saw you moved my post on the Requests for Page Protection talk page, I was not requesting, i was just asking if they thought that is was worthy of being protected. But i appreciate you moving it. --ACase0000 (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I moved it because asking if someone feels a page requires protection is pretty much all RFPP is about, people come with articles they think require a form of protection and an admin makes a decision based on it. If it was left there I can imagine someone else moving it instead as it was worded fairly strongly like a request to protect. Anyway, if you feel like a page might need protection then asking on the talkpage might be seen as a misplaced request so shouldn't really ask there. tutterMouse (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok Thanks!!! --ACase0000 (talk) 06:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...[edit]

Hi! Would you care to review or comment at my FA nomination for the article Misterioso (Thelonious Monk album)? It is a short article about a jazz album. Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Skui skole Reviewing[edit]

-for your message on my talk page : Sure, I'd love to learn something!

- Well, since it was already tagged it with multiple issues, hence was already reviewed. That's why I thought there was no point in leaving it there for another reviewing. So, as now you have marked it unreviewed, I suppose marking an article as reviewed removes the tags? or something? I thought a tagged article would be already mentioned at the 'candidates for ...' page. I do not do this otherwise. What happens if a tagged article is marked as reviewed? Abhinav (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's see if I can help you out then. Now, it was tagged but the creator removed the tags, I added them back but must have clicked for it to be un-reviewed accidentally and sent a message off automatically, sorry! If something is reviewed, it means it doesn't need to be checked by new page patrollers who are looking for bad articles. Un-reviewing won't remove tags but it'll send a message to the user who reviewed it. In this case, it's just a sloppy click giving you that message, not that it wasn't correctly reviewed by you. Which page do you mean when you mention "candidates for..."? tutterMouse (talk) 19:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Two things:
1. So, was I right in marking it reviewed as it was already tagged by you?
2. When I said 'candidates for...', I referred to the list of pages mentioned according to the issues related to them, after their tagging. Like CSD, AfD, articles to 'wikify', cleanup, merge etc. In short, like ,most of the the articles displayed for editing on the WP:Community Portal.

Abhinav (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much, doesn't matter who marks it as reviewed as long as it's been seen by someone. As for those, these work different and just add them to a category so they can eventually be looked at and fixed, there's no real designated place for them like XfDs besides bot-generated lists. tutterMouse (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for helping out. :) Abhinav (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

We need your help testing latest huggle[edit]


I am sending you this message because you listed yourself on meta:Huggle/Members as a beta tester. We desperately need attention of testers, because since we resolved all release blockers, we are ready to release first official version of huggle 3! Before that happens, it would be nice if you could test it so that we can make sure there are no issues with it. You can download it packaged for your operating system (see Wikipedia:Huggle/Huggle3_Beta) or you can of course build it yourself, see for that. Don't forget to use always latest version, there is no auto-update message for beta versions!

Should you find any issue, please report it to wikimedia bugzilla, that is a central place for huggle bugs, where we look at them. That is i mportant, if you find a bug and won't report it, we can't fix it. Thank you for your work on this, if you have any questions, please send me a message on my talk page, I won't be looking for responses here. Thanks, Petrb (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

RE: Signature[edit]

OK. Thanks alot for the warning. --Brayan Jaimes (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem! tutterMouse (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey tuttermouse[edit]

Thanks for your contributions. Do you check your mail? I wanted to send one. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@OccultZone: I do check my email and you can feel free to send me a message if you want to but I am interested to know why you wish to email me. tutterMouse (talk) 17:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I got some question about the program that you're using. Email sent. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 17:50, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
@OccultZone: I see, usually I only allow emails if it's of a private nature but this one seems open enough so I'll answer here, hope that's okay.
WPCleaner is a pretty simple thing to use if you're using it to do WCW error repairing, specifically what you're looking for is "Project Check Wikipedia" and to get a list of whatever issue you think you can solve. WPC can solve a few automatically but best to doublecheck whatever it's upto as it's still your responsibility regarding the edits it makes. I use a set list of errors that I routinely go over but the easiest method is to click "Load all errors" and then use the dropdown to pick out something and then to load one or more of the articles listed on the left. When it comes to fixing them anything in red in the article body is something that it detected as in need of fixing based on which error on the left panel is selected, usually a right-click will give you the fix required but some do need manual intervention if they're automatic (as indicated by cogs next to the error on the left), simply missed by the parser or simply something it can't fix and needs some human input. When you've fixed it up (which I guess you're upto but best to cover everything) then click the button with a green circle and checkmark inside Approve icon.svg and validate it, if it's okay then press the paper plane button Gnome-document-send.svg next to it. There's a basic guide at Wikipedia:WPCleaner/Check wiki but be aware that though I know my way around the WCW part of WPC, the main use is with disambiguation and is a little different to just making gnomish maintenance edits. If you need any further help, please ask here and I'll try and help you through it! tutterMouse (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@OccultZone:I see you decided to go with AWB instead, at least you've found a tool that you can use which is important though would have appreciated some feedback or at least thanks. tutterMouse (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I will reply you once I will be done of these procedures. Actually I am using AWB probably since after a few weeks when I had got it.(after making 2,500 edits and 19 articles I think) I want to review others bots, for reviewing them I need to know about the available semi-automated programs. That's how :-) OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog)
Ah, that does explain why you'd want to know about WPC too given it does have some bot tools. tutterMouse (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Used WPC on about 60 pages. I think it is perfect for solving so many errors. Thanks a lot once again. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 06:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this an issue for page protection?[edit]

Hello, tutterMouse. May I ask your opinion? Recently I started the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Vanishing Act to determine whether The Vanishing Act, 36 MM 3D, Savita Barbie, and Monologues of a Sex Maniac should be deleted. In the two days since the nomination, the AfD templates have been removed twice, once by an IP and once by a registered user, from each of the first three titles ('Monologues' has, for some reason, not been touched). It seems somehow inappropriate to request page protection for articles being discussed at AfD, yet a simple warning isn't working, since the templates were removed by both registered and IP users. I'm seeking your advice because I noticed your user name at RFP. Cnilep (talk) 08:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help Cnilep. I see that the templates have been removed a few times and though Cluebot has been replacing them (figure Monologues of a Sex Maniac was the odd one out because it's a redirect) it is a bit of an issue but not enough to require protection. It's not inappropriate to request protection during an AfD but if the disruption is severe enough then it might justify protection until the discussion is closed, right now though it's only a handful of incidents to require it. Right now the best you can do is to issue warnings to any user who removes them, especially the registered users as their removal of the template won't stop the AfD process but if more users continue to remove the templates then there might be justification but right now it's very manageable and isolated. Feel free to ask any other questions should you have any. tutterMouse (talk) 09:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
That sounds eminently reasonable. Thanks for your help. Cnilep (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I need following formats for logo:

  • original (svg) I guess it's totally resizable
  • .png (I can make this from svg) 128x128 px
  • .ico 32x32
  • .ico 64x64

Thanks, the originals are located at (huggle3_newlogo.png and .ico) both there Petrb (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

@Petrb: Okay, the SVG version is here, PNGs you're handling and a few .ico files, one with sizes upto 256x256 (including 32x32 and 64x64 versions) and two standalones at the sizes you requested along with an .icns file for us Mac users. The icons are an issue because I am not at all sure how I should get them to you, some help? tutterMouse (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
You can send me an e-mail to then I will upload them to repo Petrb (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@Petrb: Email sent. tutterMouse (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
@Petrb: Did you get the files? They're not up on the repo so I figure something went wrong. Also, out of interest, wont we need a new logo to replace this one? I would do it but as you've seen, I have very little patience with waiting around for things to happen so might want to give it to someone less likely to keep bugging you about it. Face-smile.svg tutterMouse (talk) 09:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

RPP backlog[edit]

I saw your note on WP:AN. I "came out" as being interested in running for RfA sometime next year, but in the interim, is there any reason non-admins can't use good judgement on WP:RPP and decline protection requests? For example, I see full protection is requested on Greatest Hits (The Saturdays album), but I would decline that as the edit war is against a few select people, and would advise people to use the talk page, WP:DRN or WP:ANEW, with blocks for persistent warring. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Somewhat but it's more an etiquette situation where if you're not capable of protecting an article you shouldn't decline one either. No technical reason, your non-admin judgement might be as good or better than an admin's and you can slap an {{RFPP}} template in response to a clear decline but they have the tools so can overrule if you misstep so better not to get your fingers slammed. As for warring, DRN/ANEW is usually where admins shoo them off to in the situations of disputes but that usually happens if nobody has got to the D part of WP:BRD yet and no, that isn't something an non-admin can do unfortunately, the bit gives +7 INT. There was once talk a while back in decoupling the protection right but the admins like their keys bunched even though this is something a few non-admins would be ideal for and most admins only use one or two of their keys, so to speak. An RfA for someone like me would be a SNOW fail due to weaknesses in unrelated areas like mediation and page creation, that's more a perennial issue of the process than anything but new admin blood is always needed even if only a select few can be technically. tutterMouse (talk) 16:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I seem to recall the reason for keeping the tools bundled together is that occasionally you need block, protect and delete together. You might have a high profile figure convicted of a crime in controversial circumstances, which leads to lots of poor quality edits and BLP violations, and POV forks. You might need to semi-protect the main article, delete the POV fork and block persistent offenders from re-creating it under different names, all in one evening. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Hm, that's a fairly unlikely if not absurd scenario to justify keeping the rights bundled but I heard it and found it slightly insulting at the time too. I have no chance to ever pass an RfA no matter how well I might know my way around actual admin procedures as content creation matters so so much more to the chamber of elders but maybe you do have what's needed. I'll just leave my distinct distaste for the adminship process and the unwillingness to unbundle rights elsewhere (which I do kinda see as protection of power) for the time being. tutterMouse (talk) 17:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's as controversial as you think - Rolf Harris could have easily had that scenario spin out over the last few days were the article and talk not both fully protected. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
It's not so controversial, I can understand their need to have everyone with such tools to have all tools rather than a selection of them in case of scenarios which require use of blocking, protecting and deleting. The thing I don't get is how someone with the right competencies can get their RFA nom blown out of the water for lack of article creation and being too often in the wrong place. Basically, the RFA is too subject to the whims of old hands who put content ahead of their tools, it's the silly dichotomy of it not being a big deal yet being such a huge deal only a few ever make it through RFA with the bit. tutterMouse (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

New huggle 3.1 is going to be released soon[edit]

Hi TutterMouse, we are to release a new major version of huggle, but we did receive almost no feedback from our beta testing team, which you are a part of (see It would be of a great help if you could download it (if you have windows, all you need to do is getting and putting it to a folder where you have installed huggle) and test it. You can always get a help with making it @ #huggle connect!

Major changes:

  • Multisite support - you can now log in to unlimited number of wikis in 1 huggle session and get a huge queue of all edits made to these wikis. This is good for smaller projects which gets overlooked often.
  • Ranged diffs - you can select multiple revisions and get a huge diff that display all changes done to them.
  • Fixes of most of bug reports we had so far

In case you found a bug, please report it to bugzilla: thank you! Petrb (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit wiped-out Season Six?[edit] I undid (manually) your edit because it was the only way i could figure to get season six (currently airing)back into the article. I know it is a weird format but it worked to put the episode box where it is expected by readers to be.ty68.37.28.172 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)