Jump to content

User talk:TonyBallioni: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→RfA: new section
Line 315: Line 315:


Thanks for your help- JT[[User:Makumbe|Makumbe]] ([[User talk:Makumbe|talk]]) 05:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help- JT[[User:Makumbe|Makumbe]] ([[User talk:Makumbe|talk]]) 05:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

== RfA ==

Hello! I was digging into your contributions and logs for a while, and I really feel we need admins like you. Would you accept a nomination? --[[User:Kostas20142|Kostas20142]] ([[User talk:Kostas20142|talk]]) 14:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:46, 31 July 2017


Funding

Hi,

Thanks for the response at WP:ACTRIAL.

I've just read the five weeks bit at WT:NPPAFC and I'm a bit confused, surely editing the blacklist requires no WMF funding: am I misinterpreting something?

Thanks, DrStrauss talk 17:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DrStrauss, the WMF has agreed to implement this as a research trial. They primarily agreed to it for the purpose of statistics gathering from what I can tell. Kudpung and I were prepared to go to an RfC to get the community's endorsement for implementing ACTRIAL without the participation of the WMF, but then the WMF came on board before we launched that. This made an RfC unnecessary, but it also means that while this is a community driven effort, we are working with the WMF and taking some of their concerns in mind while launching.
As to Kudpung's earlier question re: the contingency plan for the funding, my contingency plan if this gets delayed too much would be to seek community endorsement for flipping the switch via the blacklist without WMF support. I think we are a long way from that at this point, but it is still an option if the current effort falls apart because of funding. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You won't need community endorsement. With my admin access I'll just be bold and do it myself. I'll just need someone with some technical knowledge to walk me through it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, I agree: using the 2011 consensus is a good way to go. On a different NPP point (question for either Kudpung or TonyBallioni), I've come across pages in the curation feed that have already been tagged but not marked as reviewed by other editors. These tags are quite often incorrect and the users don't have the patroller right. It's by no means unbearable but it's just something I've noticed. DrStrauss talk 17:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DrStrauss, this was part of the reason Kudpung led the initiative to institute the NPR user right. All pages, even if already tagged, must be reviewed by a reviewer who has the right. There are some user warning templates at WP:NPPC you can use to encourage people to get involved with other tasks. I usually have a boilerplate text that I use to send people to do countervandalism work rather than the templates, but I have used them in the past when users have been incompetent to the point where I think a template warning is the only way to get their attention. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DrStrauss, insisting in allowing everyone and his dog to patroll new pages is, IMO, a gross oversight on the part of the community. Maintenance tasks are a magnet to children and inexperienced users, as any admin who has worked at PERM know only too well. The problem of allowing them to do this is that although their patrols are double checked by an accredited reviewer, the damage is already done and there is no way we can force these people to read the instructions. Run an edit summary search and see how many times 'NPP' figures in my edit summaries; that's the number of times I've chased incompetent individuals away from NPP - it's in the hundreds. The argument used to allow these people was 'anyone can edit', and enough of them used it to topple that part of the RfC. But it's a load of BS, there are dozens of places on Wikipedia where not everyone can edit. If the 430 reviewers maintain their current cadence (although 90% of the reviewing is only done by about 10 reviewers), the backlog will be gone in about 6 months, proving that we don't need the services of beginners who don't even qualify for the tools to combat vandalism. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kudpung: I agree, while I am a relatively "new" new page reviewer I was quite active before my break and I'm hoping to get back into the swing of it now! DrStrauss talk 11:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Thank you so much for your understanding and good humor when I butted in to edit your DYK hook on the main page. I would normally have expected resistance, and I certainly expected some discussion, but I was happy when you agreed with the change. I was even more impressed that you went above and beyond to look into the hook that I had in the same DYK set, and you identified a possible mistake in the source used for the hook. It's hard for me to believe I could point out an issue with someone's DYK hook, only for them to point out a potential issue with mine, and for that to not feel retaliatory, but you managed it. Great job—this kind of coworking is what Wikipedia needs more of. I am extremely unfamiliar with Catholicism, so it would be easy for me to make that kind of mistake, and I appreciate you looking into it yourself, as well as pointing it out to me so I could ask other editors who might be more knowledgeable to look into it as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare, probably the nicest note I've received on my talk page in a while. Feel free to point out my errors anytime :) TonyBallioni (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

papal conclaves

Thank you for qulity articles about papal conclaves, such as Papal conclave, 1724, for starting Tallinn Central Library and rewriting Martyrs of Laos, for dealing with deletions, fighting vandalism, page moves, welcoming new users, for serving more than ten years, - Tony, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda Arendt, this is much appreciated! Someone else rewrote my stub for the Martyrs of Laos (I'm pretty awful at anything post-1750), but I'll claim the credit if it makes me precious ;-). TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed ;) - hope you enjoy the prize by the cabal of the outcasts! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references

I don't know how to add references. Every time I try it looks weird. Also, If I insert them in the conservation status area, it changes the status. STUPID DIFFICULT REFERENCE ADDING! I AM SO MAD!

Pancakes654 12:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakes654 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Pancakes654, when editing the article there should be a button that says "cite" on the top toolbar. You can put the information for citations there and it will generate it for you. Hope this is helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tony, I have not been commissioned to write these pages, I am a former intern for the company. I've also never had a wikipedia account before this one. With respect to your claim that Strategic Marketing is of questionable notability, I don't believe that it is true. Like I said in my response to your A7 flag, Strategic Marketing is the advertising agency behind the campaigns of well known brands like Stanley Steemer and EmbroidMe, which are well known brands. Because Strategic Marketing is responsible for that name recognition, I believe that it is a notable brand in its own right. (I'm unclear as to what the standard practices are for responding to other users so this same response is on your talk page and mine.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TeMurphy (talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TeMurphy, thank you for your response. I did not tag it for A7, that was another editor. I took it to Articles for deletion, where we will discuss its notability. Since notability is not inherited, I believe it should be deleted for not meeting our notability guidelines when considered in light of our guideline for companies. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello TonyBallioni, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending this out, Tony. I have a question regarding the wording of script #2. User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through Should there be more words after "through", like, "through a copyvio detector"? Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 12:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I noticed that about 30 minutes after I sent it. I didn't see it in the preview (probably because when I spend too much time writing something, I read what I think I said in preview). Next time I'll come back 30 minutes after drafting and check for mistakes. Not really anything I can do now, and if definitely isn't worth sending a new message. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Silightly off-topic but do you have any idea what actally happened to CorenSearchBot and why, if Coren is no longer maintaining it, nothing new has been created to replace it? I am 100% sure that there is no systematic automatic checking of new articles taking place and that as a consequence a lot of COPYVIOS are slipping through. The main culprits of copyvio are or course the spammers, and they are the people we need to smoke out. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, EranBot is the basis of Copypatrol and I know does an excellent job of catching things added after the initial revision creating a page. Whenever I work in CopyPatrol I do see less new creations than I would expect. This is why on an individual level I run every new page I see through Earwig and remind others that RD1 is generally neccesary anytime copyvio is removed. I think Eran/ערן said when you last brought it up that he would look into what is happening with new pages and the bot. I'm also pinging MusikAnimal since he is familiar with the CopyPatrol software. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Hello customer support team, First of all, i would like to thank you in advance for your help and support Themouadrahali (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah right. See contribs. — fortunavelut luna 14:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I had come to the same conclusion. Though now they appear to be on a second round of barnstars. I think this is worthy of some new catchy title Barntrolling might work, but I'm open to other suggestions. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ctenitis pallatangana

I found a way to add a reference on Ctenitis pallatangana. So, I am going to try to delete that template message. I will tell you if I can't delete it.

Pancakes654 00:33, 16 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pancakes654 (talk • contribs)

ACTRIAL-RfC

You do realise of course, that whether it was implemented or not, the consensus to roll out the experiment no more needs re-debating than any other policy or software that ever reached a consensus. Or are people like Majora and Godsy going to insist that we redebate BLPPROD, PROD, AfD, and all the CSD criteria? Probably not, but without ACTRIAL results enabling us to find solutions for the future, Wikipedia will degenerate into a slum of spam, adverts, hoaxes, attack pages and general vandalism, and it's happening already. It rather surprises me coming from Majora, a scientist and such a valiant defender of the very copyright rules our experiment will enable us to protect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, we're in agreement. I also have to agree with Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi that posting at Jimbo talk was non-ideal: the place is worse than ANI in many ways. At least the conversation there for the most part is showing that while there are still some objectors, the community is still behind this and most don't think an RfC was neccesary. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:58, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a different note: it's all gone quiet in the San Francisco stable. I rather fear that not much will be done during the run up to Wikimania. They'll be discussing the conference for weeks when they get back, and and then they will be working on their Christmas wish list again. Let's not forget that Danny has offered "We could start working on the UI mechanism before we get approval on the research funding, so we don't have to wait until then." and also reiterated by Kaldari with "...we can probably finish either of them before we have our data analyst (since that likely won't happen until late August)" , so while I think we ought to hold them to that, I suggest we start in earnest checking through my old drafts of the interface messages that need changing and any php that's built into them, selecting the best local script to prevent new users from creating in mainspace, and tweaking whatever is necessary for the AfC part and the Wizard. Which means we need to get a team together and get working with Danny's people. Scottywong and I had it all ready to go and it's all on the ACTRIAL main page. Perhaps you could have a word with Danny, and find out where they're at.

Most importantly Doc James has clearly stated that he looks forward to ACTRIAL as 'exciting news' and underlines the need for investing in software development. If you are going to Montreal, you could probably get them all round a table like I did the vice CEO and the devs in Hong Kong and I could join you over Skype. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, unfortunately I won't be going to Montreal: too much going on professionally that I don't think I can make the trip. I'll post on Horn's en.wiki talk page and see what the status is. I agree that we should be prepared to go about this through the blacklist if need be. I'm not sure who the best person to work with on that is. I can start reviewing the prompts and drafts later this week. We can post at NPPAFC and try to get some more eyes as well. I also have a few thoughts on people who might be interested.
Yes, I was going to post a thank you note on Doc James' wall today. It is good for morale to see that one of our community nominated board members supporting ACTRIAL. As I have said to WMF staffers and during the en.wiki 2nd round of strategic plan consultations, I see ACTRIAL as a critical component of meeting the WMF's strategic vision of being the most trusted source of knowledge by 2030. Recognition of its importance by a board member goes a long way in my mind of showing that we aren't in fact trying to do anything other than help Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

confused face icon Just curious... are you our new NPP leader, oh great one? I vaguely remember Kudz saying he was retiring from that position (he obviously forgot that one can never leave Hotel NPP) and I've lost track of who took his place. You appear to be the obvious choice. Atsme📞📧 22:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, no, haha. Robert McClenon and Jbhunley are the coordinators with Kudpung as coordinator emeritus. I've been working very closely with Kudpung on the NPPAFC/ACTRIAL project and sent out the recent newsletter because by virtue of that I know too much of the goings on with the project/had the technical capability to do so because Kudpung granted me the flag to help out with the work group. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that anyone can help out with projects they care about. Getting ACTRIAL implemented is in my mind one of the most important things we can do for the project, so I've been taking on a large role with that :) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NPP is a mess and you just can't kill the beast. Too many detractors with their steely knives. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I have been off of Wikipedia for several months due to RL. I hope to be back before the end of summer but it depends on things calming down on the one hand and PT on the other. Jbh Talk 21:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPR newsletter tip

As a former professional online activist, it leapt out at me that "The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages" not being a link to the backlog is a missed opportunity to generate immediate action. My instinct was to click it and go do a couple of NPRs since I have a few minutes to spare.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, excellent point. Thanks for the message. Also, for what its worth, its always very nice seeing a smiling emoji in your signature. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:01, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it renders properly as a whiskery cat, as intended. I tested a bunch of variants of it (on a Mac), but this one uses some Unicode that might not be universal even in 2017. No one's groused at me about it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I just did about a dozen reviews, mostly with an eye to telling authors how to repair them, with more INDY sources. None of the subjects were obvious deletion candidates. First NPR I've done in a while, and I was surprised how far back the backlog goes. I guess NPP catches most of the total crap, and NPR takes more careful review.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NPR is the user right for marking something reviewed. Its all part of the same project. The spam and crap gets most of the attention, but there actually is quite a need to improve the articles that should be included in the encyclopedia. Helping out with that it would be greatly appreciated. I try to do it for bishops because I tend to be halfway decent about getting them in line with policy and you don't have too many people who know how to find sourcing on the Capuchin bishop who funded the translation of the Bible into Kashmiri. Also, I was referring to the emoji, but I also see the cat now. It is quite nice. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of RM

I converted your technical request into a RM with your rationale as the nominating statement. If you want to add more, you can do so at Talk:List of accolades received by La La Land (film). It is currently a featured list and the main article has (film), so any change is likely to be controversial and should be discussed. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I can see why you would hesitate to move this page, so I will explain more on the move request. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:6811:9BCC:B583:E38A (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for the kind thoughts. I hope you have a good weekend also. It would be nice to have others recognize the sheer effort and hours upon hours I've put in to save pages on Wikipedia, rather than get accused with bullshit like promotion or spam. Sagecandor (talk) 23:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPR

It was bad enough before we introduced the New Page Rewiewer group. IN the last few days the backlog has dropped somewhat (now down to 16295), but at considerable detriment to quality.(Wrong CSD criteria, tagging innocuous nascent articles within minutes, etc.). I warned that reviewing drives are not necessarily conducive to achieving the best goals for Wikipedia, and we've seen the problems associated withe drives at AfC. Since I retired from micromanaging NPP/NPR nearly six months ago, I spend a lot of time simply doing what can at the coal face, and frankly, from what I'm seeing, I feel that my earlier efforts have been wasted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, this had been my fear. I've been distracted by other things the last few days but at some point intended to spot check. I hadn't noticed any AWB tag spamming for minor issues, which from my anecdotal experience has typically occurred around the same time as a dip in the backlog. I think we're in a tough spot here and am not exactly sure the best way forward. I would probably oppose announcing a drive via the newsletter again. I think eventually the backlog will rise again, possibly before ACTRIAL is implemented. That is part of the reason that a longer trial is necessary, to control for the flux. I have some pings I need to answer over on that page, but I'm tired now and will do so in the morning. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the next newsletter should bring to mind the rapid tagging of articles, the failure to recognise serious serial BLP vandalism, hoaxes and spam, and the general incorrect use of CSD criteria. In terms of quality of patrolling, we're back to square one with still even stronger arguments to roll out ACTRIAL, which in spite of their placating posts, the WMF aren't really advancing as fast as they could. I'm assured by my webmaster (a genuine professional programmer who has been around since the dawn of desktop computers) that it's all really a matter of just a few days for one coder working with one communication expert together. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Dear Tony, thank you for making your comments concerning the recent page i created, Kovin fortress. I have taken note of some things that needed updating, and figured it was the sources/references. I have submitted the page for a new review after adding a few sources. Also, i have originally linked the page with the existing pages in Serbian and Bosnian. Lazarus 92 (talk) 10:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lazarus 92, someone else moved it from draft back to being an article. If I had been online when you posted here, I would have as well. Happy editing. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

File:New Zealand TW-17.svg Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC) [reply]
I recommend with a Last Word
Cullen328, you are far too kind. The fact that you thanked the people who supported your record setting RFA says a lot: it takes effort to do that. I typically prefer to give a bottle of green chartreuse as an award over a barnstar when the accomplishment is momentous, but I feel that you probably deserve more. Luckily, the Commons liquor store has twelve bottles available, so you might as well get the lot :) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


2E Bureau

Dear Tony, i started create page regarding of 2e Bureau, without any commercial context. Is it possible to continue to write about this bureau if i write more information about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TanyaFokina (talk • contribs) 14:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TanyaFokina, you are free to edit the article more or contribute to the deletion discussion, but the outcome will likely hinge on whether there was coverage of this firm in enough independent reliable secondary source to meet our standards on notability for businesses. Right now, I don't see any based on my search. Also, do you have any relationship with the firm in question or were you paid to write the article for them? If you were paid, as a condition for using this website, the Wikimedia Foundation requires that you disclose this. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Tony, nobody paid me for this. I just found the story of this bureau is interesting and unique, and was trying to put the article here. If you could help me please and explain me what exactly i need for writing right article, i will be really appreciate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TanyaFokina (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response, {{u|TanyaFokina}. The article needs to demonstrate that the subject is covered in-depth by reliable, independent, secondary sources (major newspapers, books, etc.) This coverage should not be based on press releases. Hope that is helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DRV on Tony Chang

Thanks for the heads up Tony. And of course I was never consulted, I'll have a look later. Alex ShihTalk 17:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long Time

Dear TonyBallioni, heard from you after a long time. Thank you for the help. Just wanted to request you to review my articles and suggest the improvements. Missed you. Jeromeenriquez (talk) 15:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tomwsulcer

Tony, there's nothing wrong with adding accounts to the SPI. Indeed, I appreciate all your hard work. However, in the future, if a CU is already checking as I was here, please ping me when you add them. Otherwise, I don't find about it until I'm done, or at least I thought I was done. This was a very complicated check, making it that much more frustrating for me to integrate new accounts into the check. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I'm sorry for that: I thought that pinging might interrupt your work, which is why I didn't do it. Turns out the opposite is the case. Thank you for all your hard work on this: I expected this would be probably one of the harder ones and am very appreciative all the work you do. Hopefully I won't need to file one as complicated as this in the future, but should I ever, I will be sure to follow your advice. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely understandable. Normally I hate being interrupted when I'm in the middle of a check, either by a ping or a post to my Talk page. Then there are the editors that make several edits in a row to my Talk page to make the post perfect, each time interrupting me. Not their fault, of course, I just get very focused and can't stand that orange banner. That said, this is an exception when the interruption helps me.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Bbb23, since this is the first time I've ever dealt with an SPI that was this complicated, if I come across articles created that look as a behavioral match to Group 1, what would be the appropriate title to file the SPI under? Sorry for further pestering of you. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Depends. Something has to happen to that case so it no longer shows Tomwsulcer as the master, but that may not happen quickly because it requires some decision making on the part of a clerk. Once that happens, though, it should be obvious to you what case to reopen. Until that happens, I'd add accounts to the existing case, arguing they relate to Group 1 and why.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For defending against a SOCKFARM

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For starting an SPI that helped take down 32 ne'er-do-wells (only one of which I was aware). Your efforts stopped these registered accounts from turning this wiki into an advertising platform. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chris troutman, thanks. This means a lot. The cleanup here is not going to be fun. I'll probably post on COIN once a clerk closes the SPI and moves it to a correct name to get more eyes looking at the articles. I'm much better at dealing with the completely obvious cases of non-notable spam than the ones that require deliberation, which a lot of these seem to be. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTCOMESBASED

I have fixed the year in the "Outcomes" section you added to WP:ATA. It should be 2017, not 2317. The latter is 3 centuries into the future. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 22:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GeoffreyT2000, thanks, in the future, you don't have to notify me when you fix my typos. I tend to rewrite things after I type them once and then when I preview them I read what I think I wrote, so I am the king of the stray word or character. I'm very appreciative when others fix them. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was intentional and not a typo. When using examples I tend to make ridiculous numbers so people won't think its being mimicked off of an actual user. If you prefer to change it, thats fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TonyBallioni is not the king of the stray word or character. I am. Particularly double white space between words due to too many thumbs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are many of us Wikipedians who are the oligarchs of typos if you will. On a less humourous note Kudpung, you may be interested in the outcome of the SPI linked above at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Four_new_sock_farms. I have a bad suspicion that whomever is behind the largest group may be Orangemoodyesque, but that with all the VPNs and proxies we will never be able to prove it when combined with stale accounts. Looking through the contribs of the articles you see similar accounts dating back to pre-2010. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock pages

They are obviously commissioned works and I'm worried we have another OrangeMoody on our hands. Don't bother PRODing them unless they have been significantly expanded by other editors (this does not include minor clean ups, adding cats, or even removal of promotional prose). Tag them G5. I'll make sure they are deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, check COIN, I've tagged as G5 a few. Others PRODed. I'll go through again in a few. They follow a pretty similar pattern in terms of page creations and are very obvious behaviorally. The nasty part about these ones is that they aren't just promotional. They are BLP defamers as well (see Khamis Al-Khanjar, which was a cleverly done hitjob masked as a promotional piece). They also try to game our deletion system to delete pages of individuals who have negative information about them that got them on Wikipedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going through the contribs histories of all the blocked socks and when I come across an N for 'created' I summarily delete the page G5. At this level of socking and paid editing I'm merciless and I'm not bothering to look if any pages can be saved. They've been paid for, and the clients are just as guilty as the paid editors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know why was user:DemoTent not blocked at the SPI? I see a clear case of involveent at Salient Partners whch has obviously been paid for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, Bbb23, determined that it was stale. I agree that behaviorally it is a match. I'm currently updating the SPI with potential proxies that intersect on one of the articles. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another page that's come up: Terra Firma Capital Partners. Obviously paid and you'll find your socks in it. You might not be able to get it deleted, but click on the history to see 500, scan down the ES, and some things will light up like a halogen bulb and lead to others. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Check out user:Fundwatcher and see what intersects. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are sure as heck a sock of RedmondKane . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then user:Mbfn comes to light. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung, we edit conflict but I updated: If you randomly go through the contributions of the confirmed group 1 accounts and look through the page histories you will see SPAs and other promotional accounts that fit the behavior patten and are now abandoned dating back to 2009. Whether they are the same group or if the firms just have been hiring different editors to work their pages over the years I am not sure. Regardless, I am convinced that any page that has been edited by the confirmed group 1 accounts were either targeted for promotion, deletion, or some form of attack against a competitor. Re: the new accounts you found: if they are not stale, definitely add them to the SPI. If they are stale, CU can't really do anything. I'm not sure the procedure on blocking stale socks on behavioral evidence. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stale is stale, admittedly, but if you look at this, which this investigation has led me to, all the pages have obviously been paid for, and the user has moved on to a new, more recent account, and probably more socks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung, if this is actually a thing that has been going on for almost a decade, which I do think is a possibility given some of the accounts I saw editing when I was poking around before filing the initial report, that could be the initial master. I'm pinging @KrakatoaKatie, GeneralizationsAreBad, and Doc James: so they're aware of that account since all three have been involved with this cleanup. I'm going to bed now: up way too late. This is a mess. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind also that all those redirects could be a deliberate self-'soft' delete to avoid detection and to 'un'redirect them later when no one is watching. AFAIK, unredirected pages don't show in the NPP feed. It's been done before. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung:--AFAIK, un-redirected pages re-appear at the NPP feed.(Check the oldest two/three articles at NPP queue.That's the case with them--Some editor recently choose to un-redirect it!)That's what my limited experience says!But I'm a bit unsure if both the redirection and un-redirection are done by the creator. Winged Blades Godric 09:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They do now (it's how Hitler becomes a new page on occasion). They didn't when those redirects were created. It's within the last year or two if I remember. Yes, I'm an insomniac who had too much coffee too close to bed. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know. They are supposed to but I wasn't sure if it was working already. We've been asking for so many tweaks lately and hoping for more, that I can lose track sometimes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about it all?

Well, the answer is to do something. There are fractured conversations going on everywhere at the moment, particularly here about raising the bar for notability (organisations). But what absolutely amazes me is that what I thought was part of the same thread was actually nearly two years ago! (That's how the time flies when you get to my age) with some actually very good suggestions from Risker too. What's more amazing is that apart from rolling out some qualifications for NPP, in true Wikipedia tradition absolutely nothing has been done. It's all there, it needs a bit of collating and refining, but it's almost ready for RfC. It was just before you became truly active, but do find a comfy chair, and a mug of tea, and take an hour to read it - you'll do a double take, or certainly déjà vu! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kudpung, well the first step is to clean up after the RedmondKane (Group 1) socks and see how far back we can make a case behaviorally. They have a bad habit of intersecting once or twice on articles and I'm confident going through their contributions will lead us to more that CU was unable to find because of being stale. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi is quite good at finding spam in obscure places on Wikipedia. He'd certainly be helpful in reviewing this mess if he were willing ;). I also think that going forward creating an edit filter for "article creation by user with less than 1000 edits that is more than 2000 bytes" would help us track commissioned works more easily. I'm not sure if is possible, but its an idea.
    The current conversation on the NCORP talk page is going nowhere fast. I'll read the previous conversation in a bit after I do more work on the group 1 socks. I'll say this again: what a mess. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Tony. I've always regretted that my sock-smeller pursuivancy wasn't more heightened, but, if I can help at all, of course: As the fella says, 'I hate that goddam Barzini' (Barzini = paid editing). But I think the filter that Tony suggests would do wonders against paid editing. As I may have mentioned before- this, this and this] are today's candidatse- the paid editor comes in low and fast- creates a 'perfect' (nothing to draw attention of NPR, for example), and pefectly formed article from scratch, in just a few edits, probably into draft space (seeing it, perhaps, as a poorly guarded backdoor?), then sliiiides it into mainspace, and there you have it. Never see them again.
But- Tony's filter would either catch them out, or slow them down to the extent it might become unprofitable. See- the way around the TonyFilter would be to make a load of edits after account creation as a 'normal' editor. Let a period of time pass, and then start creating the article, but very bit-by-bit- take another fifty edits to do so. That way, they would effectively look natural. But that would be anathema to our paid editor, wouldn't it, because time is money etc, and his client doesn't want to wait three months, while he wants to be doing five jobs a week, not in six months. I did wonder whether they factored in clever stuff to avoid CU- travelling distances, for example, in order to WP:BEANS; but frankly, I think that would just eat into a profit margin. Even without the unmagical pixy dust, they know that writing a 'perfect article' first time is unlikely to be accepted as a behavioural trait of a sock- like those two above. So techevidence might still get them. (Apologies for the waffle) — fortunavelut luna 14:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems is that there are New Page Reviewers and Admins among the paid editors who patrol the pages they have created with one of their socks. One possible solution would be that any new pages caught in such a filter would have to be patrolled by two patrollers. Anyway, keep your G5 tags coming. And check these out for intersections and tag any pages and images in their histories with an N:
  • TICorbit
  • ContainerPat
and
There are Admins involved. Wow. Incredible. I've seen a few deny it, but-! Anyway, thanks, Kudpung- by the way, what's N? — fortunavelut luna 15:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are also admins going around as we speak undoing our G5s. If Tomwsulcer is the sockmaster, why hasn't he been blocked? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
N means newly created page or talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, i know that, I was imprecise- the question, actually should have been, 'How do we mark pages as new', as I thought the software did it?
Kudpung: CU confirmed that he was not the sockmaster: I was wrong in connecting it to him behaviorally. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CUs are not necessarily wrong, but they can sometimes not be right. CU is only a technical match, and not a very precise one at that - I have better systems on my own corporate web site. Our CUs are limited, as we all are, by having to pay service to what are fast becoming some antiquated idealistic rules. I don't know what's worst, a) blocking paid spammers and deleting their paid-for articles b) simply allowing a free-for-all for paid advocacy - which is tantamount to what we currently have, or c) accepting a few errors and some slight collateral damage. After all, nothing on Wikipedia is irreversible, and when you've just spent 17 hours on a case like this, you invested a lot into keeping this encyclopedia clean in the knowlegd that the admin who may have an impeccable record may still go the Wifione or Pastor Theo route. So its 23:20 and I'm off to bed.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
Thanks for your efforts to keep WP less full of spam. And a little more independent from the sources we write about. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James, thank you. It means a lot. I know you are very busy so sorry if my pings were annoying: I did want to keep you in the loop though since you have helped with some of this mess. If you are interested and look at the link I posted at Kudpung's talk, you'll see the editor interaction analysis between the old account he discovered last night and the confirmed socks. I haven't done a full analysis, but you have creations with overlap dating back to 2010. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested on your comment at my RfB

I'm taking this here because I don't want to "badger" you in any way, I just wanted a clarification. In your !vote you wrote that you view my answer to your Q18 as an improper weighting of things near the end and an assumption that people who supported at first are incapable of changing their mind. I don't think that fits my answer really because my example was one in which the supporters were capable of changing their minds but simply unable to do so because they did not get the necessary information that would definitely have changed their minds in time (because they were offline or didn't check the RfA again). Of course a crat shouldn't presume that people able to change their !vote were not capable of doing so but that was not what I thought I was saying and certainly not what I meant to say. I'm not expecting you to change your mind but I'd like a more detailed explanation (if possible) why you think in this extreme example crats shouldn't be allowed to assume that supporters would have switched if they had the chance to do so. Regards SoWhy 18:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SoWhy, sure, as you know, we don't often agree, but I do hope you know that I really do like you, and I hope I am always civil and agreeable even when we are on different "sides". I think one of my issues was that the assumption that people would always have changed if they know something that is problematic. Yes, some would likely, but others could very easily stay support because of not believing the info, etc. If it was a timing issue, then I think there might be justification in extending the opportunity to allow people more time to switch, but that absent indication from the party, we must assume that they would be fine with their !vote being in support. If you look at your current RfB while some people have switched because of WJBScribe and Maxim's opinions, others have actually come back to reiterate their support. If a bunch of people had begun to fall off at the end because of some information that they found over the pale about you, I don't think it would be fair to close it unsuccessful.
Katie's analysis reminded me of your double relist of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deeksha Center for Learning PU College (DCFL). It was an AfD that had a clear quorum and was relatively uncontroversial. You seemed to assume that no one had considered the possibility of redirecting. I actually agreed with you, as I almost always do on that type of school article, but I don't think it is okay to make assumptions about what the participants did and didn't consider.
In my case, my two RfA criteria are simple: 1) Don't be a jerk. 2) Have a clue. Because of this, I almost always !vote early at any RfA. If it turned out that the user had been a fresh start account over issues with POV warring 5 years ago, and they had concealed it but it was within policy and this came out in the last 24 hours of an RfA, depending on how well they met my criteria, I very well might not care at all. If it was a user like FIM (who really does need to run for RfA) who had no issues since the clean start and wasn't under sanctions, I would happily stay supporting. If it was someone who was a bit of a jerk, I would probably switch, but it depends.
I realize that this is a bit different than your vandalism issue, but I also consider it to be a much more likely scenario. Perhaps I would have been better to phrase it that SoWhy seems to assume that all editors who supported early on would change their minds given damaging information and that since they are incapable of doing it because of time, its fine to weight their !vote less on this assumption. If that seems better, I would be more than happy to strike and rephrase. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right back at you! Despite our philosophical differences, we agree more often than you think.
You are correct with the extending possibility. I forgot that this is an option, probably because I cannot remember a single time this actually happened. I had tried to construct a scenario were the information was completely believable and so damning that everyone certainly would have switched but your point is a good one and you are probably correct. I think I have to reconsider my answer to Q18 (not for you or Katie but for myself because such scenarios are not limited to RfX).
As for the AFD relist you mention, there is unfortunately some evidence that a number of people don't consider WP:ATD when !voting. There seems to be a bit of a black-or-white approach to deletion discussions these days which is why I think it's helpful to remind people that other alternatives exist and often enough !voters will actually change their !votes. Iridescent prominently mentioned IAR in the discussion and I think that does include pointing out such alternatives in support of the first pillar, i.e. writing an encyclopedia.
Didn't know FIM was a "clean start" editor, interesting. You are correct that he should run for admin soon. On that we can agree Regards SoWhy 19:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy, I'm traveling now so can't respond better but did want to clarify that I wasn't saying FIM was a clean start editor. Just that if he was and the old account had non-sanctions related issues, I wouldn't give a damn at RfA. Pure hypothetical. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Just dropping in to say a) thanks for helping kick-start WP:ACTRIAL again; I don't really have much to say other than I hope it all works and b) you and FIM should be admins. If you don't ask for the bit, Mr. Fuzzybottom will come looking and forcibly give it to you ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:42, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, Ritchie333 thanks for the kind words. My standard response to b) anytime someone tells me that being that my first goal on WP currently is getting ACTRIAL up and running. Once that happens I'll think about standing for the bit (whilst ignoring ORCP if I do per my recent critique of it ) Re: Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I think we can make adminship like infant baptisms and medieval ordinations. Consent of the receipient not being needed ;-) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking roundabout November, just in time for Thanksgiving, of doing a job lot of RfAs - you, FIM, Megalibrarygirl, wiae and (what the heck), Timothyjosephwood. Safety in numbers. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Thanks for the thought Ritchie, but I still have doubts that I'd pass. I will probably always think that more admins are better than less, since that guards against admins becoming backlog clearing bots rather than the material contributors that they were before they got the mop, who occasionally contribute in areas they used to. But at this point the mop would probably just be a distraction. Personally, right now my objective is to reach extended confirmed on a Wikipedia the language for which I don't speak. I'm almost halfway there on de.wiki. It's a stupid arbitrary goal, but I like the idea of it, and I've made at least one friend I can barely communicate with in the process. TimothyJosephWood 22:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TJW, we will add you to the list of forcible adminships with FIM. I'll consult wit Mrfuzzybottom after his RfB. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we're going to have a choice in the matter, Timothyjosephwood! LOL Ritchie333 is on the case. ;) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any update?

Hi,

It seems like the ACTRIAL discussion is going on at five different locations now. I've drawn together what conclusions I can but information at different locations contradicts or at last predates information at new locations. As you and Kudpung are more in-tune with the whole business, I just thought I'd check if I'd missed anything: my current understanding is that the WMF is doing something Phabricator-related but I'm not sure if that's the latest on the progress.

Thanks,

DrStrauss talk 13:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ACTRIAL and its talk page are now the places for the active discussion. The data analyst comes on as a contractor on Monday and Horn is going to ask the WMF if they can borrow a graphic designer from another team to make the landing page not look like Windows 98. I'll poke them again on Monday to get an idea for a start date and further advocate for a 6 month trial period. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Hopefully it'll be this year :P DrStrauss talk 18:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Freidman

I removed the proposed deletion template from Gene Freidman. It looks like the article started out as a paid puff piece, but I have improved it since then. Unfortunately for Freidman, almost all of the coverage in reliable sources is negative. I actually left out a fair amount because there seem to be so many lawsuits and complaints against him. Sometimes being neutral means that an article will be negative. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

World's Lamest Critic, I've sent it to AfD per its origins and BLP1E: borderline notable individuals who were created by a sock farm that created both promotional articles and coatrack articles should be nuked. I would want it deleted anyway under WP:N. We'll see what the community decides, but as Rtichie333 above will tell you, I'm personally not particularly known for wanting to rescue BLP violations, especially when created by a sock farm that required me to get a CU to nuke an article under G5 for unsubstantiated terrorism claims combined with promotionalism. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind me saying so, I think your concern about that sockfarm has clouded your judgment. First you insinuated that I was somehow involved because I objected to an invalid WP:G5 template, then you started making notability claims about someone with decades of press coverage. Please try to be objective. I think we're both working towards the same goal. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty level-headed, or at least I have been told so. I also try to be pretty objective. An account with a low edit count removing an arguably valid G5 template does raise questions. I've never seen you before and our first interactions have been on articles created by this sock farm that has a particularly nasty habit of creating BLP violations laced within promotion. That's why I pointed it out. I do my best to AGF, and on this farm have even been chided by some for notwanting to move faster. I am going to raise questions though, which I think is fair. Re: G5, as I said on Godric's talk page to you, there is disagreement in our admin corps about that. It deserves review. Re: Gene Freidman, I don't find consistent coverage before he was sued in 2015. I did an archives search back until 2000. He's low profile under our BLP policy and material about allegations should be removed until proven otherwise. Considering that the English Wikipedia is one of the most significant websites in the world, and yes, I do like to keep information about crimes that have yet to be proven out of an otherwise non-notable biography. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G5 is very clear. There should be no disagreement among admins. You might be interested in this. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:15, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia operates on consensus, which means a lot of our policy applications are based on commonly accepted practice. In terms of G5, at least one arbitrator, a check user, one of our most respected admins, a member-elect of the BoT, and many experienced editors believe that we should use commonsense and realize that for massive sock farms with stale accounts dating back to pre-2010, there is almost certainly a blocked or banned user. I'm sure you could find at least one member of each of those groups that I just quoted do the opposite. That's fine, because Wikipedia has no firm rules and we trust both editors and administrators to use their judgement within community accepted norms to improve this project. That means a four eye review in areas where there could be disagreement, such as CSD.
Re: that deletion request, I'll mark it for speedy on commons. Its a clear copyvio. No need for discussion over there. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:25, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)--That was one of the best commentary, regarding the G5-matter(s).You nailed it.Winged Blades Godric 13:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: user talk:DaringDonna. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, something to add to your armoury of arguments for G5 and to quote , especially when the tags have been removed by inexperienced users: As for creation by a banned editor, there are a whole range of possible reasons.The rule is that we delete unless some regular experienced editor takes responsibility. One doesn't argue lightly with DGG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

I've replied to World's Lamest Critic's post on my tp. Despite your excellent explanation above, he still just does not appear to get it. I hope he's not going to be so persistent as to train wreck the serious investigations that are on-going. I've suggested he find something simpler to do until he finds his feet proper. I would hate to have to put such a keen new user under sanctions to prevent any disruption. (t.i.c). I'd rather he left the problem to experienced editors than become part of the problem himself. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

I don't think we've ever talked directly, but I've always found your commentary on various talk pages or debates to be well-reasoned and helpful. It's nice to know the feeling was reciprocated :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Premeditated Chaos, yes, thank you for your kind words. Something I didn't put in the barnstar is that every time I visit your user page, it inspires me to go through 2009 orphans in search of the ones that are 100% failures of WP:V and PROD them. It reminds me of when I started on WP (when less edits were more than they were now) 10 years ago, in both good and bad ways :) TonyBallioni (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ohh, that is the biggest possible compliment, thanks! I love finding out that other people are in there with me slowly chipping away at it :) It's just crazy what you find in there. Notable stuff that's never been unstubbed, copyvios untouched for 10+ years...I don't know, it's a bit like checking the bargain bin, you have no idea what you're going to run across. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor newsletter fix

Hi Tony. I couldn't find the template used for the NPP newsletter, but if you have access, could you please change "<hr>" to "<hr />", as the lack of the endtag means that edit coloration continues on. Thanks, ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Panzer Ace rename

Hi- I just want to make sure I'm not out of line on discussing the Panzer Ace renaming- I actually am working on an edit of the "Dog" page and I don't want trouble. How does this process work? Is the discussion on the page of the "Panzer Ace" article? Thanks for your help- Jeff T.Makumbe (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makumbe, you can read over the process at WP:RM. You either Support or Oppose my proposal based on policy reasons. You can also suggest another title and explain why you think it is better. You normally bullet your reasons. The goal is to develop a formal consensus on the page name. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also- If I put in * Support can I still make comments or suggestions on the page? Or should I wait? Can I still make suggestions for edits on the page or should I start those in a new section? Thanks, Jeff TMakumbe (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makumbe, an RM is a special section to discuss what the name of the page should be. You should typically keep comments in this section to be about the name. You are free to add comments about other parts of the article in other sections. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help- JTMakumbe (talk) 05:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hello! I was digging into your contributions and logs for a while, and I really feel we need admins like you. Would you accept a nomination? --Kostas20142 (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyBallioni&oldid=793242113"