User talk:Murph9000

Murph9000

Semi-wikibreak

Circumstances within Wikipedia have lead me to choose to temporarily withdraw most of my voluntary efforts from the Wikimedia Foundation's projects. I am taking a semi-wikibreak, and may not be paying a great deal of active attention to Wikipedia for a while, but probably not 100% inactive. For help and general questions, please visit Wikipedia:Questions. For issues relating to specific articles, please use the article's talk page.

Murph9000 (talk) 18:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Thank you for your message. I've forgotten which comment I was referring to, but I do have some information which wik i may find helpful. Remaining neutral on any topic is the better way of informing those interested in learning.

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Murph9000. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot_requests#ReminderBot.
Message added 18:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Hello Murph9000. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Dimitrios Paraskevas. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks.Template:Z149 331dot (talk) 11:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@331dot: Yeah, ok, fair enough. I was a bit quick on that one. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Question from 59.88.211.93‎

• Soft skills (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have removed the link. But can you quickly provide an answer why investopedia is considered as a spam link, it looks like a dictionary and the content is good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.211.93‎ (talk 04:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the site, and it appeared to be low value content surrounded by intrusive advert spam. It did not look like a convincing WP:RS. As such, I felt that your edit did not enhance the article, both due to the unnecessary addition of a low value source and the inappropriate use of style later in the changes. Overall, I felt that the change had the characteristics of someone adding spam links to promote a website, on the balance of probabilities. I cautioned you about adding spam links to ensure that you were aware of the policies, and help you understand them. Murph9000 (talk) 05:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

thank you, by advert spams you mean pop-up ads - right.(I wont add that link any more) thank you for the response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.211.93 (talk) 05:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. It's not just popups, it's a flood of irritating dynamic stuff around their content which only serves to distract from the content itself:

• Overlays that demand to be closed before content is visible.
• Flashing nonsense in the middle of the content flow.
• Stuff which adds negative value and demands to use Adobe Flash.
• The page bouncing around unreadably as the dynamic garbage fights to load and get attention.
• Constant repeating garbage as you scroll the page.
• Massive waste of CPU, RAM, and bandwidth from non-content garbage.
• Unclear boundaries between content and adverts.

It feels like a site which is primarily dedicated to serving adverts; with content as a strictly secondary concern which takes up valuable screen space that they would prefer to fill with more adverts. I found it to be an entirely unpleasant site to view, with just endless irritations, right up there with the worst of the worst in terms of prioritising adverts over content. By spam, I mean all of the non-content garbage that assaults the eyeballs when trying to look at their content. That all adds up to me not having confidence in the academic value of their content, i.e. the value/status of it as a WP:RS.

Others might feel differently about it, and they are very welcome to express their opinions over at the article's talk page, or in their edit actions. I've given my opinions on it. If I'm wrong, and the site does actually have value, fair enough. For now, I'm taking a step back from it, to see what other opinions are out there.

Murph9000 (talk) 05:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Its over. Thank you for explaining elaborately. There would be no investopedia link references. Good day.59.88.211.93 (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for engaging in discussion over it. If you wish, and believe you have a convincing case to support the value of the link, please do feel free to make the case over at the article's talk page. I doubt you'll convince me (stranger things could happen), but I'm one voice amongst many. Wikipedia very much welcomes and encourages the editorial discussion side of things, within reasonable bounds (i.e. feel free to give it a shot there, stay within the general good conduct for discussions, and read the signs and stop before it gets silly). Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 06:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I am a Primum non nocere kind of person, and there is more than enough reasons provided by you to consider the link as a spam. Its all good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.211.93 (talk) 06:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me at VPT VarunFEB2003 07:28, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're welcome. Murph9000 (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Ha, you too are welcome! VarunFEB2003 10:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Update

Assume good faith does not mean, "disregard evidence of bad faith." The account had a disruptive username and it's editing history clearly reflected that it was a sock. It was reverted and blocked by a checkuser. [1] Jehochman ^Talk 00:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Yeah, agreed, in general, just I differ on interpretation of the specifics. The username was a poor choice certainly. The edit history could have equally reflected someone who had been IP editing for years, had finally decided to register, and was venting some free speech regarding WP. It certainly did have some appearance of being a sock, but their actions had not overtly crossed the line (short of a personal attack, spam, or other quite clear policy issues, I mostly ignore criticism of policy and the like within userspace). I feel strongly obliged to always give the benefit of the doubt at WP:TH, when there is not entirely clear evidence to the contrary.

On the other hand, I was watching their contributions quite closely, I was actually highly suspicious of them, and I would have very rapidly reverted any changes outside of personal userspace which were in the least bit disruptive. Honestly, I wasn't really surprised that my good faith turned out to be unwarranted, but I'm glad that I stuck to it and would do it again, as the simple fact was that their (somewhat odd) question at the Teahouse was their only action outside their userspace at the time, and there was not any real active disruption from them. I was quite confident that admins would take action if it proved necessary. If I had CU tools at my disposal, I would likely have judged the account quite differently. Oh yeah, and there was a small clue in my TH reply that I did have some suspicions, with my link to mens rea, which is not something I would tend to link to someone I thought was acting with entirely clean hands (unless it was actually strictly relevant).

Murph9000 (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I apologize

I apologize for my behavior over the last several minutes. I will make sure to be extra careful to think before I submit any changes if I am off of my prescribed meds, as I am right now (i have ADHD). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enormous-fart (talk • contribs) 07:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Enormous-fart: Ok, fair enough, I accept. Honestly, I wasn't even that offended, but a WP:PERSONAL is still a very bad line to cross, as you can't possibly know how it will be received. Look, you made 2 useful main article edits with good accurate summaries as your first main article space edits. If you are WP:HERE, seriously knock the silly stuff off, or it won't end well for you. You may or may not need to change your username, but that's not my call, depends on the admins, just FYI. We get a lot of new accounts who just want to cause some form of trouble, but your case is unusual with two good edits right at the start. If you are willing to stay within the policies and guidelines, edits like those two to Target and Drug user are very welcome and needed. I had to give you a big STOP final warning, as you were on a fast route to an indefinite block. So, it's up to you WP:HERE and play nice by WP:PG, or WP:NOTHERE and gone. Murph9000 (talk) 07:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Killing It

	The Help Desk National Hero Award (September 2016)
	Your work and contributions at the Help Desk are exemplary. With intelligent and most helpful inputs, you are truly this month's Help Desk National Hero :) Keep up the great work. Lourdes 02:10, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! Murph9000 (talk) 02:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Mwahahahaha!

Hello. Yes, the above editor is a sock, one that got me inconveniently autoblocked under the username MWHAHAHAHA! Probably best to take this one to SPI. Joel.Miles925 (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Joel.Miles925: Thanks. I would have filed a SPI, but I've had single account suspicions rejected there before. The username you quoted above doesn't seem to exist (not sure if you meant that as the master's name or not). So, without the username of a sockmaster, it's not clear to me how I can report it there. AIV seemed like the easier option, and the admins can initiate SPI from there if they want to. I'm open to suggestions, happy to file the correct reports. Feel free to file a SPI yourself, if you have the necessary details, I'm certainly not concerned about who gets the credit for reporting them. Murph9000 (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Maine Superior Court justices

• Maine Superior Court (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Murph9000, thanks so much for your help, I was so pleased to see the job you did on my edit about Robert L. Browne, the Maine jurist. He was a fine man and a consequential judge, and deserved to be included in the list. LoveinMaine (talk) 11:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@LoveinMaine: No problem, thanks for your contribution of the information. Murph9000 (talk) 11:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Question from GaidakM

See also: WP:HD § Article deleted

• Reason Core Security Anti-Malware (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

but why would you nominate my user page for deletion? username Maryna Gaidak (GaidakM) seems promotional? then i truly don't understand the rules as this is my real name unlike many other users' profiles — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaidakM (talk • contribs) 13:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@GaidakM: It was not the name of the page that was the problem, it was the content. Our user page guideline specifies what you may have on your user page, and promotional content is not allowed. The content looked promotional, so I tagged it as possibly meeting CSD G11. An administrator reviewed my tag, evidently agreed with it, and deleted the page. Your username is ok, the content was not ok for a user page. Murph9000 (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@Murph9000: im editing it now and hopefully will be able to get it up this time, i had a couple more security articles coming and am confused not on how to present it. but ill give it a try. thanks

Also, could you please explain how is this and many other similar articles not advertisement? i was trying to explore what was out there, looked at approved articles, read guidelines and make one of my own based on this and many other security software publications

Malwarebytes Anti-Malware — Preceding unsigned comment added by GaidakM (talk • contribs) 14:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@GaidakM: See WP:OTHERSTUFF. This is not a very good comparison, Malware Bytes has been around for much longer, and it's page is far better referenced (22 vs 5) than the Reason Core Security Anti-Malware page is. 220 of ^Borg 20:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: Thanks, good answer.

@GaidakM: 220 is quite correct, WP:OTHERSTUFF is generally not a good justification for anything on Wikipedia. There are probably many articles out there which should be deleted, and probably will do when someone notices them and initiates one of our deletion processes. Additionally, the other major issue is WP:NOTABILITY / WP:NCORP. When the quite strict notability criteria are not met by an article, it is much more likely to be viewed as promotional. If notability is not clearly demonstrated in the article (and supported by reliable sources), it is unlikely to survive for long, even if it manages to avoid immediate speedy deletion. In essence, Wikipedia only wants to have articles on the biggest and most significant products and companies, viewed from a global perspective, and is not interested in having articles on the other 80–90% of the market.

I strongly recommend not directly creating new articles, but instead use the Articles for Creation process, where you create drafts and then submit them for review. The AfC process does not remove the need to prove notability, but it does avoid rapid speedy deletion and gives you more of a chance to develop an article if you are certain that notability exists. Also, if something gets deleted, it is normally an extremely bad idea to recreate it before fully discussing it with either the deleting administrator or an experienced editor. Recreating pages immediately after they are deleted is very often seen as abuse and frequently leads to users getting blocked from editing.

If you have any more general questions, you are best to ask them at either the Help Desk or Teahouse, for a faster answer. You can ask me here, but there are usually many experienced helpers available pretty much at all hours of the day on those pages. If I get busy with something, it can take a while for me to answer non-urgent messages left here. Thanks.

Murph9000 (talk) 03:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Wow this is such a cool feature on Wikipedia, never knew! Enjoy your brownie. Not sure if you are a Brownie fan :D DataManiac (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

COI on Draft of Tim Solly

See also: Wikipedia:Help desk § Draft of Tim Solly

• Draft:Tim Solly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for your note regarding COI. I didn't realise this. I have a question/concern though... I started a page on Tim Solly but now see there will be a huge problem with conflict of interest as I am his wife. There is more than enough information on him in the media/publications/video etc to back up everything I have written and I have tried to reference everything clearly and remain completely neutral, sticking only to the facts. I'm not sure what the best way is to proceed. Shouldn't me adding all the citations override any COI? Alysolly (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

@Alysolly: Hi Aly. Thanks for openly declaring your COI. As it happens I wrote a fairly long answer for a more or less identical scenario on the Help Desk yesterday. So, rather than repeat all that again here, I'm going to point you to it. The key things are that you need to work with us to address the issue, and for you to read the following documents and follow their advice:

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

You can find yesterday's answer for this (to another editor) at Wikipedia:Help desk § Conflict of Interest. Please have a good read of all of those. If you have any followup questions (please do ask for clarification, etc), it's probably best to ask them at the Help Desk, both for a faster response and so that you can get the best possible advice from all of us. You certainly can ask me stuff directly, but it is to your benefit to get answers from all of us on the Help Desk, as the other helpers will often give additional information or add something we individually forget. Thanks.

Murph9000 (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Link

Thank you for providing the link. Is it one-d, or lower-case-lima-d? I just wish that when editors ask about a draft or an article, they would provide a link to the article, which I did, but you provided an additional service by providing a special template for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: It's L-link D-draft, similarly there's L-link A-article, and other namespace-specific linking templates. {{pagelinks|FULL PAGE NAME}} or {{ln|NAMESPACE|PAGE NAME}} are the generic ones, and the docs on those templates let you see all of the other more specific ones. I agree with you, unspecified or unlinked pages in questions is a major peeve for me (and external links to a lesser extent), so I try to regularly patrol some of the major help pages and both provide the most helpful links and encourage good practice by providing them. I find it extremely useful to be able to jump directly to talk, history, logs, etc when answering questions. If the question is extremely simple, I'll sometimes leave it as just a simple link if that's easy to see in the heading or first paragraph of the topic, but I add them for most questions that may need more in depth consideration. It's also helpful for those of us with less than perfect eyesight (I include myself in this), as dark blue links in the middle of black text are actually quite hard to see at times. Murph9000 (talk) 15:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Help No. 4

Since you're obviously online right now, and your userpage says you use MediaWiki professionally, I thought I'd contact you instead of the first guy who helped, whose userpage says he's not online much.

Could you check the "Add link to template" section at WP:HD? I asked for help doing something and I was shown what to do, but at the end I've left a note about being confused by the other user's comments regarding span and sidebar. I can do some MediaWiki work by copy/pasting and figuring out what certain things do, but I'm totally unable to follow the other user's instructions. Nyttend (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Sure, no problem. I tested the deletion URL from the HD thread on my localhost wiki (with full bureaucrat rights), and that part seems fine. The delete-reason thing is to integrate with some custom code in MediaWiki:Group-sysop.js, and you also need delete-criterion. You would add <span id="delete-reason" style="display:none">{{urlencode:[[WP:CSD#G13|G13]]: Abandoned [[Wikipedia:Articles for creation|AfC]] submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see [[WP:REFUND/G13]]}}&action=delete}}</span><span id="delete-criterion" style="display:none">G13</span> in your template, for the WP custom sysop JS to detect. The sysop JS then adjusts the standard MW UI's delete link (in the "More" menu/tab at the top (in the Vector skin)). Hopefully that explains the missing details. Basically add both the link in the displayed text of the template, and those hidden spans so that the standard "Delete" UI option is also pre-loaded with the same thing. Feel free to ask for more clarification. Murph9000 (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. But I'm still confused where those spans go. Would you add them directly to a sandbox? This revision of my sandbox is a simple copy/paste of Template:AFC submission/draft, and this revision is the result of adding the code supplied at WP:HD to the text in question. Could you just edit my sandbox by adding the spans where they belong? Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Yeah, can do. That extra HTML can basically go anywhere that's within the #if that encloses the extra text for stale drafts. I've added them in what should be a reasonable enough spot. Murph9000 (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ellipses usage

See also: MOS:ELLIPSIS

• Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unless I am reading the style guide wrong, isn't the Ellipses supposed to go between words without any spaces? Therefore, isn't this incorrect "That Mr. Trump was able to obtain the location... is testimony to [his] persistence and to his skills as a negotiator."? Thanks! NationalInterest16 (talk) 04:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Whoops, I mean shouldn't there be a space before the ellipses as well as after it? NationalInterest16 (talk) 04:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@NationalInterest16: Ahh yes, you are correct, in that situation there should be a space both before and after. I didn't spot that was missing, only that you changed from the recommended style based on the wrong style guide. I have corrected it. Thanks for spotting it. Murph9000 (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

User talk:Geekstreet

Murph, I was wondering why you found it necessary to welcome this user to Wiki? There was already a similar welcome message on the page (from July) which was also more 'specific' relating to their membership of the F1 project. The user had placed a 'to do' list above the earlier message which may have confused the issue. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Eagleash: My mistake, I simply didn't see the existing welcome, probably a combination of it having a different section heading from the usual and being down the page a bit (and being one of the plainer styles of welcome, not suggesting that is a bad thing, it just isn't quite so obvious). I've self-reverted now, on the basis of unnecessary noise, thanks for pointing it out. Murph9000 (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. The more the merrier maybe? Yes, I cut out some of the early parts of the message and the heading resulted from a message at my talk-page re the Penske F1 car which was why there was additional verbiage in the middle! Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Help desk‎

I'm not sure why, but apparently by reverting that removal of 27k worth of treads, you may have pinged everyone who commented in that content. At least, you pinged me, and it seems to be the revert that did it. This may be a glitch that needs some attention. TimothyJosephWood 19:40, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Thanks for letting me know. I had a feeling it might do something silly like that, but such is life. Murph9000 (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:RichBoi Streeter‎

I pointed this and the draft version out to the admin who salted the article. Meters (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Oops, that was fast. Already done. Meters (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Meters: Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 22:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hi - instead of semi-protecting the page you reported to RFPP, I put pending changes on it for six months since we've not tried that yet and it's not that frequently edited. I see you aren't a reviewer; if you'd like me to give you the permission so you can review the changes to this article and others, I'd be happy to do it. Just ping me if you want it. :-) Katie^talk 21:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Katie, yeah PC is a reasonable solution, it just needs something to mitigate the nonsense. Yes, please, I'll take a reviewer bit and promise to use it wisely and cautiously. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Katie^talk 21:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Murph9000. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 07:38, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• User:Mr. Stradivarius/gadgets/ConfirmRollback is what you're after. NQ-Alt (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Ramphotyphlops - Indotyphlops

I updated the taxonomy to reflect the name changes by Hedges et al 2014 Scott.Eipper (talk) 08:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Questions about Javascript and toggling annotations

See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Trials and tribulatons in Javascript.
The Transhumanist 15:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

CybrHome

Hey, remember I once proposed external link templates for portals like CybrHome, Product Hunt, Medium etc. and we had debated on the same with other editors/admins. well to my surprise instead of working on a template someone has completely deleted the page CybrHome itself. It was okay if template were not accepted but deleting the page itself for proposal of a template is not justified I think. Some person has deleted the entire article without discussion stating it as promotional. As you know I had once asked you to review that page as well as the portal and there were no issues. I firmly believe it was completely factual and written from a neutral point of view with about 15 citations. How can someone delete entire page and all my improvements made. It was my first contribution to wikipedia and its gone. Wondering if I should continue contributing or not as nothing is reliable here. I know it is not you who deleted the page but still I am writing this to you because you're the most sensible and practical admin I have seen on wikipedia. Waiting for your views, advice and insights here. DataManiac (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Want to help test advanced new tools planned for Recent Changes?

Hi Murph9000! I’m reaching out to you because our logs tell us you’re an active Twinkle new user welcomer. The WMF Collaboration team is working on new tools that we hope will be useful to people engaged in reviewing recent changes, fighting vandalism or supporting new users. We want to test them for usability with editors who are experienced with relevant wiki work. If you’re interested in helping to shape this new technology—we’d like to hear from you.

The testing should take about an hour, will be conducted online, and will take place during the next few weeks. To participate, please email dchen[at]wikimedia.org with the subject line Twinkle Welcomer. Include the following information:

• Username

• Email where we can reach you

• Your city or time zone

• Best time to talk to you

• Your primary use(s) of Twinkle or Recent Changes (e.g., reviewing recent changes, reviewing with a particular focus (specify), anti-vandalism, new-page review, welcoming new users, etc.)

Thanks!

Dchen (WMF) (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Murph9000. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Pleasedontkillmepls EditBOTtheHelpfulWikipedian (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

69.179.107.71: I am NOT vandalizing

Redirected pages should not be included in categories. Especially not 2 that redirect to the exact same place. And that Roman article is so whiny and is NOT needed. I gave a reason. Wrestlers get heat, it's their job. We dont need a whiny article talking about how everyone hates Roman, we get enough of that on wrestling forums and comment sections. I blanked it because I dont know how to nominate a page for deletion. 69.179.107.71 (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

See WP:INCOMPATIBLE, redirects of that type certainly can be in categories. As for blanking a page because you 1) don't like it, and 2) don't know how to nominate it for deletion; what you did was not acceptable and absolutely not how things are done in Wikipedia. Murph9000 (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Wwe brawl

Hi Murph9000, I just wanted to let you know that I have declined your speedy deletion request of Wwe brawl because the previous deletion was via speedy and not a deletion discussion. This is excluded from the G4 criteria - This criterion also does not cover content...that was deleted via proposed deletion or speedy deletion. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107: Ok, but are you sure about that? WWE Brawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (uppercase) was recently deleted under G4 based on the old Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WWE Brawl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Shortly after that was deleted, the same user created Wwe brawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (lowercase). I.e. I'm asserting possible G4 based on the other article with near identical name, and not based on the earlier deletions of this article. If you are certain it does not apply, that's fair enough, it just seemed like there was a reasonable chance that it would qualify if both recent creations were highly similar. Obviously, I can't see the deleted versions, so that's entirely your discretion. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 10:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise WWE Brawl existed. The lack of capitalisation should have been a red flag. I've deleted this now and the user responsible has been indefed so hopefully we won't get any more recreations, but if you notice any let me know and I can look at protecting the pages. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sarahj2107: Thanks, and no problem. FYI, I've just created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wwe90000000, as I spotted possible socking around this. I'm not asking you to get involved in the SPI, unless you want to, just to let you know it's there. Murph9000 (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Multiple reverts

I'm not trying to bite your head off here, but please be careful and check to make sure that the revision you're reverting has not been done already. Thank you. :) Gunnerfreak from Puzzle Pirates : Talk to me 13:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@SnivyFan1995: Yeah, sorry about that. It's partly an issue with Twinkle's interface, and partly a brief brain-burp from me. Your revert left some serious BLP issues[2] remaining from the IPs before the one you reverted. I was looking at longer diffs to find a clean version and used the Twinkle rollback buttons on the right instead of the left. Fortunately, I'm in the habit of analysing diffs after most reverts, so caught it. Murph9000 (talk) 13:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that from the remaining reverts, so no worries! :) As you can probably see from my contributions, I'm new here; but I'm not new to using MediaWiki, what with the experience I have on a game-related wiki. Again, thank you for covering the other issues I missed. Gunnerfreak from Puzzle Pirates : Talk to me 13:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)