User talk:Mz7

Welcome to my talk page. You can contact me here.

Replies: Sometimes, I will reply on your talk page; if I do this, I will link the diff to my reply here. However, sometimes, in order to keep the discussion in one place, I will reply here, and I'll use either {{ping}} or {{talkback}} or both to inform you of the reply.

Looking for your message? Most talk pages on Wikipedia are organized in chronological order, meaning newer messages will appear at the bottom of the page. I archive my talk page seasonally. When messages are archived, you can find them in the archive box to the right. If you want to restart the discussion, don't do so on the archive page; instead, start a new thread here.

Note: While I try not to make mistakes too often, I'm far from being an infallible editor. If you think I've made a mistake, or otherwise feel that I could have done something better, I would warmly welcome your feedback here.

WP:RETENTION: This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask.

Click here to start a new message

It is approximately 6:25 PM where this user lives (Eastern Time Zone). []

Ongoing vandalisms by random-IP-only user

Hey there Mz7, I'm hoping you can help me out here and maybe do a little more background checking than I can. I filled out a vandalism request on 2601:985:100:1855:F04F:9F30:F8D5:A87 (talk · contribs) which you closed since they hadn't edited in over an hour. The thing is, I believe that this IP address is just one of multiple IPs that the same user is using to vandalize various articles that I have on my watchlist. I can see some similarities in the IPs, but the main factor is 1) they are making identical, or near identical, content changes, and 2) they are now calling me out personally since I've been reverting all of their vandal attempts (the last one literally had me LOL).

You've seen the edits done by 2601:985:100:1855:F04F:9F30:F8D5:A87 (talk · contribs), here are some of the other IPs that have performed identical or near-identical edits:

• 2601:985:100:1855:180F:99C7:92B5:173C (talk · contribs). Note the similarity in the first four octets.
• 2601:985:100:1855:EC7D:76EC:469:A15C (talk · contribs). Again, same octet similarities.
• 108.55.68.236 (talk · contribs). Note the similarity in the edits performed.
• 72.70.163.195 (talk · contribs). Again, same edits.
• 70.89.23.241 (talk · contribs)
• 72.70.163.227 (talk · contribs), account that was actually blocked for one week for ongoing vandalism.
• 108.55.75.148 (talk · contribs)
• 108.55.73.166 (talk · contribs)

Now, I'm smart enough to realize that it's rather impossible to block a wide range of IPs like this, but I'd just like this documented and see if there is actually anything that can be done. Don't get me wrong, I don't mind fixing vandalism, and in cases of obvious vandals like this one, it's actually a little fun to tick them off.  :)

I appreciate you reading this, even if it is a bit of a vent session. -- SanAnMan (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit -- he just tried it again, IP 2601:985:100:1855:4478:A454:E316:4494 (talk · contribs) --SanAnMan (talk) 00:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@SanAnMan: Thanks for clueing me in on this. There does appear to be a long-term pattern of disruption involved. I've blocked the latest IP for 48 hours for the inappropriate edit summaries. Regarding the edits, I'm not too familiar with the subject of the articles – are they obviously adding false information? Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

If they are targeting specific articles, we could potentially think about periods of page protection, although that might have some collateral damage if other IP editors are constructively working on the article. Mz7 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Thanks much. I can go into specific details on the edits this user has made, but long story short, yes, the edits this person makes are either contrary to cited and supported resources, or he is removing content without explanation or supporting with cites/sources. I have been editing since 2011 (more actively so in the past three years), so I've learned to appreciate WP and its policies, especially those of supporting changes made to an article with WP:RS. And it does seem to be that the same articles are being edited by him over and over. If you'd like me to go into more specific detail, I can, but it may go into the "tl;dr" category.  :) -- SanAnMan (talk) 13:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@SanAnMan: I don't mind lengthiness, and I think you'll find that some of my own responses will also reach "tl;dr". I'm mainly interested in how we can best prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, if possible. Based on your description, this sounds like someone who fits WP:NOTHERE. Please let me know if you see the editor again, and I will see what I can do. Mz7 (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: He's baaaaaaaaaaack, with a new IP. A small vandalism change this time, but vandalism nonetheless, and again calls me out specifically. 2601:985:100:1855:50F:1354:7FD5:EF10 (talk · contribs). Thanks -- SanAnMan (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I've blocked them. Mz7 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: The guy is back at it again and continues to harass me directly. IP is 2601:985:100:1855:557C:4B89:586C:8C3E (talk · contribs). Appreciate what you do. - SanAnMan (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@SanAnMan: Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked this IP address for 31 hours, but if they evade the block, I may be able to block the 2601:985:100:1855::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) range for a little bit, since that is where the vandal's most recent edits are all coming from. It will depend on the presence of collateral damage (i.e. whether other editors are using the same range). Mz7 (talk) 04:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Same user at it again, someone else was kind enough to revert the vandalism. But the edit summary attacks against me continue. This time from 2601:985:100:1855:7C96:694B:AB94:C268 (talk · contribs). Thanks much for keeping up on this. - SanAnMan (talk) 12:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@SanAnMan: Unfortunately, enough time has passed since that last occurrence on March 29 that the IP address is now too stale to block. I took a look at the contributions from the vandal's IP range, and it doesn't look like there will be too much collateral damage, but since the activity of the vandal has somewhat been decreasing (there haven't been any edits in the range since March 29), I want to wait and see how the activity level changes over the next few weeks. For now, I'm afraid "watchlist and revert" will have to do. I'm sorry that you had to endure this, and I hope that the vandal has not discouraged you from participating here at all. Mz7 (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: Oh heck no, not to worry about that. The guy's just an annoying twerp. If he thinks his ridiculous edit summaries are going to stop me from editing and doing my best to help make Wikipedia a better place, he's sadly mistaken. I'm a grown man; I don't play his type of games. But I do appreciate the effort on your part (and any other admin, I might add) and your word of encouragement. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: The vandal is at it again, at least he's not attacking me. But performing similar vandalism on similar articles. 2601:985:100:1855:3DD4:2E9:2CC2:9880 (talk · contribs) is the offending IP this time. - SanAnMan (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@SanAnMan: Apologies for the late response. I read your message, then got caught up in something else and forgot about it. I noticed that the IP range also made this disruptive edit a little while later. Given the recent uptick in disruption and the lack of active non-disruptive edits, I've implemented a week-long block on the 2601:985:100:1855::/64 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) range. This should cover all of the IPs that the vandal has recently been using. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Newcomers

I welcomed a bunch of newcomers with twinkle templates and a few of them had other edits made with a user (now blocked for ~30 hours) saying that 'we don't need your kind here' and to F-off. Not sure what the bee up their bonnet was but that is taking biting newcomers to a new level. Sad people would do that --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Discovered all this because I inadvertently was adding the userpages to my watch list (oops). Upon further inspection, they targeted pretty much every user I welcomed. Thankfully administrators have blocked the viewing of the hateful edits by that one user - you guys are quick (and good on ya!) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I have made a request for Rollback permissions in order to help out here. I would appreciate your opinion. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Yes, that bout of user talk page vandalism was unfortunate, and I'm glad the user was blocked. Out of curiosity, how are you finding users to welcome? I took a look, and it seems that the wide majority of users you welcomed didn't have any contributions prior to your welcome. Just to make you aware, Wikipedia:Welcoming committee gives the following advice at the top of their page:

There are hundreds of thousands of users without any edits. It is widely accepted (but not required!) that users with no edits should not be welcomed to save on server resources and also because most templates start with "Thank you for your Contributions" (or similar). Furthermore, until edits are made, it's impossible to determine if the user has bad intentions and created the account purposely to vandalize Wikipedia.

May I suggest that you wait until a user makes constructive edits before sending them a welcome template? I agree that that would be better, and it also saves new page reviewers time, since they have to manually mark each new page created on Wikipedia as patrolled, including user talk pages.

As for your request for rollback, I trust, based on my prior interactions with you, that you will be cautious and ask people when you are unsure when to use rollback, but I noticed that you don't have much of a track record with reverting vandalism. Note that the rollback permission isn't required to do things like patrol recent changes, and its functionality almost identical to the "Rollback (VANDAL)" button that Twinkle provides. The biggest difference is that rollback gives you access to powerful semi-automated tools like Huggle, which have the ability to make many hundreds of edits in under an hour. I'll leave the final decision whether to grant you the right to another administrator, but I think you might need a bit more experience. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I was finding them via the accounts creation feed. I just thought that welcoming new users would be a good thing to do, especially after the vandal IPs, and was not aware that it was not recommended, I will refrain from doing so until they have some constructive edits. I did not realize that talk pages also had to be reviewed by the patrollers and did not intend to create anyone any extra work, just welcome the newcomers. I applied for Rollbacker in order to help and realized that it might not succeed (and it did not) but thought it was worth the effort as I want to help out the Wikipedia project/community. I tried using the twinkle tools you mentioned however they gave me some sort of an error (was several hours ago, I do not remember exactly what it said) at the time when I tried to use them which I gathered to be a permissions issue. Thank you for your faith in me and I would have been careful with it. I will reapply once I have more of an anti-vandalism track record. I hope I did not waste anyone's time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you know of a good/efficient way to find new users who have contributed to welcome? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TheSandDoctor: No need to worry at all. It's ultimately not a big deal, and hopefully your welcomes might have encouraged someone to start actively contributing when they wouldn't have done so otherwise, which, in my mind, would compensate for any time that was lost. That being said, I'd agree with refraining to welcome until a few constructive edits are made. I'm also curious to know why Twinkle was giving you an error. It should be available to all autoconfirmed users (i.e. 4 days, 10 edits).

For finding new users who have contributed, I recommend Special:Log/newusers. The link to "contribs" should be red if the user has not edited, and blue if the user has. Click on all the blue "contribs" links and check the edits to see if they were constructive. This is also a great way to find and deal with vandalism. Mz7 (talk) 04:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the tips and thanks for the link to the log (I already found one edit to revert where a new user (appears to have) accidentally broke a template. I have also welcomed a couple who have made constructive edits (typo corrections etc). Also, Twinkle is working for me now, not sure what the issue was.

How much experience do you think should I have before reapplying for Rollback? A long track record of correct reverts (ie couple months)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: You generally do good work already, so I don't think you need to wait quite that long before reapplying. I'd give it at least three to four weeks of correctly reverting and warning users. If you make a mistake, that shouldn't be a problem as long as you show evidence of learning from it. Mz7 (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll also add that the main thing we're looking for is an ability to differentiate between good-faith and bad-faith edits. You should be able to tell what is vandalism and what is not. Mz7 (talk) 04:23, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Noted and thank you for all the pointers so far! The more I look at the log you showed me, the more I am seeing things. Just reverted some vandalism on San Jose Sharks where they first changed the template to a swimming team (from NHL), changed its name, and then broke the template in 3-4 edits. It is sad the vandalism that is out there - today is my first real interaction with it haha. Just to clarify, I know of the 3 revert rule, I hope that that does not apply to vandalism like changing team names, sports, and breaking templates (it doesn't, right?). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Yep! Per WP:3RRNO, reverts of obvious vandalism, among other things, are exempt from the three-revert rule. Note that "breaking templates" is not always vandalism – sometimes, a well-intentioned edit might have accidentally broken a template. It's important to figure out the intentions of the editor and respond appropriately. The standard guideline to follow is: when in doubt, assume that the edit was intended to help Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 04:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I normally assume good faith but changing the name of the team in the info box and changing the sport that they play I would consider to be vandalism (am I correct in that assumption)? Breaking a template I would not immediately call vandalism but definitely something worth reverting (right?). I should also add that the user was blocked indefinitely for vandalism and they only had one more edit aside from the ones I reverted as vandalism. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Oh absolutely. I was speaking more generally as something to think about. In the specific case you were mentioning, not only did the user deliberately introduce a factual error by changing the team name, they also registered with a profane username, GiggleShit27 (talk · contribs), which violates our username policy – these can be reported to WP:UAA or WP:AIV almost immediately. You were definitely right to assume vandalism given the evidence. When you first brought that user to my attention, they had also created Template:Infobox swimming team as vandalism, which I have deleted. Good work! Mz7 (talk) 04:42, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I never noticed the username haha, just saw "Giggle" - I will look closer from now on at usernames as well haha. Thanks for the compliment :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It has been 3 weeks since my application for rollback was rejected on the grounds of not having enough experience/a track record of correctly reverting vandalism. For around 3 weeks straight I have been monitoring for - and reverting - vandalism and good faith edits (talk in article - first time offense, accidental template breaks etc). I have also reported over 40 accounts for vandalism and username violations, with 40 or 41 being accepted. Before I consider making another application, (based on your suggestions above) I wanted to come back now that it has been 3 weeks and see if you think that I have a long enough track record etc to apply? I want to help monitor (and revert) vandalous edits sooner. Thanks for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I checked your reverts the past few weeks in your contributions and saw mostly good things. If you would like the right, I can give it to you now. (In other words, you don't have to apply at WP:PERM/R.) One bit of feedback I would give is regarding this revert you made a few weeks ago. Generally when a user removes unsourced content, especially on a WP:BLP, the information should stay removed. Mz7 (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

I obviously missed that (regarding that one revert) so my apologies and thank you for reverting it, if you had not done that/beat me to it I would have reverted my revert. I know I could just ask you as you said above however I submitted a formal request here so it is 'for the record' etc and so you (or another administrator) has something to enter in the log (I am not sure what you would enter otherwise). Thanks again for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor:  Done. The formalities aren't necessary – I could have indicated "requested on my user talk page" in the log. In any case, best of luck with the new tool! Mz7 (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! and fair enough. Just wondering, how do I enable huggle? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Huggle is a program that you download and install onto your computer. As long as you have the rollback right, once you install the application, you should be able to use it; no extra enabling step is needed. See Wikipedia:Huggle for more information. Given this, you may have already figured this out. If you have any questions, you know where to ask. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I was just in the process of updating to let you know I discovered it when I saw your notification. You are correct, I found it after asking. Thank you so much for all your help! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer

I was just wondering, what would you consider as requirements/favourable in a candidate for New page reviewer? I am wondering as I do meet the basic requirements for it (edit & time wise) and am curious. Thanks for your time --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I think the qualifications for being a new page reviewer are fairly similar to AfC reviewer, and the work done is similar in the sense that new page reviewers review new pages published directly in the mainspace, whereas AfC reviewers review drafts. If you're interested in helping out, I would read over the tutorial at Wikipedia:New pages patrol, then apply at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer. Mz7 (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you think my odds are (after reading tutorial - which I will do right after posting this)? I don't want to waste anyone's time in applying if I don't have a hope (SNOW). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I think your chances are good! You do good work at AfC already, and you have experience creating articles yourself too. If you want, I suppose I could grant you the right myself, once you confirm you have read the tutorial. Mz7 (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement. I have read through the tutorial and posted my request/application (which can be viewed here) - I would appreciate your opinion. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for granting it! :D Once I have over 25 articles created (which should be soon) should I apply for autopatrolled as well (at that time, not now) or? I just think it would make sense since I am watching the new user contributions, welcoming/warning new users (potentially creating their talk pages - which you have said previously need to be patrolled) as well as creating articles. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Looks like I miscalculated in relation to Autopatrolled, I have 27 articles now (excluding the 5 that are credited to me as they are redirects nominated for deletion and the 3 deleted pages - one of which I never made). What do you think my odds would be for Autopatrolled? Don't want to waste anyone's time in applying if I don't have a hope (i.e. SNOW) but do think that it could be beneficial seeing as I am now a New Page Patroller (thanks again) and also plan to create a lot more articles centered around everything Rolling Stones related (be that Mick Jagger songs/single, Stones songs themselves, etc). Thanks for your time --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: That's more articles than I've created. I didn't hold the autopatrolled right prior to becoming an administrator, nor have I ever reviewed an autopatrolled request at WP:PERM, so I don't feel comfortable with making a determination whether someone is qualified for it. However, based on my observations, I think the key thing that administrators look for is the quality of the articles you've created, beyond just the quantity. Essentially, we need to be sure that your submissions are generally of such a quality that they don't need to be reviewed. I did a cursory look through the articles you've created and several of them have maintenance tags on them (some of them you added yourself, such as Anton Ari Einarsson). These could be non-issues, or they could convince another administrator that your submissions should still be manually reviewed for now. Since I don't have experience with granting the autopatrolled right, I'm not sure what your chances are. It's up to you. Feel free to ping another administrator if you want a second opinion. Mz7 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Schwede66, I hope you don't mind me pinging you into this and have posted it here so that you could see the above. I am wondering what you think my odds would be if I were to apply for Autopatrolled as I do not want to apply and waste the time of everyone involved if I do not have a chance (i.e. SNOW). Thank you in advance and sorry again for pinging you into this. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, Mz7, I add the maintenance tags to my own articles (I created) as I believe that references can always be improved (some probably don't need them however - I shall look into that ASAP). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I have gone through them and removed the maintenance tags I added where appropriate (ie 8-10+ references or conflicting tags) and have cleaned up the referencing (removed duplicate citations etc) in a few of them as well. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, I'm not sure that this is the right way to go about it. For autopatrol, there will be one reviewer necessary; this isn't decided by a committee. To give advice, I basically need to review what you've done. I've looked at a few songs and they seem a bit thin on referencing, but ok. Note that you would only add a navbox if the article in question appears in that navbox, so you might want to go back and clean that out, but again not a fatal flaw in my books. Of more concern is Anton Ari Einarsson; he would not meet WP:NSOCCER as yet, would he? And I can't see how he'd meet WP:GNG. It's not my area of expertise and I have no idea how important soccer is in Iceland, so it's a genuine question). Any thoughts on that one? Please ping me when you reply. Schwede66 04:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Schwede66: I realize that it is not decided by a committee and tagged you on the suggestion of Mz7 that I tag an admin who reviews autopatrolled requests (and I saw you in the history of the autopatrolled perm request page. What do you mean by only adding a navbox if the article in question appears in that box? Do you mean the templates like at the bottom of articles like Mick Jagger or The Rolling Stones? As for Anton Ari Einarsson, I created an article for them solely as they were listed in both Iceland national under-21 football team and Iceland national football team as a national level callup and I was able to find some reputable references/external links (ESPN etc). I have no problems moving it to the draft space if you do not think it ready. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, Anton Ari Einarsson hasn't played a Tier 1 match yet and has thus no inherent notability; the U-21 games aren't Tier 1 as far as I know. Primitive Cool (song) doesn't appear in the Mick Jagger navbox, and the navbox should thus not be part of that article as per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL. Schwede66 04:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Thank you for bringing that to my attention regarding the Anton thing, I have moved it back to the draft namespace for the time being and nominated the redirect as R2 (Anton Ari Einarsson). I have removed the Mick Jagger template from Primitive Cool (song) and will do so now for any others where they are not listed - thanks for the FYI. Aside from those two things though, what do you think that my odds would be? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:55, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Schwede66:I have now removed the templates from all songs in which they are not mentioned (ie singles are kept as they are listed in template). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor, my advice is to wait a little longer. Get another half-dozen articles done, say, and make sure that referencing isn't quite to thin as with the music articles. Schwede66 05:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Schwede66: Will do - thanks for the advice. How many references would you like to see in an article? 5-6+ or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Quality, not quantity. Reliable sources and in-depth coverage is what we are after. Schwede66 05:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@Schwede66: I could have worded the question better (sorry about that), I was asking as you said the references were thin on the music related articles. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I think Schwede66's point still stands; the focus should be on improving the quality of the sources as opposed to quantity. For example, Wandering Spirit (Mick Jagger song) cites three sources, but all of them seem to discuss the album, rather than the single. In order to show the notability of the single, we need evidence of significant coverage specifically about the single – see WP:NSINGLE. An article should refer to a range of reliable sources containing in-depth discussion of the subject, as opposed to a passing mention. Focus on finding higher quality sources, as opposed to just more sources. Mz7 (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it does still stand. I will look into improving the references and wait. Thank you for your input Schwede66. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer

I have applied for pending changes reviewer since you have said that the criteria are similar. I welcome your opinion on it (if you wish/want). It can be found here. Thanks again for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:49, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:33, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! Mz7 (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Page mover

I know that I do not have the time requirement (requirement 1) for Page mover however I do meet the other requirements (2-4) and feel that I could better help in the project with my reviewing etc if I could move pages (in certain situations) without leaving a redirect and bothering admins to get the redirects deleted (i.e. moving new pages back to the draft namespace that are simply not ready etc). I am asking as I read Wikipedia:Page mover#Guidelines for granting, which stated that "[t]he above items are guidelines. An administrator may grant page mover rights to users they otherwise deem competent." I can confirm that I have read through Wikipedia:Page mover. If you suggest more readings before hand, I am open to those as well. If you think I should wait the (just under) 2 full months until my account is indeed 6 months old (rather than the 4 months and 1 day it is at the moment) then I understand that as well and shall apply once I meet the time requirement. Thank you for your time and consideration and I accept/respect your decision. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I trust that you won't break Wikipedia if you are given the page mover right today, even if you don't quite meet the numerical requirements. I would recommend making a request at WP:PERM/PM if you feel that the right would be useful to your editing. Since I've already assigned all three of the extended permissions you currently have, for the sake of having a fresh pair of eyes look into your case, I probably won't be the one to give the right to you. Other admins might expect to see RM participation, which it doesn't look like you have, but the guidelines do say that those are not strictly necessary in order to grant the right. Mz7 (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done and thanks as always for your help and input. It has been posted at WP:PERM/PM (direct link). I reused most of the message posted to you. I will let you know how it goes. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Another admin granted it. I was worried that the time requirement might have been a sticking point. This will definitely help with my editing work :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer.

I recently applied for Pending changes reviewer permissions and i would like to ask you if it has any chances or you think it is too early. --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: I was actually in the process of flipping the bit when you sent this message. The standards for pending changes reviewer and rollback are fairly similar, and based on your countervandalism experience and your CVUA page, I have no problem with granting you the right now. If you have any questions about using it, feel free to ask. Mz7 (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

yes

thanks for your message JarrahTree 00:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JarrahTree: I can understand that, and I apologize for troubling you. The only reason I mention it now is because it seems to have come up in a matter we're handling on OTRS, and I guess I figured I'd say something. It's certainly not the biggest deal, and feel free to consider it a trout slap. Mz7 (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

heheh - at last, 10 years + and I have had at last a trout slap! (after a yet another suggesting about getting the mop... hahaha)  Done - nah, I have tried to explain in an email to you re the issue, will do now another - hahaha JarrahTree 01:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

you now have two emails, poorly written to confirm the self evaluation :) - no need to apologise, suspect if I know what is going on, you will be having fun ! JarrahTree 01:16, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: I've seen them and will respond by email. Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Was just about to block User:EAC tester. Have started a SPI as we have a couple of accounts like this.[1] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: Thanks for letting me know about the SPI. I'm inclined to accept the user's explanation that they were running an unapproved bot. If the Artemius MacRae account is unblocked, would I have to lift the autoblock on EAC tester in order to allow Artemius MacRae to edit? I'd presume they were editing from the same IP address. Mz7 (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes removal of the autoblock of the IP is all that is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Regarding you recent action on Dhulagarh riots

Sir i think that your recent action of blocking me from editing "Dhulagarh Riots" was not unreasonable. As an admin you should act in an unbiased and neutral way. I was not in a revert war. the other person was bringing his personal views into the article. He should have talked to me before deleting the whole article and filling it with personalized information. I had worked hard to put the info with trusted citations and he just deleted all of it in one go and filled it with info that was away from reality. I hope that you will act in unbiased and neutral way. Thank you. Utk2 (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Utk2. I appreciate you getting in touch with me. I can understand your view that the other user was inserting their own personal viewpoint into the article, but I think you'll find that the other user feels the same way about you. I think the best course of action for now is to lay out your argument on the talk page of the article (located at Talk:2016 Dhulagarh riots). There, you can list all of the reliable sources you have that support the information you want to add. Then, you can also listen to the other user give their own arguments for their own version of the article. The talk page is not only a great place for editors to work together to improve the article, but it is actually required that editors use it, instead of continually reversing each other's actions. Note that continuing to revert is prohibited even if you think you are right. I look forward to seeing your comments on the talk page. Mz7 (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, can you please show me where I put my personal views in the article? For each of my edits, I added at least one citation from an acceptable source. See[2], [3], or even [4] where instead of removing any source I put clear edit summaries. Secondly, where did I delete whole article? I did contact you[5]. Again show me where I put my personalized information? The truth is that you made original researches several times which are not backed by the sources in the article and deleted my contributions[6], pushing POV[7] despite clear mention in the source. Again[8] puting your own synthesis within brackets to make a point and many others like[9] and lastly [10] without no valid reasons! --45.123.13.164 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about templates

Do you know much about creating templates? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I've edited a few templates here and there, but not much beyond the basics. Mz7 (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I was just wondering if you knew how to get the username of the account talk page that it is posted on rather than the page name (because if posted on a sandbox talk page, would show <user's name>/sandbox etc) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I think {{BASEPAGENAME}} will do the trick for that. For instance, when I used it here at User:Mz7/sandbox, it returned "Mz7". See WP:VAR for a list of similar magic words. Mz7 (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you know how to make a template sign for the user? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: For that, I believe you can use ~~<noinclude />~~ and then have users substitute the template. For example, I used that at User:Mz7/sandbox/sig, then substituted that page in my sandbox here (with {{subst:User:Mz7/sandbox/sig}}, and it created a signature for me. Mz7 (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Page history

I am not sure entirely if this is possible but is it possible to remove me from the page creation stat of a userspace draft? I moved their AfC submission to the draft draft namespace and nominated the sandbox for deletion - they removed the deletion request and built a new sandbox draft. The thing is, the page is recorded as being created by me - I don't want any AfC notices if they submit it or it is deleted (for sake of argument) showing up under my stats as a deleted page/blackmark.

EDIT: This has actually occurred on a few pages which I just discovered via the curation tool. User:Reb1981/sandbox, User:CarmenRodriguez91/sandbox, User:MSENDER007/sandbox and Pavel Bělíček (though in latter case a history merge would probably be the answer).

Thanks for your time! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: As I understand it, when creators use {{subst:submit}}, the user who adds the submission template will be marked as the submitter, and the AFC Helper script will only notify the person listed as the submitter in the submission template, not the person who "created" the page. For example, if you look at Draft:Ruins of the Future (a random draft I found), the username of the person who added the AfC submission template is listed in the |u= parameter.

As for it showing up in your editing statistics, unfortunately I can't think of much I can do about that. It's not likely that other contributors will view these as blackmarks to your contributions, since they weren't your fault at all. I'm pretty sure my own stats has examples of deleted pages that weren't ever held against me. As a technical matter, it is possible for administrators to delete your username from a page's edit history, but this is only done within strict conditions, which don't seem to apply here. Hope this helps. Mz7 (talk) 18:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough and I am glad that it would not be viewed as a black mark. In the latter case (of Pavel Bělíček) would a history merge be appropriate?. Too bad there isnt slightly more leeway with that removal haha. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Which direction were you thinking about for the histmerge? In this case, the page creator doesn't seem to be interested in drafting the article, so I'm inclined the merge the history of the draft back into the mainspace article if that's alright with you. Mz7 (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That's fine by me. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Could you please merge the history of Draft:Jattu Engineer to Jattu Engineer? I moved it to the draft namespace in an attempt to help them as the article was not ready (in my opinion) at the time but they appear disinterested in working on it there and have blanked the draft, copying all the material back to the redirect (and removing the redirect and the CSD nomination on it). Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done Mz7 (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on an unreviewed article

What are your thoughts on Geographika? It has been unreviewed since 2005 and I do not think that it has much hope of being approved in its current state. Does it qualify for CSD or (validly for) AFD? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Although that page was created in 2005, it turned into a redirect in 2008, and was only recently converted back to an article a few hours ago. I'm not sure what to do with it – a source was given, but I'm not sure if it's enough to expand the article. I think that if you don't think it's suitable, you should convert it back into a redirect to Geographica, as opposed to deletion. Mz7 (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input - it has been marked as reviewed by someone (don't think I did it to my knowledge/memory) and has been converted back to a redirect. I am genuinely surprised that a page could go unreviewed for over ten years. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I'm not positive, but I think the answer is that when an article is converted from a redirect to an article, it gets put back onto the NewPagesFeed for review again. It's not that the page went unreviewed for ten years, but it wasn't put up for review until a hours ago. Mz7 (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC) P.S. I've just seen your questions above re. autopatrolled and will respond presently.

Oh, okay. Because 10+ years would certainly mean a backlog!...and that no one has ever clicked the 'view oldest' button . In regards to others, no worries. Wasn't going to bug you on it or bring it up again but I realized the mistake I made in the first message so corrected it. Hope you don't mind that I formatted them into subheadings for organization and to make it easier to refer back to if need be (however the last autopatrolled and NPP ones are slightly merged. After you respond (if it is okay with you) I might split the original post mentioning NPP and autopatrolled up so that it does split evenly. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if I can ask this, but I was wondering if you could go through Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as inappropriate cross-namespace redirects so that my stats are no longer bloated (+5) by it and also so that they disappear in the page curation feed and I don't end up with any more articles/drafts with myself as the creator that I didn't write nor contribute to? Thanks and I apologize if that is not something I can request properly etc (if so please let me know and ignore this). Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor:  Done. Again, I don't think you have to worry about bloat in your stats. The community is pretty good at separating the wheat from the chaff, in my experience. If it's in the category, an administrator will come around eventually to get rid of it. Mz7 (talk) 22:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Noted and thanks! :D I just like to have my stats as honest as possible, especially if I am considering applying for a permission (based on second opinion I requested above) - want numbers to be real (for that and just personal honesty). I just find it annoying that one of the ones listed as deleted I never created - nor is it deleted. It is perfectly fine right here Raisa O'Farrill Bolanos but xtools thinks it is deleted somehow. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:41, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure why Fapla international Cricket Ground is listed as an article I created when all I did was nominate the redirect for deletion either. --TheSandDoctor (talk)

@TheSandDoctor: I took a look and the reason is because the article was histmerged into Fapla International Cricket Ground. There were a few stray revisions that did not get histmerged in order to avoid confusion, presumably, and the oldest of these stray revisions was one of your edits that added a {{refimprove}} template to the page. Since that stray revision is now the oldest edit in the page's history, whatever stats tool you are using is probably confusing you as the person who created the page.

Regardless, the fact that the tool says one of "your" articles got deleted is not necessarily a bad thing. Whoever is interested in evaluating your contributions could just look at the deletion log of the page and figure out what happened, and administrators evaluating WP:PERM requests will be able to view the deleted edits themselves to ascertain what happened. A good admin shouldn't be evaluating solely on numbers, anyway. In short, while it may be annoying, there's no need to worry. Mz7 (talk) 03:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Tractor Driven Onion Harvester

Would you perhaps care to salt the article? Its been recreated 3 times today :/ --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Never mind just saw that was already done --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 20:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Mz7 (talk) 20:01, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to but in here but I have a question for you (Mz7) that I have seen mentioned previously and I have to ask, what does 'salt' mean in this context? Block the title? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: To "salt" an article on Wikipedia means to prevent that article from being created. This is typically done when an unsuitable page is repeatedly recreated—"creation protection" is one way administrators can stop and prevent this kind of disruption. An article title is referred to as "salted" when it is protected against creation. I don't know what the origin of the term in this context is—I guess it's another one of those bizarre wiki-jargon that you learn to just accept. Mz7 (talk) 05:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! And yes haha, I guess it is. Someone could probably write a whole paper regarding jargon in different things haha. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Wikipedia:Glossary is often a useful reference when one encounters Wikipedia jargon. Mz7 (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I haven't seen that before. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:14, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Good article

Hi,
I am very well aware that Parbhani is very far away from being a WP:GA, but what needs to be added/removed to make it a good article? Thanks a lot for the help. —usernamekiran[talk] 19:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Usernamekiran! I think the number one focus at this point should be adding citations. I think the meat of the good article criteria is criterion 2 (verifiability). Ideally, anything in an article that isn't common sense (e.g. "the sky is blue") should have a citation to a reliable source that verifies the information. Currently, there are several sections of the Parbhani article that are unsourced, not enough to satisfy the verifiability criterion for GA. I think once you get deep into research finding sources, you'll not only verify the information already inside the article, but you'll also find new verifiable information to add, filling in any gaps in the material. Citations to bare URLs should be replaced by full citations in order to prevent link rot – the reFill tool may help with this. If you need a second eye from someone who is more familiar with the subject, you may be able to solicit help at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

• thanks for the reply, and the suggestions. I agree with "once you get deep into research finding sources, you'll not only verify the information already inside the article, but you'll also find new verifiable information to add, filling in any gaps in the material." Thats why i decided to work "section by section". So far i am done with education, and history only. I have worked a little on "geology and climate", i will soon make it go live. Thanks for the suggestions regarding references too. I am planning to work on them in the last place, after everything is done. —usernamekiran[talk] 21:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Lock Viktor Kassai article?

Vandalism is continuing. -skybluecm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skybluecm (talk • contribs) 21:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Skybluecm: Thanks for letting me know. I'm monitoring the situation, and if it continues, I'll take it up to extended confirmed protection. Mz7 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a little new to all this stuff so sorry if I'm not following proper procedures. Skybluecm (talk 21:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Skybluecm: Not at all! Thank you for your diligence at reverting the disruptive editing at Viktor Kassai! Wikipedia is designed to be an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, so we want to try to avoid restricting editing as much as possible. I just want to take some time to make sure that locking the article under more restrictive settings is appropriate. You've done nothing wrong. Mz7 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. Having just read up on the locking guidelines it's probably not appropriate to lock now as it seems to be dying down- I'm sure you have more experience at this stuff. Thanks for the help. Skybluecm (talk) 22:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	okey sir is time to unblock me i did nothing to you Solomon joe (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Solomon joe. Your account was temporarily blocked from editing because you persistently removed speedy deletion notices from articles that you created yourself, even after being told three times ([11][12][13]) that this was against policy. Your block has now expired, so you should be able to edit pages again, but please do not repeat the behavior which led to your block. If you are still confused about what led to your block, please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to clarify.

Creating brand new Wikipedia articles is a tricky task, and I recommend spending some time familiarizing yourself with editing Wikipedia before attempting it. If you still want to do so, I recommend creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, with less risk of deletion. Do make sure you also read the resources available to help you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Mz7 (talk) 21:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nabila Erian / Nabila Erian

Hello, can I ask for a little help please? I stumbled on the page Wikipedia:Nabila Erian and noticed it had just been moved from draftspace. I tidied it up a bit and went to move it only to find there is already a page in mainspace, with some of the same content, by the same author. I copied the fuller content from Wikipedia:Nabila Erian to Nabila Erian, including my amendments (remembering WP:CWW!) but I think I may have tripped myself up somewhere as there was an earlier page move to draftspace. Are you able to check that all is OK (ish) and should the Wikipedia:Nabila Erian page be deleted or redirected or...? Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eagleash: Sure, I'll take a look now. Mz7 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've realised there was also an earlier speedy nom. just to complicate things a bit more. Eagleash (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eagleash: Alright, here's what I think happened. Osword3000 created the page at 16:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC). Then, apparently, they rewrote the article and placed their revised content on the talk page of the article here at 17:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC). Realizing their mistake, they must've tried to move the talk page into the article space, but chose the Wikipedia space instead by accident. I've now merged the revision history of the Wikipedia:Nabila Erian back into the article, which should resolve things. The article could use some cleanup, though. Mz7 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks...as ever! I easily confuse myself when it comes to page moves / histories etc. :P Eagleash (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, editors. I will keep improving the page and adding more info to it in the next weeks. (osword3000) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osword3000 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts on a template

I was wondering what your thoughts on this template I just made are. Do you think that users might like it? If so, would it be appropriate to move it to the template namespace? Thanks as always for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I don't see any issues with it. You could just keep it in your userspace and transclude it from there, but I don't see a problem with moving it to the template space. Mz7 (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by "transclude it from there"? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: What I mean is that you can actually use the userbox directly from your userspace with {{User:TheSandDoctor/Template:User Too many messages}}. The userbox does not have to be in the template namespace in order to be transcluded, or reproduced in another page. Mz7 (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks! I have moved it to the template namespace as it might be easier found by others there. Is there any lists that templates are added to that it should be added to? It is now located at Template:User Too many messages. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: You could add it to the userbox gallery over at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Gallery, perhaps at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia/Miscellaneous. Mz7 (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the links! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting protection for my userpage

Hi Mz7, could you please protect my user page to require extended confirmed rights? I'm leaving Wikipedia, and the page might be a likely target for vandalism. Also, there is no requirement for a user to further edit the page. Thank you. RoCo^(talk) 19:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rollingcontributor:  Done. It's a shame to see you go. Thank you so much for your contributions here, and I wish you the best of luck in all your future endeavors. Yours sincerely, Mz7 (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! RoCo^(talk) 05:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Another page move query

Hello, me again I'm afraid. You recall our now blocked former IP-hopping F1 guy? We're attempting to clear up some of his outstanding drafts & userpage stuff. As part of this I moved User:Rowde/Coyote 81 to mainspace (Coyote 81) and then redirected to the team page, {Coyote (chassis)}. I fixed the double redirect at the userspace page, but should that page now be deleted or should it be retained for history purposes. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eagleash. It's not a big deal, I think. I don't see any encyclopedic need to delete the page, nor do I see any encyclopedic need to retain the page. I'm thinking this is a WP:CHEAP situation. If you would like me to delete the page, I'd be happy to do so under WP:G6. Mz7 (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think in some ways it would be preferable if it were deleted but, as you say, it's not really that important. It would discourage him from coming back as an IP and attempting to recreate as a draft or in a TP. (He reappears every time his increasingly lengthy range-blocks expire...and 'involved' editors may not always be around to spot him). But, I'll leave it up to you. Many thanks, again. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 02:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Eagleash:  Done. I've deleted the page. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Eagleash (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Could I trouble you to do the same with Draft:Coyote 66? Many thanks. Eagleash (talk) 21:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

@Eagleash:  Done. Mz7 (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Eagleash (talk) 01:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding difference between Rollbacker and Pending changes reviewer

Hi there, I was just wondering after reading the Pending changes reviewer description - it seems a lot like Rollbacker. Are they essentially the same (or very similar) user right? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor. The two rights have different functionalities, but many editors often find them useful together. Rollback gives you a button that lets you revert all of a single user's contributions to an article in one click. Pending changes reviewer gives you an interface that lets you review pending changes on articles placed under pending changes protection. When an article has pending changes protection, all edits from unregistered or non-autoconfirmed users are held back from publication until they are approved by a pending changes reviewer. Mz7 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussed article/page merges

When an article is suggested to be merged into another and they are both within the main namespace, how does that work exactly? Can anyone merge it or does it require administrator action? I am wondering as I stumbled across Dewi Remaja 2009/10 using the page curation tool. Thanks for your help. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor. Usually, no administrator action is required to perform a merge – anyone can boldly perform a merge as an editorial action. The usual procedure is simply copying and pasting content from one article to another, then turning the source article into a redirect to the destination article. The one requirement, per WP:CWW, is that you provide a link to the source article in your edit summary. For example, if you merged Dewi Remaja 2009/10 into Dewi Remaja by copying the content in Dewi Remaja 2009/10 and pasting it into Dewi Remaja, in your edit summary at Dewi Remaja, you would include a link to Dewi Remaja 2009/10. WP:MERGETEXT has some more detailed how-to instructions, if you're interested. I hope this information is helpful. Mz7 (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

It was indeed helpful. If you think a history merge is the way to go, I will happily clean up (format) the result. If you think a bold merge would be best I am open to doing that as well. I doubt that there will be any objections to the merge due to the fact that no one has objected and it has been proposed for nearly 5 months. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

RevDel

Do you think that a revdel of summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_Postal_Service&oldid=777341203 would be necessary? --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kostas20142. I've blocked the IP. Beyond the specific summary you linked to above, I'm more concerned about the fact that full names are being used. I get the feeling that this could potentially be someone trying to make fun of or bully someone else in real life. It's a WP:BLP violation, in my eyes, and on that basis, I have deleted both the text of the revisions along with all of the edit summaries. Mz7 (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, even better. Thank you! --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:45, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, it seems I made a new friend. I suppose it is ok if i remove a message with a nor really polite gesture from my talk page? (Answer to a section from an irrelevant IP )--Kostas20142 (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: It's your talk page, after all. As long as you aren't editing someone else's comments to change their meaning, WP:OWNTALK says you are free to remove comments from your own talk page. Mz7 (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you! --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion report

User:Karsen_Ball admitted in edit (see [14]) to Tank that they were banned on another account. See Special:Contributions/Karsen_Ball. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 User blocked. Mz7 (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 Thanks --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Solomon joe

I'm curious. If you agree with my assessment in this case, why not just block the editor yourself? SPI is pretty backlogged at the moment; I'm sure the clerks would appreciate the help. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Sputnik: I was mainly waiting for the CheckUser results come in. After pondering it a bit and reviewing all of the evidence (including the CheckUser result), I am satisfied that Solomon joe and League10 are the same user, so I've issued the block. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your satisfactory resolution of the problems at Ezra Lee (musician). Have fun on wp.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sub (child) categories

I am not sure how to do this and so I am wondering if you could help me. I want to list Category:The Rolling Stones Documentary Films as a sub/child category of Category:The Rolling Stones films. How do I go about doing this? I have not worked with categories much previously. Thanks for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor. What you'll want to do is add Category:The Rolling Stones Documentary Films itself to the category Category:The Rolling Stones films. In other words, edit the category's description page, add [[Category:The Rolling Stones films]], then save. Best, Mz7 (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I have added it now :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Precious three years!

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

AFC template on non-AFC submission

What do you think of the AFC template on Operation Trigon? It was not created via the AFC process and was present when it was created (see here). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Something's weird here, and I'm not sure what to think. The draft was moved into mainspace by user C.edwards. They are a new user, with the only other substantial contributions at the recently published article Numbered Panda – I did a spot check of some of the sources in that article, and none of them seem to mention a group specifically called "Numbered Panda". It's late in the night for me, so I'm going to head off to sleep and will take a second look at this in the morning. However, my initial inclination is to move these pages back to the draftspace. The quality/verifiability of the articles need to be checked. Mz7 (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It is getting late here as well. Let me know what your second look turns up, okay? Thanks! I will just leave them be for now and shall await your response. Good night! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Alright, I've looked into this a little more and found a few more accounts that have made similar contributions. I've summarized my findings at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/C.edwards. Mz7 (talk) 19:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Just to update, Operation Trigon has been moved back to Draft:Operation Trigon by user Primefac, and both of the accounts involved with the article have been blocked as sockpuppets of each other. I've reviewed Numbered Panda a bit further, and it seems to be a legitimate topic, but the main issue is that the article refers too much to primary sources such as Threat Research Blog and Trend Micro. Mz7 (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

I just got these as I just got off work. That is bizarre. Thanks for the update. Hopefully it is the end of those socks/accounts. Just wondering, if new accounts pop up do investigations re-open or? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Yes, if you suspect that additional accounts are also sockpuppets, you can file a new sockpuppet investigations case for it. The SPI guide has additional information. Mz7 (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for your help so far and for answering the questions I have asked to the best of your ability, I really do appreciate it. TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: It's been my pleasure! Mz7 (talk) 00:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about Good Article status nomination of Burnout 3: Takedown

I am thinking of reviewing Burnout 3: Takedown as it has been nominated as a candidate for Good Article status and I was wondering what your opinion on it was? The article looks good to me at first glance (I will look closer after writing this and check for copyvios). I just don't want to grant/grade it as a Good Article when it in fact is not (i.e. illegitimately granting) or visa versa. Thank you as always for your help and input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSandDoctor (talk • contribs) 01:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I have read it through and looked at Earwig's report. After reading through it, I am fairly confident that it passes. Additionally, Earwig gave it a score of 7.4% (violation unlikely) and, upon further inspection, the things it caught were names/titles etc, which (generally) cannot be avoided. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Good article reviews generally require more than simply reading it through and looking at the Earwig report. I've only done about two of them, so I'm not the most experienced when it comes to it. If you're committed to doing the review, then I would take some time to look through all of the references in the article and understand them. Check whether the references are reliable and, if you can, whether they support the content in the article (criterion 2 of the good article criteria). Consider whether there are any sentences that could be more clearly expressed (criterion 1) or aren't directly supported by the references (criterion 2). One tiny issue I see is in the "Legacy" section – do we really need 8 citations for a single statement? While it may not prevent it from becoming a GA, I would consider suggesting WP:CITEBUNDLE to improve readability. At first glance, however, it is clear that whoever wrote this dedicated a lot of effort into making it, and it sure looks like a GA at first glance. Hope this helps. Mz7 (talk) 02:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the article is plagued by a decent amount of citekill. I have not heard of CITEBUNDLE before and shall experiment with it in my sandbox shortly and see if I could patch that up myself, I do not see that reasonably blocking a GA however. I will look further into it shortly and go through the references individually. Would you agree what I have done so far (checking Earwig etc) is a good first step though? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:18, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I do agree that running Earwig is a good first step to check for a copyright violation that might quick-fail the article. I also agree that the citekill isn't enough to block a GA. Best, Mz7 (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I reviewed it and determined that it did indeed meet the standards for GA. I have also dealt with the cite kill issue that we both noticed/raised. I must say, the citations were done in a style that was both easier to merge but would be a headache if you tried to do anything in the visual editor regarding them. Thanks again for the WikiLink to cite bundle, I had not heard of it before and can foresee it being very useful from time to time. Thanks again! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive IP user

Please take a look at the contributions of this IP user Special:Contributions/108.27.238.102. The only edits they have made have either been disruptive in nature (NPOV etc) or adding vast amounts of unsourced material (similar across the contributions etc). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Apologies for the slight delay in responding to this. C.edwards has appealed their block with a plausible explanation for the suspected sock puppetry: see User talk:C.edwards. I am communicating with the CheckUser that blocked the accounts for more information.

Anyway, regarding that IP, it does look like they are adding lot of unsourced content to Wikipedia. It doesn't look like they're being malicious about it, though, and I'm inclined to think that they just didn't know a source was required. I've left some additional information for them with the {{welcomeunsourced}} template, and that should be enough for now. If they continue to add unsourced content despite your warning, let me know. I don't think a block is necessary at this time. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 02:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. That does seem like a plausible explanation as I do know that a lot of schools (secondary, post secondary) seem to want Wikipedia contributions and also seem to require that they are approved at AFC etc. Regarding your second comment, that is fair and I will keep an eye on the account. In reverting their edits (10+) I was slightly concerned regarding 3RR but also wanted to let you know about the account, I assume my actions (reverting the edits) were warranted/appropriate (same with the level 3 warning on their talk page)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I think it was fine to revert the edits because they did add unsourced content (especially since it was related to living people, many of the edits had full names in them). The one thing I would keep in mind is that a level 3 warning typically carries an assumption of bad faith. The way WP:UWLEVELS describes it is: a level 1 warning assumes good faith, a level 2 warning withholds assuming good or bad faith (i.e. "just a note"), and levels 3/4/4im all assume bad faith. I don't have any strong opinions about whether a level 3 warning was appropriate in this case, but if it were me, I think I might've chosen a more softly worded template. Best, Mz7 (talk) 02:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, will replace the template now --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Replaced with a level 2. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about contents of deleted draft

I was just looking at an old message on my talk page and clicked the red link for Ali-A for the fun of it and came across a deletion record, in 2014 (21:02, 19 February 2014) it was deleted due to the fact that the author blanked the page. I am curious, could I ask what content was on the page at the time (prior to author blanking it)? If not I understand, I am just curious as I have done a lot of work with Draft:Ali-A and am simply wondering. Thanks for your time! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I've copied the contents of the deleted page just before it was blanked by the author and placed it at User:Mz7/sandbox/Ali-A for you. It had a {{db-person}} tag on it at the time it was blanked. Not much to see, I think. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that, you are right, sadly not much there. Was hopeful it would have been able to help with the draft haha. Thanks again for your time & help. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Reversion of my revert

Could you please take a look at this? My revert was reverted by the person whose edit I was reverting. Not sure what to do. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: It is the third most important revolution to occur, after the Bolshevik Revolution and the Paris Commune ... The Workers have, since the time of writing, taken the local primary school. Looks like blatant vandalism to me. It's already been reverted, and a look through their contributions shows that they've been blocked for similar behavior just a few days ago. I've now blocked the IP for 1 week. Best, Mz7 (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for confirmation on that. I figured that it should be reverted but am always cautious as I do not want to get in any edit wars etc. I was also reverted here when I (AGF) reverted another IP's edit because it removed a WikiLink which could be beneficial to readers, their revert is still the 'live' edit. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Ah yes, in that case, it isn't blatant vandalism. If it were me, I would simply disengage. It's not a big deal whether the link is there or not, and disengaging allows you to move on to another article. Once enough time passes, the other editor might move on as well. Mz7 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

That is what I was thinking and shall do. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Article takeover

I was just witness to a takeover of Kanya (as in converting it entirely to something else) which I have reverted and warned the IP user on their talk page, pointing them to AFC and the draft namespace. Haven't run into that before. It inspired me to create the template (in my user namespace) User:TheSandDoctor/Article takeover warning. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Good catch. Fortunately, I don't see this kind of "article takeover" happen too frequently either. It reminds me of a fairly recent (and totally unrelated) sockpuppetry case where a user would take over a disambiguation page with a promotional article, move that page to a new title, then retarget the redirect left behind to a page that had previously been on the hijacked disambiguation page. This was deceptive behavior because it allowed the sockpuppets to create inappropriate pages without having them appear on Special:NewPagesFeed for review, since they technically never "created" a new page. To counter this behavior, a discussion concluded that when pages are moved they should be placed back onto Special:NewPagesFeed for review. This software change has yet to be implemented, however. Mz7 (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact that you have not seen it much is most likely good thing, that IP was very deliberate and used false edit summaries (if any at all) to conceal it calling them "Fixed grammar" for first 3 before dropping summaries entirely. Seemed slow and deliberate spread over multiple minute intervals in most cases - that IP was sneaky. I am glad that it does not happen very often and am glad for that software change, hopefully it gets implemented soon. Huggle was how I found that content change (rather, it showed me one edit, which then I opened in web browser to find the complete takeover in 10+ edits). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Is that a bannable offense in most cases? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: "Fixed grammar" is one of the canned edit summaries you can select when editing using the Wikipedia mobile app, so perhaps they were just lazy and didn't feel the edit summary was important. Generally, I assume good faith the first time around, so a warning is all that's needed. Mz7 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it is worth protecting that article. I just reverted the takeover by another IP (this time 41.114.158.124) that made a similar - if not identical - series of edits to the page, taking it over essentially. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor:  Done and judging by the contributions of Khanya Gxekwa, I'm inclined to say that they are the one using the IPs. Mz7 (talk) 19:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I shall keep a close eye on the article once it comes out of protection in 2 days. Maybe a CHECKUSER investigation should be launched? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: The Wikimedia privacy policy prevents CheckUsers from publicly connecting specific IPs to specific accounts unless there are exceptional circumstances. There is technically also no policy against editing while logged out, as long as they are intentionally trying to deceive the community. In this case, the WP:DUCK test makes it pretty obvious that the IPs and the user account are one and the same. Mz7 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Must say, the duck policy opening line did make me chuckle to myself. If the take over continues, what would an appropriate route be to take in your opinion? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

If it's continuing from the IPs, let me know and I can extend the protection. I would also leave a note at Khanya Gxekwa's talk page, explaining that new articles should not overwrite existing ones without good reason and pointing them to WP:AFC (similar to your template). If they continue to overwrite articles without explanation despite your note, it may indicate WP:NOTHERE and a more to-the-point warning or a block may be needed. Mz7 (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Will do. The take overs have now extended to Allan Granger, which I have requested temporary page protection on). They took it over, I reverted and then they did it immediately again. The IP involved I have also reported (41.114.158.124). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing (marking as patrolled) the user template I made for this sort of scenario. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I have left them a message on their talk page (which can be viewed here. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Since it was only one IP that was doing it this time, another admin has simply blocked that IP from editing instead of protect the article. Thanks for leaving the user a message! (Though it looks like you may need to add in the link to WP:AFC.) Mz7 (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Template message has been updated. If you see any improvements to be made to it, feel free to let me know or do them. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Apologies for not being clear. I meant at User talk:Khanya Gxekwa#The 'taking over' of articles it looks like you left the link to AfC out. Mz7 (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that, I didn't notice that the formatting did not transfer and have now done that. I have also reverted the addition to my template as your message makes more sense now and that is not what you intended. Offer still stands though, if you can think of any improvements to make to the template message, please feel free to do so. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Close username to admin

Would you consider the username WhyBro to be too close to WhySo (an administrator)? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I think the editor you are thinking of is SoWhy, not WhySo. With that distinction in mind, I don't think the usernames are too close. Mz7 (talk) 06:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That would be correct. Sorry for the confusion etc. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting vandalism

Take a look at this and this this. +955,710. Wow. Almost a megabyte of garbage was added - that takes some dedication - and that was before they blanked the section after that edit was reverted. Thankfully they are indefinitely blocked now. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 07:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Article takeover warning template

What do you think of the changes I have made to User:TheSandDoctor/Article takeover warning? I added the 3rd degree warning image beside it - do you think that is too harsh of an image or? The goal of this warning is to simply get the user's attention at the moment. What would be really cool is if I could somehow get it incorporated into Twinkle (as a general notice/single warning or what have you). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: The image is okay, I suppose. I've made a few wording/style changes (instead of pointing to Wikipedia:Drafts I used Wikipedia:Article Wizard) and added some content – they were WP:BOLD changes, so feel free to revert if you don't like them. For the experts on templated user warnings (of which I am not one), I recommend talking to or joining WikiProject User warnings, who have their talk page at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. They are probably the ones that know how to add warnings to Twinkle, and they are the ones that are in charge of maintaining most of the user warnings we use on the project. Mz7 (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I like the edits that you made to it, however, how do we make it point to whichever user placed it (for the talk page link) rather than it just pointing to Jimbo Wales' account? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Jimbo Wales is just a placeholder. Once you substitute the template on another page, as I did here, it will automatically replace the link with the talk page of the user who added the template. Mz7 (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay - cool. Thanks for your help! Offer is always on the table so please do feel free to make any adjustments to it as you see fit (just please don't delete it as an 'adjustment' haha ). I will link to my post on the project's talk page here when done. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Here is the link to the discussion/post Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#User_talk_warning_template_for_the_.27taking_over.27.2Fhijacking_of_articles --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Move mistake

I made a mistake and accidentally moved a talk page of a user which was attached to the user page (which they submitted to AFC). Could you please move Talk:Leconomics back to the user talk namespace? The redirect will need to be deleted as well and I accidentally created 2 redirects in the process. Could you please help with this? Sorry - first draft I have moved that was a user page and forgot to uncheck the box for moving associated talk page. The user's name is Leconomics. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Looks like this is  Already done. Mz7 (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. Was rather embarrassing haha. Glad it is fixed now. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: No worries. Worse has surely been done. Mz7 (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The first line of that page broke me up and gave me a good laugh - thanks for sharing. Feel better that I am not alone in (thankfully) simple (to fix and make) mistakes like that. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

H-Worm (Remote Access Trojan)

Good evening,

I recently received your review for my article "H-Worm (Remote Access Tool)". You declined the submission due to subject notability and source reliability. I was also flagged as a sock puppet account, which I appealed and the ban has since been removed. I would like to discuss this further with you, as I am creating this page as an assignment for my university.

With regards to subject notability, this specific malware has been used to infect millions of computers across the globe. It has even been linked to being used by several notable groups/organizations, such as Hamas. The coding behind the RAT is sophisticated and poses a significant threat to a wide variety of targets.

As far as source reliability goes, this topic is pretty obscure and anything as technical as this is rarely picked up by mainstream media. Cybersecurity firms and experts are the only existing sources of information, in which they provide clear and ample evidence to prove these points.

Please reconsider this article and get back to me with your thoughts as soon as you have a chance.

Thank you,

Austin Rose — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseaustin13 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Austin. Firstly, I would like to apologize for accusing you of sock puppetry. I noticed many different accounts submitting similar contributions and found it peculiar. I'm sorry for misunderstanding the situation and look forward to working with you on Wikipedia in the future. I'm happy to explain some of my thoughts regarding Draft:H-Worm (Remote Access Tool).

I believe the reports from the cybersecurity firms and experts are reliable enough to verify the content in the article, but unfortunately, I don't think they can be used to support the notability of the subject. On Wikipedia, notability is determined based on guidelines that represent the consensus of the Wikipedia community – the general guideline that most editors use is to see whether a topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". In essence, as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should follow what independent reliable sources consider notable, so if independent reliable sources have significantly covered a subject, that carries a presumption that that topic is also worth covering in Wikipedia.

Cybersecurity firms and experts report on many hundreds of different vulnerabilities with varying degrees of impact. Since Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, our purpose is not to cover every technical subject, only ones that have had significant coverage in secondary sources. While it may be true that this specific malware has been used to infect many computers, the fact that it has not been significantly covered by secondary sources indicates that it may not be notable enough for Wikipedia. Mz7 (talk) 04:43, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Odd acting IP

An IP user (24.151.195.0) has been going around adding {{good article}} and the featured article equivalent to pages (at random, pages that are not either GA or FA), breaking templates, and misdating maintenance tags (most of which are arguably invalid) as well as breaking templates and doing editing tests (which they only reverted a couple). Some of their edits were good/legitimate but most required either reverting or going in after the fact and cleaning up the tags etc. Just thought I would let you know of the IP's behaviour. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Could I please have some help accepting this template submission? AFCH script puts it in the article namespace and then I have to move it to the to the template namespace. The problem is that U.S. Bancorp AND US Bancorp both exist. Thanks for your help! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Ooops! I forgot to include the link to the draft template submission, sorry about that! Here it is Draft:U.S. Bancorp. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Have you tried accepting the submission directly to the title "Template:U.S. Bancorp"? When you click the "Accept" button and it gives you the form, try filling in "Template:U.S. Bancorp" in the "New title" field. Mz7 (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

It worked! I didn't know I could do that. Thanks for the help! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Awesome! I don't recall ever handling a template submission at AfC, so I wasn't 100% positive that this would work. I'm glad it did! Mz7 (talk) 01:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

As am I, would have been far more complicated if it had not! Haha. Either way, some good trivia for the both of us, eh? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit count (hard to believe)

I find it hard to believe that I now have over 9000 edits on Wikipedia ([15]). Compared to how many you have that isn't much but for an account that is only a bit over 4 months old I think that is fairly decent (is it?). It is almost a quarter the amount of edits that you have at the moment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Congratulations – I think you're right that most active editors don't make it nearly that high in just 4 months. On the other hand, I think most editors here regard raw edit count as a fairly poor way of measuring one's true experience/tenure on Wikipedia, as the number can easily be inflated through the use of scripted editing tools like Twinkle and Huggle. Additionally, while working on articles, some editors prefer to divide their work across several edits, whereas others prefer to keep the edit window open longer and save what could have been multiple edits as one large edit—same experience, yet different edit count. For another perspective, you have just 967 non-automated edits to the mainspace. Mz7 (talk) 02:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't implying it was and wow, thought it was more than that (967). I guess that just demonstrates how much vandalism etc I have been reverting. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: And even that count isn't something to really consider a big deal. For example, GoldenRing, who is (currently) Wikipedia's most recently promoted administrator, has only 302 non-automated edits to the mainspace. Mz7 (talk) 02:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for linking that page by the way - the list was humourous and gave me a good chuckle. Basically (summing it up) edit counts aren't worthless and can be a quick way to judge the experience of a user (provided they weren't vandalizing of course), however, are not the only thing that matters (which I already knew). As for GoldenRing, I supported him in his RfA, some editors raised the edit count issue but I didn't see an issue with it (his answers satisfied me etc). He hasn't blown up the Wikiverse so I think it was a good call --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Assistance with article

I was wondering if you could possibly assist me with Video game walkthrough by giving suggestions on some improvements that could be made to it? I am open to ideas as I realize that it needs work. I am hoping to one day make it GA class worthy. Thanks as always for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I would be happy to help. One thing I can suggest right away is a little bit of reorganization regarding the lead section. Lead sections should provide a summary of the body of the article (WP:LEAD), so consider shifting information from the lead to the body of the article. For example, the paragraph that begins with Historically could form a new "History" section. Mz7 (talk) 04:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much for being willing to help :D. I have added a history heading and beefed up the lead slightly and will continue working at it. Do you have any other suggestions for structural changes etc? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I am thinking that the 'Primary uses' section should be merged (either turned into a sub section or have the heading removed entirely and merged somewhere) but I am not 100% sure where at the moment. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I'm going to sign off for the night, but I will definitely take a look at the article tomorrow to see what I can do. Mz7 (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for 'reviewing' the article! I made the 'Examples' section a sub section of the 'Creation of walkthroughs' section and have cleaned out all but 2 of the entries in the 'Further reading' section - most were either already citations or I found places where they would be useful citations for bits that were previously unsourced (but that they were relevant to). Thanks for your help so far. If you have any suggestions please feel free to let me know or be BOLD (just please don't do something like merge the page etc without talking to me first haha). With your suggestion and my recent copy editing, the article is looking better than it did yesterday even (when I started the copyediting [16]). Thank you so much for your help and saying that you will see what you can do tomorrow, I really do appreciate it. If, at any point, you feel the article qualifies for a higher rating, please feel free to change it and let me know. Thanks again and talk to you tomorrow (I am only 3 hours behind you haha). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I am wondering if the 'Press' and Primary uses sections should be merged, they are the two smallest sections in the article (but still important enough to keep). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

What do you think? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I apologize for the delay in getting to this. I will take a closer look at the article now. Mz7 (talk) 02:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

No problem and thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I must say, working with this article is a new experience for me too. In the past, most of the topics I've worked with have been specific ones: a specific book, a specific mascot. For this article, the topic is general. The approach is the same, I suppose: find references that discuss the topic and summarize them from a neutral point of view. But it feels different not having something specific to consider. I don't have any advice to give regarding this. Just something I'm observing more to myself.

Anyway, that aside, regarding the "Primary uses" section, if you're looking for a place to merge it into, I'm thinking the paragraph of the "History" section that begins with "In addition to the possible entertainment value..." would be a good place to tack that information on. That paragraph already discusses the motivations of walkthrough viewers, so it feels like it would flow naturally. It's relevant to the "History" of walkthroughs because it provides context for why walkthroughs have risen in popularity recently (based on my admittedly limited understanding of them).

Another option is to still merge those two paragraphs, but instead of leaving the combined paragraph in the "History" section, we could move them to the "Press" section, where the combined content could represent a section that's about why people watch video game walkthroughs (perhaps retitling the section to "Viewer motivations" or something similar). If we do this, I would also merge in that Barbara Ortutay quote, which is also about why why people watch walkthroughs. What do you think? Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I like the second idea. Thank you so much for your help so far. This is all (semi) new to me as well. First article I have really collaborated (actively) with another editor on haha. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done [17] How does that look? Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't see this sooner - I like it a lot! Thanks so much for your help! Do you think the article is still start class? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: The article ratings below FA and GA are pretty informal – you can go ahead and change them yourself if you think it's appropriate. I've upped it to C-Class. Mz7 (talk) 05:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that, I thought it best to let others rate articles that I have created. If you think of any suggestions on how to improve it to B or GA class/rating, please do let me know. Thanks again for all your help! (As always, feel free to be bold) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions on where I could get it reliably peer reviewed? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: You could try asking for input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, where other editors interested in improving Wikipedia's video game coverage can have a look. We also have Wikipedia:Peer review, though that process is suffering from a lack of reviewers, from my experience. I would definitely seek out the WikiProject first. Mz7 (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination

I nominated you here for a Merchandise giveaway (of course put on by Wikimedia Foundation) [18]. I hope you don't mind. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: That is so cool. I'm honored that you would think of me for that. Thank you so much! Mz7 (talk) 05:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm glad you don't mind. Better way to thank you for your help (to myself and others) & the work you do as an admin than a barnstar in my opinion --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion Boulder Group

Hi, @mz7, Thanks for the note. The article is not notable and the citations given are a press release generated by the company and the other citation is a PDF located on the company site that was also generated by the company. Per A7 guidelines this company is not notable. I reverted the page back to nomination for speedy deletion. Geejayen (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Geejayen. Administrators are only authorized to speedily delete articles in very specific situations: these situations are listed at the criteria for speedy deletion – in most other cases, administrators may only delete articles after there is consensus to do so in a deletion discussion or after an expired proposed deletion. In order for an article to qualify for the speedy deletion criterion of {{db-inc}}, it must fail to make a "credible claim of significance". Note that this is a lower bar than notability; claims of significance need not be statements that, if sourced, would establish notability. In the case of Boulder Group (brokerage firm), the article does, in my view, claim significance for its subject when it claims that the company was independently ranked as one of the most significant "single tenant retail transaction" firms. (There may be an argument that the article is unsalvageably promotional, but I'm not sure about that.) If you believe that the subject is not notable, you should start a deletion discussion by following the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. If you need help with this, please feel free to let me know. Mz7 (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

My friend ClueBot

Hi Mz7,
Recently, my friend ClueBot NG made a mistake. I reinstated the mistakenly reverted edit. I also told Clue's legal gaurdian about his recent misdid. What happens next? Do you have any idea? I mean, would his parent/gaurdian contact me? Kindly ping me if you reply. I hope he doesnt get much scolding. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Usernamekiran. As far as I understand, the false positive report will be stored in a database and reviewed by the bot operators to improve the machine-learning system that ClueBot NG uses. I'd imagine, given the large number of reports they receive, that they won't have the time to notify every editor who reports a false positive, but they will still read your report and use it. You can see your report in the database here. Mz7 (talk) 01:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

So hopefully, they wouldnt scold him, right?

you are the only person around here who knows that I speak humorously lol. Do you have any nickname for wikipedia friends? —usernamekiran(talk) 01:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: They wouldn't scold him too much; they know that by telling ClueBot where he has made a mistake, ClueBot will use that information to help avoid making the same mistake in the future. As for humor, Wikipedia has no place for it. We are all very serious and terrifically important.

On a serious note, humor is indeed hard to carry over on Wikipedia because certain nonverbal communication like vocal inflection and body language, which usually help people understand the difference between harmless jokes and serious discourse, are absent. I try my best to give people the benefit of the doubt and play along when another editor is using humor, as I think a certain degree of lightheartedness is healthy for a functional community, but there are indeed times when the use of humor would be inappropriate. It's especially the case when you consider that Wikipedia is an international project, so contributors who don't share the same culture as you might not understand a humorous reference or take a joke the wrong way. I've tended to agree with the Arbitration Committee when they wrote in 2012: Particularly in community discussions, a less colloquial "universal English" is key to fostering a collaborative environment.

As for nicknames for Wikipedia friends, nothing comes to mind right away. There are a few fellow editors whose real names I know, but I still always think of them by their Wikipedia username – that's basically a nickname, right? Mz7 (talk) 02:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah that depends. I mean, on the types/categories of humour. If the humour is person to person, it might go down the road. But if there are jokes around, which dont concern to anybody, then they are nice. If some guy thanks bot for archiving talkpage, thats a good joke too. Time n space are very important in jokes.

you are right anout that too. If Ad Orientum or Acretorian told me their real names, I will be more comfortable with their usernames. And then there are some odd names "i dream of jeanie " "i dream of horses" and so on. Other call signs are sort of necessary here. lol

It was a long time since we had a good conversation. And thanks a lot for the tip about AfD. Thanks a ton! Unfortunately, i still cant find 128MB of SD RAM for my computer, and my laptop is down too. The other working laptop is being used by my sibling. So i am on mobile. Editing AfD voting is almost impossible. So I am just reading the reasoning provided there. It is a good way to know more wiki policies. But it is only about content. Anyways. Thanks again.

Once I get any of my computers back to working, I will become a lot more active, and in a lot more fields. :-) See you around Jersey man :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 02:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I am personally not bothered by quirky usernames – I feel they add a special flavor to the community. I think pseudonymity and anonymity are important on Wikipedia because they enable editors to edit privately. Harassment is an issue that the community has talked a lot about over the past few years, and having someone's private information (such as their real name) exposed without their permission is not only a form of harassment, but it also opens the door to more harassment. I'm glad to hear that you enjoy participating at AfD. It definitely exposed me to many of the content/notability policies and guidelines we have here as well. Out of curiosity, why do you sometimes refer to me as "Jersey man"? I don't think I've ever heard that expression before, and I'm not a resident of the U.S. state New Jersey, in case that's where you were getting it from. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Also: best of luck with your computer! We do have a good number of editors here who are advocates of smartphone editing and improving the editing interface from smartphones. Cullen328 has a great essay on the subject at User:Cullen328/Smartphone editing, if you're interested. Mz7 (talk) 04:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I just realised my conversations regarding bots look realy stupid lol. Especially for a person with degree in physics, electronic, and masters in computers; and a psychiatrist. I should stop that.
I also realised that I have been getting "off the topic" during conversations on wiki a lot.

Yes, you are right about the pseudonyms, and privacy. I completely agree with that. And with the flavour too. What I was trying to say is, usernames should (not must) be easy to read/pronounce, and remember, and with an easy callsign. Like Beeblebrox. There is a user on wiki with a really difficult to pronouce username, but his userpage says he also responds to "Joe". I am finding it a little dificult to put my thoughts in words lol.

Three-four days ago, I read a policy request. It was about ability to handing over adminship to a new account because of the harassment. It also said that some users (and in some instances, their family members) were harassd in real life. I believe online matters should be resolved online without harassment. In worst scenarios, one can understand heated conversations; but such online or real life harassment is beyond my understanding. But there are all sorts of people living on this planet, so i agree with pseudonyms, but easy ones :-D

I saw you are from eastern time zone, i thought you are from NJ. Calling someone Mz7 feels odd lol.
I should cease conversations like this one, and should communicate with other users on wiki only when situation calls for it lol. I will try that. :-) and yes, I am not much participating in AfD, just activily reading it. Thanks for the computers, and user Cullen's essay. I love old computers, I still use Windows 98 SE on one of my computers. Thanks again. See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Would you please take a look at this diff? Just wanted to make a point. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Looks like Beeblebrox simply isn't interested in what you have to say, so I think you can just ignore it. Note that the pending changes reviewer right only grants you the ability to approve pending changes. Users without the pending changes reviewer right can still see pending revisions, as well as pages like Special:PendingChanges. From my perspective, it is not the pending changes reviewer right that is enabling you to make edits like this one, but rather scrolling through Special:PendingChanges, which any user can do. The point still stands that an application like Huggle grants you the ability to make hundreds of reverts (typically against new editors) very quickly. The potential for large-scale disruption is high, which is why we want to see experience reverting vandalism before access is granted, and it's also why we're leery of granting access to users who are expressly uninterested in reverting vandalism. There are simply better ways for doing what you want to do. Mz7 (talk) 21:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I see your point about anybody being able to view the pending changes requiring approval. I also understand the risks regarding huggle. As soon as I get one of my computers working, I will see if using Huggle in read-only mode is possible like it was possible with an older version. Thanks for the reply. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering if there is any policy regarding vandalism and IP addesses belonging to schools? I tried to search on internet, but didnt find any results. —usernamekiran(talk) 01:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: A lot of vandalism comes from juvenile students bored in school. If a school's IP address has a long history of vandalism, administrators usually place a long-term block on the IP address (anywhere from several months to multiple years). When this happens, we ordinarily use {{school block}} in the block reason, which advises good-faith contributors to create an account at home and log in with it at school. (The IP blocks don't usually affect logged-in users.) As far as written policy goes, the blocking policy gives administrators a decent amount of latitude in deciding when to block and for how long. The information page at Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses provides some advice, however. Mz7 (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Relisting page move request

Do you think that a consensus has been reached here? If not, how do I relist it? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Same with this. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TheSandDoctor: Reading that discussion, I see some consensus that the title that it's currently at ("Triple Zero (000)") is unsatisfactory, but I'm not sure whether there's a consensus regarding what the title should be changed to. There are three different proposals, and numerically there isn't one that's the clear-cut consensus. I see:

1. Triple Zero (000) → 000 (emergency telephone number)
2. Triple Zero (000) → Triple Zero
3. Triple Zero (000) → 000

However, as the closer, your job is to evaluate arguments based on policy and evidence, not by counting votes, so I would have to think about this some more if I were closing it. It looks like Wikipedia:Requested moves#Relisting has the instructions on how to relist requested moves (it looks like you just have to add {{subst:relisting}} at the beginning of the discussion, just after the initial proposer's signature, though full disclosure: I've never relisted an RM before). Mz7 (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the second one, I definitely don't see a consensus to move Katie Walsh (politician) anywhere at this time. Relisting may be a viable option, but like I said, I've never done it before. Mz7 (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I have relisted both at this time and have made note to watch them. Thanks again for your help. Also, judging by a relisting I saw by Primfac, how you said it is indeed how you relist a move request. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Mz7. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Replied by email. Mz7 (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I replied. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 encryption terrorism

I note you declined my nominated of an article for deletion for speedy deletion. It only cites one source, yet includes material that is very clearly hoax, such as "Many hospitals in Great Britain were closed for months, only treating near-dead patients". Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Resolved at Talk:WannaCry ransomware attack#Merge proposal. Mz7 (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Carmen Perez

I have searched and have found your contributions to be helpful. I have attempted to re-instate the deleted page for Carmen Perez by providing verifiable links and references in my last entry, yet the page was deleted. The links to verify the information are legitimate and great sources (such as Billboard), so I would like to request a re-instatement of the page or if possible, your assistance in getting this page active again. Thank you. Ricabaja (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ricabaja. I took a look, and I can see that the Carmen Perez article was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Perez (2nd nomination). The relevant issue here is the notability of the artist – that is, whether Perez is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia generally determines notability by examining whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject – in other words, if reliable sources have significantly covered a topic, that carries the presumption that the topic is notable.

I noticed that you made extensive comments at the deletion discussion with links to sources that you believe support the notability of the artist. Unfortunately, I do not believe the sources that you provided at the discussion sufficiently show that Perez is notable. Sources like Wrestlingforum.com and IMDB are unreliable because they consist of user-generated content; anyone on the Internet can post to such websites with little, if any, editorial oversight. Sources like this 411mania.com article and this prnewswire.com article are insufficient to establish notability because they come directly from the subject of the article or someone directly affiliated with her (remember, we need reliable sources that are independent of the subject). Finally, the sources to the Billboard charts are okay; however, charting mid-range in a genre-specific chart is insufficient, in my view, to establish notability. I believe most Wikipedia editors would like to see appearances on the national music chart – in the United States this is the Billboard Hot 100.

So what can you do now? You could try to find additional reliable sources. We would like to see critic reviews, for instance, in reputable sources, such as national-level news media. If you gather additional sources, you may be able to submit a draft of a new article to the Articles for Creation project, which will put it a queue to be reviewed by an experienced editor for publication. Unfortunately, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, so if you cannot find additional coverage in reliable sources, consider whether it may be too soon for an article about Perez at this time. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, what you're saying makes sense and I appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me. I will search for addition sources to see if there is enough 'notability.' All the best, Ricabaja (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting guidance (urgent!)

Hi,
Would you please take a look at a page move for an article with ongoing AfD? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 NY Times Square attack. It is sort of urgent as the title provides false information; claiming an accident to be an attack. But that is my opinion, your unbiased and unprejudiced opinion is requested there. Thanks a lot. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:08, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I've moved the article and noted it at the AfD, but what's confusing is that there is another, more detailed article that duplicates this topic at 2017 Times Square vehicular attack. Someone will have to bundle that into the deletion discussion as well. Mz7 (talk) 20:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. i saw that in the AfD itself. There is a proposed move on that other article where I mistakenly participated. I should have closed it with the reasoning of "statements of police based on invistigation denies it was an act of attack". I am not sure if an article can be merged with another article proposed for deletion or vice-versa. Also, thanks a lot for prompt action. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, i was wondering what happens to a user's user-right if he has gone A-WOL for a long time, or just, gone? I have come across a few users like that. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Most of the user rights like rollback and pending changes reviewer never expire – you have them as long as you want, even if you become inactive, as long as you do not abuse them. Administrators, however, have activity requirements for holding their tools. If an administrator does not make any edits or logged actions for one year, they provisionally lose their administrator access, and if they remain active for another two years (i.e. 3 years total inactivity), then they may only regain the tools by filing a new RfA. Bureaucrats have a similar inactivity policy. CheckUsers and oversighters can also have their permissions revoked at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee if they do not actively use the tools. Mz7 (talk) 22:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

hi, would you please process my request at WP:RFP/NPR? Approval/denial based on my contrib history. As you are well aware, I am good with denials lol. I had requested for it a few days ago, but then i took it back. I have been doing a lot of reading, and looking at many cases in AfD, I think I can and should do this to clear the backlog. And in case you approve, I would like you (not anybody else) to discharge me of PCR duties (honourably lol). I really dont want to collect hats.

And as you mentioned previously, there are many ways to find needy edits, and i am coming across these ways. Also, even though AfD is a good place to get exposed to a lot of different scenarios/wiki policies, i dont think i like it there. Most of the articles are about living people, and a lot of the contributors there are "wannabe admins". I was actively participating there in last few days, in the hopes to get more knowledge, and to salvage "on the verge" articles, but all I got was promotional articles about companies or living persons. I have been participating in NPR through the feed (selecting 5 days old articles not tagged with PROD or AfD), and I think it is the right place for me work.

Again, kindly take decision as what you think is good. Even if my request is declined, I can still work there, but it wont clear the backlog. Thanks, and sorry for annoying so much like I do. —usernamekiran(talk) 08:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Kindly let me know if you notice something different in the AfD —usernamekiran(talk) 15:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Mz7,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 821 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for revisiondeletion

I have reverted this version of that page due to cyberbullying/privacy invasion. Would you be so kind to make it "go away" for all people to see? First I asked at the helpdesk because I did not know the right way to handle such a situation and the community told me to ask you, so... again, would you be so kind? Oxygene7-13 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@Oxygene7-13:  Done. Mz7 (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)