This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Delldot

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

1: 10/05–12/06
2: 12/06–01/07
3: 01/07–02/07
4: 02/07–03/07
5: 03/07–06/07
6: 06/07–09/07
7: 09/07–11/07
8: 11/07–11/07
9: 11/07–12/07
10: 12/07–01/08
11: 01/08–02/08
12: 02/08–03/08
13: 03/08–04/08
14: 04/08–05/08
15: 05/08–06/08
16: 06/08–07/08
17: 07/08–07/08
18: 07/08–08/08
19: 08/08–10/08
20: 10/08–04/09
21: 04/09–01/10
22: 01/10–11/12
23: 12/12–03/13
24: 05/13–12/15

Thanks for dropping me a note! Don't be shy about asking questions, I'm always glad to help. I will reply to messages here, so you may want to watchlist this page.
If you'd like to undo an action of mine and can't get a hold of me within a reasonable time, go ahead. If I disagree, we can discuss it when I'm back. This applies to admin actions too.


Okay so when using the web citation templates, when it asks for name, ect, that is for the website or the author? That whole template has me a bit confused Dread Skott (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey Dread Skott, yeah that stuff is confusing. Often you can figure it out by looking at the template documentation, which is supposed to explain it (i.e. go to template:cite web or whatever). name= is for the author's name (or alternately you can use last= and first= for the name). I think the name of the website goes in its own |website= parameter. You can also just play around with it filling in the values and previewing, then save when you like how it looks! BTW you know about WP:RS though right? Some random website doesn't cut it, it has to be something that gets vetted by an editor (like, I don't know, huffington post, or E! news). Let me know if I can help with anything! delldot ∇. 20:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Critical Response[edit]

When including the critics responses to productions of the work of a playwright, would it be appropriate to have the name of the play as a header, the location and date of the production as a subhead then bullet the names of the reviewers and their publications with links to the actual review?

Thank you for your guidance!

Maura MauraJunius (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey MauraJunius, good to see you're still improving it! Tough question. I don't know what the actual convention is, fortunately there's WikiProject Theatre full of folks who work on these types of articles. They don't have a guideline for playwrights but WikiProject Theatre/Article Structure has a guideline for a Response section. It's not detailed enough to answer your question though. In my opinion, it would be best to have a general header like Critical reception, then maybe subheaders for each play if there's enough info to fill out a good sized subsection. Otherwise I'd just write it out in different paragraphs. A bulleted list could work, but it might be better to just write it out in prose--I think bulleted lists are not preferred. Then I would definitely link to the reviews but I would do it in the references section--i.e. put the reference with the link between <ref></ref> tags at the end of the relevant sentence. I looked at A Very Merry Unauthorized Children's Scientology Pageant which is a featured article, meaning the community has deemed it among the best articles. I look at FA's in the relevant area when I'm trying to figure out how to write something. Here are more theater FA's. Anyway look at the Pageant article's Reception section, that's the way I'd format it (of course you're dealing with more than one play). Anyway, I hope this helps, let me know if I can clarify anything! delldot ∇. 23:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Characters that are apart of the Marvel Cinematic Universe[edit]

This category clearly meets the requirements of speedy deletion, the same editor has recreated the same categories under albeit under slightly different title variations on multiple occasions and each time the concensus is the same. It's actually disruptive behavior at this point.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I hear you TriiipleThreat, there's no way we're keeping this one, but I was loath to close the CFD discussion as speedy delete because there were other pages being discussed at the same time. I thought it might actually be more efficient to let the thing run its course. But I have no problem with speedying either. I think the way you typically express your opinion is to comment with a speedy delete in the deletion discussion rather than tagging the page. You can weigh in on the other cats that way too. Peace, delldot ∇. 03:15, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


Thanks very much for reviewing our article.. come join the fun at the WikiCup! Reviewing good articles gets you points. Hope to see you competing soon! ツStacey (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite! I write at a pretty glacial pace though. I miiiight have a look. :) delldot ∇. 21:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Haha, so do we normally.. This has become strangely competitive! Dave (User:Worm That Turned) does all the writing while I make brews and poke him with a stick.. Its really working; I feel I am really achieving something! ツStacey (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I see, very clever! Do I get a stick too if I join? delldot ∇. 21:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

You have been poked for MOTIVATION - "YOU CAN WIN.. a barnstar..", you were poked by Stacey on 21:47, 7 January 2016 (UTC).

Ah, consider me motivated! delldot ∇. 21:52, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget to join! If you just score points you will be through the first round.. You've already got points from your Good article review.. Come on! ツStacey (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Huh, so you can retroactively claim points after you join? delldot ∇. 06:52, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
As I understand it, it is for anything done since 1st January :) Get signed up! ツStacey (talk) 11:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

RE: Welcome Message[edit]

Thank you for inviting me delldot. Happy to be here. -- BetaVersa (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

:) Talk to you soon I hope, BetaVersa delldot ∇. 07:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help[edit]

Thank you for helping to make the article Neonatal infection get even better with your recent edit. I just found out that it is in the que to appear on the Main page in the "Did you know..." section in about a week. If you would like to help make it even better, please feel free to polish it up with me. Thanks again and Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

FA review for Sexuality after spinal cord injury[edit]

Just want to give you a heads up that I'll give comments for this article tomorrow. I hope all is well! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thanks a ton Notecardforfree! delldot ∇. 07:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion - NPlot[edit]

Hi, you have deleted the article on NPlot. The reason stated indicates misunderstanding of the subject (refer to the Talk page; - update - didn't even manage to write anything on the Talk page because the article was deleted before I could do anything, so I will put the argument about contesting deletion on my talk page). Can you please revert the action so that the article is available for eventual improvement. Thanks, Ajgorhoe (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hey Ajgorhoe, sorry for the speed of that speedy! Sure, I can undelete it so you can work on it. How about somewhere in your userspace like User:Ajgorhoe/NPlot at least until it's got a few references for verifiability. You're right that the A7 web was not the right justification so that was my mistake to go with that, but wouldn't you agree that it should meet the General notability guideline by showing it's been written about in reliable sources? Thank you for bringing this up, I'm sure your contributions will be valuable. delldot ∇. 15:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi delldot, thanks for your response. It would be useful for me if you save the article to User:Ajgorhoe/NPlot because I will not be able to work on it soon. I planned to add a broader set of information about .NET libraries because I think that software libraries are poorly covered in general and this would also be useful to attract other contributions in the area (to move things from a standing point). But my stock of time is limited and I already spent this weekend's stock on studying formalities, in particular to figure out how to start and evolve work without parts being removed before they get close enough to their final form.
Of course I agree that articles should meet notability guidelines, verifiability, accuracy etc. Exactly for this reason the amount of work invested in this short piece of information was rather large, but further work would be needed (not in terms of deletion, if I try to make my point) and I don't think I should feel solely responsible or "called" for this mission. Wikipedia is a collaborative project and people can't claim parts of it. In order for an article to reach maturity and good quality, it is necessary that more people get involved and it takes some time and iteration. In the particular case, the article would have most value when connected to other related information (which would advance the whole area) and this should be built here. But this will not happen (it hasn't by now with exception of some specific areas such as numerical libraries) if a modest start is not possible. Regards, Ajgorhoe (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure, I will undelete it as soon as I'm home in front of a computer, rather than on my mobile. Thanks Ajgorhoe for the time you've put in so far and I'm sorry for not recognizing that right away. I see your point about having something there as a basis for future work. How about adding just a reference or two to get it up to a minimum standard, then moving it to article space and soliciting help on the relevant WikiProject talk page? Or even soliciting help while it's still in the user space? Maybe we can find some active editors in the field as well, and leave them personal messages. I don't mind helping with some of this, but adding the references is probably going to be difficult for me due to the aforemand unfamiliarity with the topic. Peace, delldot ∇. 21:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your advise. I'll have to leave it aside for some time, but later the undeleted article will be useful and I'd try to improve it according to your suggestions. I didn't think of soliciting help on the relevant WikiProject talk, and it might be a good idea, especially with a broader work on libraries which I would like to see pushed forward. I will probably come back for some advice later. Regards, Ajgorhoe (talk) 23:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely, I'm happy to help and advise however I can, just let me know. here's the undeleted article, I'm interested to see what you do with it once you have time. Peace, delldot ∇. 02:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Delta Dawn (murder victim)‎[edit]

Hi. Can you give Delta Dawn (murder victim)‎ a look-over/copy-edit? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure Paul, what do you have in mind? A GA-type review where I say what I think is missing in terms of comprehensiveness and everything? Or more of just a straight copyedit/prose check? You want me to bring up issues I find on the talk page, or just fix stuff myself? delldot ∇. 19:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Both review and bring up issues and if you can fix stuff yourself where you can, that would be good. Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Cool, will do. delldot ∇. 19:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Assigning categories[edit]

Thanks for all of the work you did to carry out Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 28#Category:Populated places by year of establishment subcats. I would hope that a bot could do some of the heavy lifting but it appears like a task that had to be done manually. Liz Read! Talk! 18:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Aw, thank you so much for that Liz! It's rare enough to have someone acknowledge grunt work like that (which actually I enjoy way more than is probably healthy). When I saw the orange notice I literally said "oh dear" out loud because I was sure it was either someone letting me know I screwed something up or that there was a more intelligent way to have done that. delldot ∇. 18:54, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
To be honest, I use to spend a lot of time in CfD discussions when I first started regularly editing in 2013. So I thought when I became an admin last summer, I thought I'd be doing a lot of work in CfD field. But while I am comfortable closing discussions, I find the instructions to carry out actions like mergers so confusing compared to other deletion areas that I've worked in more straight-forward admin activities. If you'd ever be willing to walk me through it, I'd appreciate it!
Oh, and I noticed all of the work you were doing because I regularly tag empty categories and some of those categories you deleted were empty and kept appearing on the database report list every morning but were left untouched because they were involved in a CfD discussion. So, now they be gone! Liz Read! Talk! 20:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely, I'm happy to help however I can. (Although I reserve the right to have no idea what I'm doing at all times.) Actually if we can identify specific parts of WP:CFDAI that are confusing, maybe we can make some useful edits and recruit some more help! delldot ∇. 06:11, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 February[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Shooting of Anthony Hill[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! delldot ∇. 04:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


The Disability Barnstar WikiProject Disability Barnstar
Awarded for hard work, stamina and quality of work done in creating and improving Sexuality after spinal cord injury to Featured Article quality and thus contributing to WikiProject Disability.
Awarded by: Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this and for all the help! delldot ∇. 19:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Chest trauma[edit]

Template:Chest trauma has been nominated for merging with Template:Trauma. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Tom (LT) (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Compass Barnstar Hires.png The Guidance Barnstar
Thanks for your guidance on avoiding paraphrasing at Talk:Dibatag/GA1, and also for promoting the article! Sainsf <^>Feel at home 10:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Delldot. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]


Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Delldot.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Delldot. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

Toco Ramphastos listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Toco Ramphastos. Since you had some involvement with the Toco Ramphastos redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Loopy30 (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Sexuality after spinal cord injury scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Sexuality after spinal cord injury article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 1 February 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 3, 2017. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)