User talk:Nyttend/Archive 33

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Common name

Hi. If memory serves, I believe I generally agree with you. And as you are an admin, I expect that even when people read what you have written as a non-admin, they may assume it is more likely to be be based on wp policies. So I was surprised to see you write, in a discussion as to the appropriate name on wp for an article title, as though the wp policy wp:commonname did not even exist: "We aren't a news aggregator, so the terminology the news people use is of secondary importance". You don't even acknowledge that your words are at odds with the policy. Which says we should pick the name based on what English language RSs (including major major English-language media outlets - which you disparage) use. I understand people can disagree with our policies. And can seek to distinguish a case from our policy. But I'm always surprised if a sysop makes an argument that ignores the existence of an on-point policy; especially when the policy is on its facecontrary to the sysop's statement. Furthermore, as to your argument that the name is already taken -- well, of course, that's why we have dab pages, and dab hatnotes. Galore. Best, and I hope you take this in the friendly but direct manner that I intend it.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'm moving your response here, below, as I think it is easier to follow a conversation in one place.Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Either you completely missed my point, or I've completely misunderstood you.

We rely on secondary sources, not primary sources, as the basis for making our decisions. As primary sources, news articles are completely irrelevant for judging long-term notability, since they're necessarily weighted toward the recent, and they cannot provide any kind of historical overview for the events they're reporting. The WP:PRIMARY section of the OR policy is clear on this:

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

We therefore must ignore current news reports when we're determining what's most common in the reliable sources — we have no business making interpretive claims such as "the newspapers use name1, so it's more significant than name2".

As a kind-of side note, consider that primary sources are necessarily going to pay more attention to the latest events; there aren't that many news articles about Isis, Thoth, Ra, or any other Egyptian gods. Moreover, the vast majority of sources (primary, secondary, or tertiary, and reliable or unreliable) have said nothing whatsoever about this group that's just arisen recently. When we are most definitely not the newspaper, why must we give preference to news stories when they're just a tiny minority of all English-language reliable sources of any sort? It's like John Paul Jones and the occasional attempts (see the RMs at his talk) to move his article so that he's (at best) equal to a pop musician: the vast majority of reliable sources discussing "John Paul Jones" have referred to him, not the musician, so we keep him as the primary topic. This isn't any different.

Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We must have a miscommunication. You wrote, in your comment as to which article name to use: "We aren't a news aggregator, so the terminology the news people use is of secondary importance".

I responded by pointing out that we have a policy in this regard. And that under the policy we do in fact focus on what English language RSs use as the common name. Including major major English-language media outlets use.

News articles are published by media outlets.

You never mentioned the policy. And I don't see how your view is consistent with the plain language of the policy.

Above, in response, you speak about primary vs. secondary sources. I've read that twice, and still fail to see what relevance that has to my point. I'm referring to major English media outlets -- why would you view those as anything but secondary sources? That whole conversation does not seem to respond to the points I made, so I think you are quite correct as to miscommunication.

And, it matters not a whit if there is an ISIS that is a god, or an Islamic State of yore ... those are issues for disambiguation. We do know how to dab. If two people or entities have a name in common, under our policy wp:commonname, that is the name we use for the people or entity ... we don't pick some less common name just because the more common name is shared.

The discussion was not about what the primary topic should be (something else you discuss now). It was about the name that the entity should have. We don't give John Paul Jones a made-up or second-most-common name because there are two of them (or more). We have a dab page, or a primary topic page, and each is called John Paul Jones, as they should be. Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Please read the primary source article and understand what a primary source is. News articles are a fine example of a primary source: they're produced in the immediate chronological context of the event in question. It's one of the most basic principles of historiography: a secondary source is something produced after the fact, by someone who's been able to review the event from a distance by examining the primary sources, which were produced at the time of the event. Encyclopedias write based on secondary sources, not primary sources such as news stories. It's particularly significant with something in this situation: we write for a timeless audience, not for the idiots who know nothing of history and only know what's on TV. We serve those idiots by showing them that there's actually a broader historical context, reminding them that the here-and-now is ephemeral, and (in this specific context) that the secondary sources have discussed Islamic states for over a thousand years, that a few recent news articles using the term for something else are a ridiculously tiny minority, and that they'd be an ignorable number even if they were secondary. Nyttend (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Tarakan (1945)

Hi, I've tweaked the wording in this article to clarify what happened. The Japanese soldiers evaded the Allies until the end of the war, when they appear to have promptly surrendered. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

New York NR noms

Try another browser. I've had problems with IE and the Java apps at the OPRHP site before, but not as much with Firefox and Chrome. You may also want to make an exception to the security protocols for that site ... sometimes that's an issue.

If that fails, I could see about printing the noms as PDFs and mailing them to you.

And if all else fails, we can whip the horses' eyes, and MAKE ... THEM ... SLEEP! Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's something Morrison says near the end of the song that no one has ever quite figured out. Not in the article, but should be. Daniel Case (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about the weather, it was lousy here too, 200+ miles further east. But aside from that ... Great! Another fully illustrated list soon! Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Photo Trips

Thanks for the heads up. We won't conflict this weekend; *if* I can get out, it will be to pick up some stragglers in the Somerset/Bedford counties. If you plan on mounting a big expedition into WV in the hear future, we should touch base, I'll do the same. That's what I'm going to work on next, now that my home base of southwest PA is getting, as we say, mined out. Generic1139 (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

And I'll try to remember to remove the needs photo tag in the future. Seems like a job for bot, though. Generic1139 (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

My notional bot would only check the image= parameter in the nrhp infobox. Not perfect, but it would have gotten all the ones with my photos that you recently fixed. I take your point, though. At least one assumption would need to be made, that the reqphoto template was placed as a result of the NRHP process, and not one of the projects the article may be in scope for. Since the tag might often come from elkman's info box tool, it would have been nice if it had added a parameter to identify that had come from the the NRHP project, so we could more easily botify. Hindsight. Generic1139 (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Alas, real life has intervened and I've not be able to get out this weekend. Soon, though. Glad the weather worked out for you. Generic1139 (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I am getting out Sat morning - a few in Westmoreland and Somerset. Generic1139 (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Trinity Episcopal Church (Kirksville, Missouri) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|Episcopal]] church building at 124 N Mulanix Street in [[Kirksville, Missouri|Kirksville]], [[Missouri, [[United States]]. Displaying an eclectic style, it was placed on the National Register

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to National Register of Historic Places listings in Franklin County, Indiana may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|address=Old [[Indiana State Road 1|State Road 1]] over Whitewater River]]
|}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Trollface

No, I don't have magic admin powers. I assumed they were the same, since it's an ongoing thing. I defer to your judgement, as you can see it. Got a link for me? Begoon ^talk 12:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No, no link; I checked the deleted content. Since you had not seen the deleted content, you should not have tagged it as a repost. Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Cool. I'll ask another admin to compare the files and comment on what I "should" or "shouldn't" have done. For clarity, your bizarre pronouncements on what I "should have done" are, at this point, unwelcome. Thanks for your reply. I promise to apologise if I am wrong. Begoon ^talk 13:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clearer then. Do not tag a page for speedy deletion if you do not know that it qualifies. In particular, do not tag a page for G4 unless you already have seen the deleted content and know that it's a repost. Please remember that it must be a repost; pages with different contents on the same topic, including this image, are not eligible. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clearer too. Do not post your "instructions" in this manner on my talk page again. They are unwelcome, as are you if this is how you wish to comport yourself. My actions, as seen in the deleted page history, and at Talk:Troll (Internet) were intended to act in this website's best interests. Yours seem all about scoring some sort of points. I'm unsure why you felt this sort of pompous behaviour was justified here. Adjust your attitude, please. You have some privileges on a website, that's all. Get over yourself, and preferably do it elsewhere. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 20:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Very well: I will make no more instructions. If you continue to abuse the speedy deletion criteria and/or continue harassing me for enforcing them, you will be blocked for disruption. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

What a very strange thing to say. I reacted badly to what I considered a very offhand action - that I confess. I do, for my part, apologise for my snarkiness in this matter - I think we're both better than that, and I look forward to better dealings with you, as I'm sure we have had in the past. Peace. Begoon ^talk 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Intense flame war getting worse

Would you have the time to take a look at this [1], [2] related to this [3]. An already very intense flame war ignored by admins for 10 days has gotten completely out of hand after this extremely popular canvassing [4]. The longer this drags on, the worse it will get.Jeppiz (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

Looks like TParis has handled it. I don't think describing yourself as a Christian disqualifies you, but the canvassing probably makes it more trouble than it's worth. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you absolutely sure?

On User:Seth_Fleming, they're plainly using their user page as some sort of 'checklist' for their real life activities that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. I could -maybe- understand if they had some userboxes or details about their editing stuff, but literally, they're only using it as a webhost. Tutelary (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Whiteratxo

Where are the sources that this person is a child of George Clooney, and that Clooney had no interest in fatherhood, or that the mother was only interested in prescription drugs? Where is the source for the claim this individual had a negative relationship with Miley Cyrus and is currently the boufriend of Taylor Swift? This userpage portrays Clooney and Cyrus in a negative light with no sources, and is at best a violation of U5 or G11. INeverCry 01:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I just hope this doesn't have anything to do with my editing of Russian topics or my atheism... INeverCry 01:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A move may be required

This move should be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

My de facto topic ban

Hello Nyttend,

I wish to present my point of view regarding some of the points that came up in the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Plagiarism.2C_BLP_violation.2C_and_long-term_POV_pushing_by_User:The_Discoverer ANI discussion, which I only saw after it was closed.

In the 2013 ANI discussion, User:Jreferee later revised his closing comments, after I explained my point of view to him. Unfortunately Zanhe did not present the ANI discussion in its final state.

I have never engaged in sock puppeteering.

In the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive750#Sports.2FGames_in_India 2012 ANI discussionand [5], I was just splitting some big sections of Sport in India into smaller articles, and the copyvio text came from Sport in India. I did not add even a single word that wasn't already in Sport in India. My only mistake was that I did not mention in the edit summary that I had taken the text from Sport in India.

Regarding the quote of MacFarquhar, I had copied a sentence from the blog, while I was copying text that the blogger had quoted from MacFarquhar. I was only copying this text to cite, and not to include in the article content, and I did not copy any analysis.

Regarding my addition to Sino-Indian border dispute, I admit that I was wrong. I felt that paraphrasing the two sentences would be interpreted again by Zanhe as POV. I guess I should have added them as quotes from the respective sources.

Regarding the copyvio issue, I assure you I'll not infringe again. However, please take into account that the 2013 Sports in India incident copyvio was not due to me, and the older ones were when I had less experience.

Regarding the edits on the Sino-Indian and Indo-Pak related topics, I would like to take up your offer of understanding from you where I erred, and how I can improve.

I also request you to lift the editing ban on me. I will try my best not to fall foul again, and will ask you for advice if I have a doubt.The Discoverer (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend, I strongly urge you not to lift the ban on The Discoverer. This is not about giving a new user a second chance; he is a serial offender who had been given numerous chances to reform, but never did. As the evidence [6] [7] added by Bladesmulti has shown (which I missed because The Discoverer had deleted all warning messages from his talk page without archiving them), he has been infringing on copyrights and plagiarizing for six years. Too often he has smooth-talked his way out of serious trouble, enabling him to commit new offences, which has put a heavy burden on other users to detect and rectify. I have lost count of how many times he has apologized for an offence, only to commit it again. As the most recent situation shows [8], he's capable of offering seemingly sincere apology for an offence, while simultaneously committing a new one. I've edited more than ten thousand pages and dealt with hundreds of vandals and POV pushers, but have never seen anyone as dishonest as The Discoverer. -Zanhe (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Nyttend would better know about lifting topic ban. It is, that a user must heavily contribute into subjects for some time without causing any havoc. Until now, Discoverer has not made any edit on article or talk(pages). Bladesmulti (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nyttend, I would like to discuss the two problematic issues you pointed out: one is the Claude Arpi situation, and the other is the incident on the Sino-Indian border article.

Regarding the Claude Arpi edit, please could you elaborate about what went wrong there?

Regarding the Sino-Indian border edit, I understand that the fact that I added two sentences verbatim from the sources was wrong. That is from the copyvio aspect. From the NPOV aspect, was it unacceptable to add these to the article (leaving aside the copyvio)? As it stands today (" In September 2014, India and China had a standoff at the LAC, when Indian workers began constructing a canal in the border village of Demchok, and Chinese civilians protested with the army's support. It ended after about three weeks, when both sides agreed to withdraw troops.[citation]"), the description of this border incident is based only on one news source, while there are other news sources A and B that say that India claims that Chinese troops entered Indian-claimed territory. That was the first point I was trying to add. And I wasn't trying to push only one point of view, I myself incorporated Zanhe's addition into my edit. Regarding the second sentence "And with every intrusion, China changes the ground realities at the border, gaining ever more territory in the process and redrawing the map in its favour." from the BBC, there are other news sources A and B which talk about this in terms of "incremental area denial". .The Discoverer (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

In the border dispute case, I was trying to state the facts: that India claims that Chinese soldiers entered Indian claimed territory (A, B and C), and as the BBC puts it, "With every intrusion, China changes the ground realities at the border, gaining ever more territory in the process and redrawing the map in its favour." and this is also dealt with in these sources A and B.

Please help me understand where I went wrong and what concerns you have in the above border dispute article, and also in the Claude Arpi case.The Discoverer (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In the case of the Khurnak Fort edit, I admit I made a mistake. I meant to attribute that the part "the Johnson Line and the Macartney-Macdonald Line, which were proposed by the British" to Maxwell. That both the Johnson and Macartney-MacDonald line placed the boundary at Khurnak fort can be seen from any map of the Johnson and Macartney–MacDonald Lines such as this one. Infact, the Johnson line, the Macartney-MacDonald line, and the Indian claim are the same in the region of the Khurnak fort. My error is that I called it "This traditional boundary", which is debatable, but not necessarily false. For instance, this source clearly states that during talks, India submitted among other official records as proof of jurisdiction, the 1908 Settlement Report regarding revenue in kind, which showed the amount of revenue collected at Khurnak. Further, once Zanhe raised an objection to this sentence, I agreed and did not add it back. In fact, in every case, I have been open to comments and discussion, taken into account others' concerns, tried to build consensus, and explained the rationale behind my edits in edit summaries and talk pages.The Discoverer (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Req. deletion/move not done

Hello Nyttend. I am the one that requested the deletion for a move because of primarytopic for Trondhjems SK. I based my criteria for the skating club to be primary because of several more famous members of that skating club before the ski club, since the skating club have more internationally known World Champions and Olympic winners than the ski club. And also 2 out of 5 founders of the Norwegian Skating Association represented this skating club in Trondheim (reference (in Norwegian)). The skating club is also just slightly older, but that is no big deal since both clubs are more than 129 years old. So I'll ask you on what bases did you decide that there were no primary topic for the articletitle Trondhjems SK. Regards Migrant (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Skating and skiing clubs

Moved from User talk:Migrant

(the discussion started here... don't move it around, although it can be moved further to the related talk page for the disambiguation page or something.) Regards Migrant (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For those of us in English-speaking countries, both entities are quite obscure, and giving either one the primary-topic name is going to cause confusion. This is of course justified if one article is fuller and/or demonstrates that it gets the large majority of appearances in English-language publications, but right now the two articles are functionally identical in scope and size: if one is to have the primary-topic name, you really need to have a full community discussion, and/or you need to flesh out the articles to make it clear that one is much more significant than the other. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I thought that the linked names in each article named several more famous member athletes in the skating club article than the skiing club article ? So if you look at those linked biographies at each article I would guess you see what I mean. There might be clue in that there aren't yet any NO:WP article for the skiing club (allthough they are notable for that wikipedia because of it's age), but there are one for the skating club (NO:WP -article). So how good knowledge do you really have in the sports-segment of wikipedia. I just did a look through your edit-backlog for the 2 past months and I couldn't find any real txt-adding for sports-articles. It seemed mostly like churches-category, adding pics in several topics and some other changes and not that many regarding wintersports besides the list of redirects for the winter-olympics (1st to 22nd). Regards Migrant (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I noted that there were more famous sportsmen in the skating club, but that by itself isn't enough to say "this one's primary". Since we're talking about two topics that are little-known among anglophones, the default is to consider neither one primary. In short, we have the primary-topic thing so that we cause the least surprise among readers: we do our best to reduce the number of times that someone ends up at the wrong article, and since both topics apparently get very few appearances in English publications, we can't really predict which one is more significant and deserves the primary topic status. This is why I suggested a substantial expansion of both in order to indicate that one really does get much more English attention than the other. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Restoration of Category:Wikipedians who use Linux

Hi, I noticed you restored Category:Wikipedians who use Linux. I had previously deleted this category as recreation of previously deleted content. As you can see from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/April_2008#Category:Wikipedians_by_operating_system, there was consensus to delete this and all similar categories. A more recent discussion on a similar category can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_13#Category:Wikipedians_who_use_Microsoft_Windows. There has never been any consensus other than to delete operating system categories. The intent of the category is identical - it is irrelevant that the specific content of the category is different if the reasons for deletion still stand. I am formally requesting that you reverse your restoration and re-delete this category to follow all previously established precedent and consensus. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, your interpretation of WP:CSD#G4 is that categories are not eligible for deletion via this criterion so long as the content of the category description is different, regardless of the intent of what the category is intended to categorize? I'm absolutely shocked if so. The deletion discussion deleted the category because of what it intended to categorize. It is immaterial if some or even all of the category description is different so long as the intent for the category is the same. If I follow that logic, anyone could get around the deletion results of a CfD by simply changing the category description contents from what was previously deleted. I've reached out to the closing administrator for their comment on this. Additionally, I am disappointed that you went ahead and reversed my deletion instead of first going to my talk page to bring me your concerns, which I would have expected for a policy dispute. VegaDark (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphan tag

I saw your edit at Australochus and the orphan tag. That made me wonder why the orphan tag wasn't showing up in the article. After some testing and searching, I found this edit to the template. I guess hiding the tag was done on purpose. As soon as I learn something, it changes. Bgwhite (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

2011 in Australian literature

I see the problem. I was asking for the Talk page to be undeleted when actually I meant the Article page "2011 in Australian literature". Revision history of that page can be found here: Talk:2011 in literature. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not using the right process, which is causing the confusion. if you have a look at the Talk pages of "2011 in literature" you see the following: "2011 in Australian literature was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 04 January 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 2011 in literature. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here." From this it looks like the "2011 in Australian literature" page was created and then merged into "2011 in literature". Maybe I need to ask for a demerger? Any advice appreciated. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Notify by mentioning?

I noticed your yellow box at the top. Do you have "Mention" enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo? Many editors today probably expect you will be notified if they link your user page, for example with {{Ping}}. (I haven't mentioned you and didn't come here due to a specific situation) PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC

I'm confused by your removal of the Media Viewer notice from the Template:Centralized discussion. Your edit summary was that it was closed?!? Alsee (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Places that aren't there anymore

As promised, the former locations of the Mount Pleasant Armory and Ligonier Armory have been imaged. It happened to be (unbeknownst to me) Fort Ligonier Days, the big parade went right past the armory location, and high school band bus parking area was adjacent. It took a while to get that pic. I was the only person there with a camera with his back to the parade. Generic1139 (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with this in userspace

How is this possibly worthy of you recreating it? Did you notice the [9] older version with nearly 1.4 million bytes of the same? I can understand that you were not aware that this user was just one of a string of socks who had been making similar banana related edits last week, and maybe I didn't ask for the right speedy (G1?, U5?), but why restore it? It just seems odd that this would have to got through MfD to get cleaned up. Meters (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Meters's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

try these

User:Smallbones/Philly NRHP recommended, plus I can recommend some near Broomall. I still owe you an e-mail, which should explain a few things. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for copy of deleted article

Thanks for the information. Unfortunately, it's not as similar as I hoped, and I can locate nothing online. Thanks for your help anyway.--Auric talk 22:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Curious about KY county list

Hey Nyttend, I noted that the FL template was being removed from the List of counties for Kentucky...Does that mean it will be a former FL?? If so, please do let me know as I would very much like to help make it a FL again...UNLESS of course, I have misunderstood the edit..Many ThanksCoal town guy (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Coord Purge

I did about 100 of the county lists in User:Nyttend/NRHP row and coord using Dudemanfellabras's script. One or two of the lists only had coord in the unlisted or delisted sections. I noted them on the talk page for your list, hoping there is some easier way to convert them to the nrhp row format than doing it by hand. Upon reflection, it seems likely that some of the lists that did get corrections made by the script also have coord in old format entries that the script doesn't see, and weren't caught by noticing there were no entries to be corrected. I can go look manually, or you can catch the presumably small number of them by running your bot query again when we're all done, which wouldn't be a bad idea anyway. Generic1139 (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I see we're starting to collide on the remainder. I'll back off for a while and see what's left later tonight. Generic1139 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

User :PersianFire, again!

Hi Sir. after you comments on talk page of PersianFire and guide me, He commented in his talk page and I answerd him. Then I removed no source critical information of two articles but he reverted my edits.([10]-[11]) He doesn't debate with me about the engagement and just insist of add no source information. I can't do anymore with these sort of users and I don't know their logic. Please come inside and protect the articles. Thanx.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you f*cking kidding?

When three editors revert a single editor who reverts an article seven times, that's the definition of an edit-warrior. Reporting it is what one is supposed to do, and the user repeatedly blanked all efforts at discussing the issue. I find your statement patently absurd. If anyone deserves sanction here, it's Diego Moya for basically butting into a thread to level threats and attacks at me for using the proper process to report an edit warrior. Ridiculous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thank you for message, I have a question, what can i do about an edit war? who decide what is kept if the editors can't decide? Thanks again Javier2005 (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR of User:PersianFire

Hi again Mr Nyttend. About engaging between me and User:PersianFire in two articles, I added valid source to save my edits, So he couldn't revert it and just...!

But in another case, I delete his no source information and he reverted it again! If I add a short description in my edit summaries, he never did it and no discussion with me and you to convince us for his no source information!! I guess this case is a WP:3RR case. I want take a decision. Thanx.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Why you don't answer me? If you agree with, you are responsible to against the user. Where is your responsibility

? If you can protect wikipedia, please don't let the user to do these kind of vandalism. He add no source information almost daily! Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edit caused an error on the Progress page

This edit, where you combined Olympia, Washington, back into Thurston County, caused an error when I was running the bot on the Progress page just now after it had been running for a little over three hours. I have fixed everything now and will re-run the bot, but just for future reference, any time you do anything with splitting or recombining lists (although the latter should be far less common), either update the Progress page to reflect that change or let me know, and I will do so. Thanks.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Kroger 200

I feel that the Martinsville Camping World Truck Series race is clearly a primary topic since this race still exists. The other two races in the disambiguation page reference 2 races--one which was titled "Kroger 200" years ago and is no longer, and the other is the same situation but the race doesn't even exist anymore. Anybody coming to Wikipedia to look up "Kroger 200" will be referencing the current race--the only one that exists. NASCARredirect (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Re 20 to 1 tag removal

I respect your removal of the speedy tag, but I had tagged it that way because no sources were offered as to the source of the rules(a publication, tournament, etc) which suggested to me that it was made up. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at 331dot's talk page.
Message added 23:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

331dot (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

an close

Re [12] -- the Rfcu was certified by myself as well as Msnicki, therefore meeting the two editor requirement. Please revert your AN and let the dicussion continue. NE Ent 09:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive summary

Can I talk you into using the |result = option in the archiving of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Rfcu_deletion_review?--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Memorial logo.png

Oh, right... What's the template to request its removal then? It can't stay because it's a non-free image that is not used anymore due to being superseded.--Pudeo ' 14:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#unsuitablity for admin role and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, NE Ent 15:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Moving target

I am sorry for creating a moving target, but this case has a lot of different aspects and I'm struggling to get focused on what's really important. Jehochman ^Talk 13:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Akuressa Bombing.jpg

The copyright of File:Akuressa Bombing.jpg is owned by The Daily Telegraph and one needs to get permission from Telegraph newspaper to use it and hence the claim of fair use is wrong .Hence request you delete the file.The image is copied form [: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/4973425/Suicide-bomb-blast-in-Sri-Lanka-caught-on-camera.html?image=3 here]Trenchfighter (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

First Methodist Episcopal Church of McKeesport

matthew 7:7 --Generic1139 (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to try to get out this weekend before everything get too leaf-less and bleak, though I'm still waiting for the leaves to be totally gone to see just what is really at Regester Log House, it might be 1/2 of the original cabin moved down the hill, or something else altogether. It doesn't match the photo at crgis, but there have been several photos swapped around in that area. Generic1139 (talk) 17:38, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm waiting to see what the weather will be before picking a spot this weekend. It will be either somewhere in WV, or to Johnstown (Cambria) and Huntingdon County to finish up, so let me know if you get the urge for those areas so we don't overlap. Generic1139 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hi, as the template on nominated categories states, "If you disagree with its speedy renaming, please explain at this category's entry on the speedy renaming section of the Categories for discussion page. ... So please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress." If you make a statement of opposition, it will not be processed speedily and will be either abandoned by the nominator or (probably more likely) moved to a full CFD. But one can't just withdraw another user's nominations by deleting it from WP:CFDS and removing the templates!

Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey, regarding this issue, I just wanted to let you know that the issue was taken to full CFD here. I wanted you to have a chance to contribute if you were interested in doing so. Thx. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Solar Roadways: Request for comment because of deletion of referenced criticism sections

See: Talk:Solar_Roadways#Request_for_comment_because_of_deletion_of_referenced_criticism_sections

Thoughts? Please comment on the article talk page. Thewhitebox (talk) 13:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Cell ID

Please go ahead. The only reason was to stop the IPs and named editors from warring. Too many to block and some were autoconfirmed. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:34, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

CFD closure

Hi, thanks very much for closing CfDs including two from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 12. Please note that when the outcome is "keep" or "no consensus", it's very helpful for future reference to list the outcome on the category talk page, as recommended at WP:CFDAI. I've now done that for those two. Cheers – Fayenatic London 17:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Squirrel Hill Site

You'd asked back in September about the nearby road (Old River Road) to the Squirrel Hill Site. To my surprise, the dirt road does exist, at least that portion that starts at 9th street in New Florence and goes by the site. I went as far to the SW as the RR underpass. Generic1139 (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism at Largent West Virginia

Could we please stop the IP editor from editing the Largent, West Virginia page to read that its citizens use possum pelts as currency?Coal town guy (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgetown, Pennsylvania. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User:TheNewSaadia

Hello, user TheNewSaadia who you blocked has already started to revert again and has been properly warned about reverting. Clearly the user does not care about consensus decision. The edits made here: [13] have been opposed by me as well has other editors in the article: Prophecy of Seventy Weeks. The edit is not trustworthy because of controversial information added would effect other articles related to the topic. Simply, there isn't enough input on the edit, and this edit requires a great amount of consensus from other editors. Here was my reply to the editor: [14]. Please view the discussion on the article's talk page for more input — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIIIThe block was only for a 24-hour period that has since passed. I have responded to your objection at length in the talk page here. The new information is well-supported by one of the leading peer-reviewed journals in the field of biblical criticism and counts as a reliable secondary source according to the standards for "Humanities and history." Complaining to an admin/mod every time I attempt to edit the relevant entry instead of discussing the matter with me in the corresponding talk page is not helpful. TheNewSaadia (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@TheNewSaadia I have placed my opinion and reasons per WP:AVOIDEDITWAR why your edits could not be applied, yet you continue to go beyond the boundaries of the 3RR rule by continually reverting even after a temporary blockage. Clearly you don't care for consensus, therefor, you are POV pushing, and ignored the opinions of other editors per WP:LISTEN. I have said enough, and you have been warned multiple times and by admin Nyttend. I have the right to contact the admin who blocked you because of you continue violate Wiki polices. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIIIFirst of all, I am not currently in violation of the 3RR rule since I've been editorially silent in observation of the 24-hour ban. And, secondly, I think it is unreasonable for you to demand consensus so long as you are unwilling to discuss matters with me in the relevant talk page. In any case, withholding consensus should not be a strategy for preventing someone from responsibly citing reliable secondary sources in leading peer-reviewed journals that improve entries concerning topics belonging to the Humanities and history. Finally, Nyttend has given me permission to "make useful contributions" once the ban is ended, as it has. TheNewSaadia (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@JudeccaXIII, I would also like to add that Wikipedia's rules and policies are not intended to be used as tools for preventing someone from responsibly citing reliable secondary sources in the peer-reviewed literature (or otherwise) that you happen to not like or disagree with at a personal level. TheNewSaadia (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I will wait for the admin to decide what to do. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I much prefer to respond at someone else's talk page, but since two of you came here, that won't work. Judecca, let me be plain: outright stating that Daniel is pseudonymous is completely incompatible with maintaining a neutral point of view. Presumably this is what Hammer says (I haven't read him), but the concept that it was written by the central figure is also widely held, so we must present both perspectives. Try saying something such as "Hammer holds" or "Scholars such as Hammer and X hold (and add a source to X)", and then present the opposite position, people arguing that it was written in the sixth century BCE by Daniel himself. Please read the WP:CONLIMITED chunk of Wikipedia:Consensus: a small group of editors at this article's talk page are not permitted to decide to present only one position. Edit-warring to enforce neutrality is not helpful, and it may result in additional blocks, but local consensus to hide the other side of the story is likewise not helpful and needs to be treated likewise. Nyttend (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Amazing, i was just talking about this

last night with User:Harej. I proposed something like "WikiLoves your town in Pennsylvania" as a pilot project - maybe in June - for "WikiLoves your town in the U.S." He asked an obvious question - how many are missing? - and I started (poorly) sampling at User:Smallbones/scrap paper working off the List of municipalities in Pennsylvania.

So yes, I'll start filling your table and putting related pix in infoboxes, with the aim of getting a limited photo contest going in the spring (likely announcements via watchlists which can be geolocated by user). All up in the air but we're thinking along the same lines.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Have you gone through the whole list already? I added a pic to West York, Pennsylvania and removed it from the list.

On another topic, you might want to look at Commons:Category:Postcard collections of the Presbyterian Historical Society, not for infobox pix in particular. There's more to upload, but there are some that I left some metadata behind. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a good idea for a personal list like this, but looks like a lot of work. BTW, I've got 3-5 Presby churches for Beaver Falls or Beaver, PA. I was thinking of adding a photo column at List of municipalities in Pennsylvania. Whadaya think? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've started adding a column for photos at List of municipalities in Pennsylvania but haven't come close to completing it. I'm having much too much fun adding the photos themselves. Hopefully somebody won't need to sort the table for a few days. Let me know what you think. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you get my email tonight? I've sent the response already (without any ref to you). I just left your Pennsylvania page. You edit so fast I didn't even have an edit conflict! BTW, I counted about 1300 "*"s on that page - is that your estimate of the number of photos needed? Good night Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Illustrations for PA municipalities

Yes, I'll take a look and see what I can do. Generic1139 (talk) 16:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of these can go either way. Thompson Township, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania has a nice landscape pic in the info box, but unless the town has sunk into the swamp [insert Monty Python reference here] it isn't of the town. I counted it as has a pic. Generic1139 (talk) 19:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: marking with locations for future pictures. Before that, I'll probably make a gallery of the images from the info boxes, to make it easier to check on which images are unsuitable or could otherwise use improvement. Using your list of articles as a source, it should be easy to write a small program to parse the infobox and pull out the skyline element. Today, though, I'm finishing uploading images I took in Cambria county last week.Generic1139 (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Assignments. This is still the on wiki stage? Or hitting the field? Generic1139 (talk) 15:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

And what are you using to generate the maps? What's the best way for me to modify one? Generic1139 (talk) 15:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Not to worry, I took it exactly as you meant it. I know it is hard to judge the thickness of skin online and to judge a sense of humor remotely. I'm higher than average on both thickness of skin and humor, most days anyway. Just making sure I know what's needed so as not to duplicate effort. I'll look around for commons images in my "assigned" areas and others, and do some camera work weather permitting. We'll subtitle the project "Pennsylvania municipalities, 1100 in winter". Generic1139 (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. As soon as the sun comes out, I'll get started. I've been looking through old pics for something that applies, but some of the targets are pretty small.Generic1139 (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I replied on smallbones. Wikipedia seriously needs a better talk system. Generic1139 (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Got a few in Allegheny and one in Washington. A few others were so dreary and dismal that I'm going to wait for a brighter day and redo them. Generic1139 (talk) 06:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Finally, a marginally sunny day. Got 10 in Washington County. Generic1139 (talk) 07:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Boswell, Pennsylvania may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[File:GENERAL VIEW OF MAIN (SOUTH) FACADE OF CHURCH, LOOKING NORTH (For a brief history of Boswell and a description of Sts. Peter and Paul Russian Orthodox Greek

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Keep an eye on

You might want to keep an eye on List of archaeological sites on the National Register of Historic Places in Indiana. I don't think this will be the only time an edit removes locations. Bgwhite (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Habsburg/Hapsburg

The edit war you seem to be intent on starting in the Maps of Ukraine article is both unnecessary and unhelpful. While "Hapsburg" might be a common (albeit increasingly rarer) spelling in the United States, "Habsburg" is the universally accepted spelling of the House of Habsburg; and considering the article is about a European topic, it should not contain the American-preferred spelling. Even the particular link that you edited leads to an article that has "Habsburg" in its title, and not "Hapsburg". What you are doing is trying to supplant the perfectly adequate "Habsburg" with a version that you, personally, find preferable.

I have reversed your last edit back to the previous version. Just because you created the article does not give you the right to defy reason, so please refrain from stubbornly pursuing this edit war any further. Wackelkopp (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Keith McHenry

I started a stub page for an person that has done more than just start one organization. I do not believe that it was appropriate to delete or redirect the page. Please reinstate the page, or direct me to how I can contest the redirection. thanks Cleshne (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Silver City Historic District

I just expanded Silver City Historic District (Silver City, New Mexico), which you originally created. You seem to have treated the North Addition like a boundary increase, but I'm not sure that's actually the case. Its nomination form (which calls it the Silver City North Addition Historic District instead of the Silver City Historic District North Addition) says it's visually distinct from the original historic district, and the NRIS doesn't mark it as a boundary increase. I think the two districts are actually separate listings entirely, and they probably shouldn't be lumped into the same article. The summary for the 2013 boundary extension also says the North Addition is separate. Unless I'm missing something, I think this may be another example of why we can't trust the NRIS (though I certainly didn't expect you to be the perpetrator this time!) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 05:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

revision history statistics- link

now I just want to know if and when this link will be up and functioning, ive gone to the village pump before and gotten nowhere. Should I accept that this is the new norm and I will be able to see page edits half the time ( every other day)? last time I went there they told me not to ask anymore....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:45, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. For this page, what's the URL you're asking about? http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/User_talk:Nyttend is statistics visible from the revision history page; it's working fine, as far as I can tell. https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/articleinfo/index.php?article=User_talk:Nyttend&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia took a couple of minutes to load, but it did eventually load. I can't remember picking that option (I don't even know what it's supposed to do), so I can't make suggestions. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

[15] . its this, if youll notice the lag time (1460 minutes) is more than a day, however that's not the point, eventually the minutes of lag time are so much it just doesn't come up after a couple of hours. Its been doing this for a month. And ive complained at the village pump for a month, every time I complain they fix it within an hour. Today they told me not to complain anymore.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The lag time appears to be how out-of-date it is. When I load the page, it tells me that the most recent edit was the one in "Silver City Historic District" up above (by TheCatalyst31) from yesterday, but it only takes about 90 seconds to get the full report. If you're sitting there right now, waiting for minute after minute after minute, it's more than just a problem with the server, since the server's giving me the information quite rapidly. Nyttend (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

for a page article, the point would be that you would not have the most recent edit, bytes, ect information. the one you just pointed out thecatalyst31 has a date of yesterday, in any event I guess ill just wait for it go back to normal , thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused why you need it to include the last day-or-whatever of edits: can't you just get those from looking at the page history itself? This tool is simply aggregating what's already there, and you can easily look at the most recent edits if anything's out of date in the report. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

its simply more professional, more precise , you can see the entire picture, know who the top editors are, know who use to be helping on the page but just left as of the last edit, its just way easier, but anyway, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Katie Henry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Katie Henry (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Template

Ok; before I do though, can you explain why it's needed so badly? I mean, capitalizing the P takes half a second if that. Wizardman 04:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Fitz Randolph-Rogers House

added a link pointing to Stoop

Van Horn Building

added a link pointing to Keystone

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hatnote

I'm not a huge fan of the hatnote on my User page. Do you think I need it? Piledhighandeep (talk) 05:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Ellis, Mask of Anarchy

Thanks for your message, Nyttend. There's a limited preview of the book through GoogleBooks here:

http://books.google.ie/books?id=gKoNw45jB-QC&pg=PA85&dq=jackson+doe+august+1990&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hTl3VKGxE5KQ7Qba4IHYDw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=jackson%20doe%20august%201990&f=false

MagicManky (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

File:Akuressa Bombing.jpg Deletion request

Thanks for Million for all your help and time.Want to mark this File:Akuressa Bombing.jpg for deletion wrong license in Possibly unfree files (PUF) .Associated Press owns the copyright.Both the The Guardian and Telegraph confirm this. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/mar/10/many-killed-sri-lankan-bomb-attack Photograph: Krishan Jayaruk/AFP/Getty Images http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/4973425/Suicide-bomb-blast-in-Sri-Lanka-caught-on-camera.html? Picture: AP . Here the file does not even credit Associated Press http://www.ap.org/company/faqs .All requests for republication of AP material must be in writing, clearly stating the purpose and manner in which the copy will be used. All republished material must carry AP credit, and there may be a fee for reprint use. Unless specifically noted otherwise, all permission is given for one-time use only. No political candidate, political party, political action committee, polemical organization or any group formed for partisan purpose may use AP copy in any publication. My edits removed citations.I am retiring .Trenchfighter (talk) 03:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

revdel (outing) needed

[16] NE Ent 02:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you are on...

Can you semi Jimbo's talkpage a hopping ip ban evader is posting appeals there. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed lots of IPs that need blocking. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

and more revdel [[17]] lol sorry./ Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Welsh Congregational Church, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shingle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy block needed

Hi, an IP needs a block, per this and this. Thanks. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Subsequently blocked by someone else, albeit for only 72 hours. ‑‑Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate, full protection, ArbCom and a little light begging

Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello Nyttend. I am here to ask if you will consider lifting the full protection from the Gamergate controversy article. Here's my argument:

With the behavioural issues now under ArbCom scrutiny, I think there is an opportunity for some of the most contentious issues still outstanding at the page to be resolved with much less rancour that at any other time. It would be foolish for anyone to edit-war or otherwise misbehave at the current time, rather it is in editors' own best interests to demonstrate their willingness to work collegially. ArbCom's steely gaze is always transitory and when the case is concluded the opportunity will have been lost which is why I am asking for this now. Of course, if I'm wrong and it all goes belly-up, the page can always be re-protected in a moment.

So, any chance I can talk you into this? CIreland (talk) 21:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for considering it. I might ask again when arbitration is concluded. And, yes, I am involved so I won't be removing the protection myself. Thanks anyway. CIreland (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Pennsylvania photos

Hello Mr Nyttend. I would be happy to get photos of communities in my area. I just need to puzzle out what to shoot in some places. Some townships don't really have any distinguishing landmarks at all. I'm not going to rush out and shoot everywhere, but I keep a camera with me and I'll shoot when I am near places that need photos. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 07:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Some of the communities listed I get to frequently, others not so much. (Hey, for Springville Twp., Susquehanna County, can I get a photo of the house I grew up in? :D → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 07:36, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Pic use for living person Bio

Hey Nyttend, I am in the midst of a COOPERATIVE effort on George Crumb.....Oddly, it would be swell to have a pic of Mr Crumb to use. Tht way people can know what he looks like...SO, WHAT is required to use an image of a living person for a bio?? MANY ThanksCoal town guy (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

names in info boxes

I don't really care about this enough to revert... but I would like to comment on your recent edit to the info box at Polly Rosenbaum Building ... No, we don't always put the original landmarked name in the info box... see (for example) the info box in our article on the MetLife Building in NYC (formerly the Pan-Am building).

Personally, I find that having the name in the info box be different than that used as the article title just confuses things. To me it would make more sense for the header of the info box to match the article title... and to mention the original name later in the info box... "Historic Name: El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium" or "Listed in the NRHP under: El Zaribah Shrine Auditorium" (or something like that). Blueboar (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent WP:AN post

The administrators' noticeboard is specifically for "discussion of administration methods" and reviewing administrative actions. Next time you might want to try at least WP:ANI which is for administrator intervention (although even there you will likely get various people commenting on it, as they are allowed to). If you really want little to no commentary from non-admins and a quick response, post it in Wikipedia:Requests for page protection as a "requests for reduction in protection level" (although people can and do sometimes comment there, its fairly rare). --Obsidi (talk) 07:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend. I didn't have any intention of commenting in the thread you created at AN, but I do want to convey my concern to you regarding a couple of your recent comments.¶ Once you have taken an administrative action, it would be irresponible to simply accede to a request made by an involved party in circumstances where you are not satisfied that you are informed enough to make a call. To do so just because you wish to avoid a discussion on an noticeboard would be even worse. You would have been better off simply asking CIreland to make a request for unprotection, or if you wish to formally wash your hands of it, posting the request yourself for a review as to whether a protection is necessary now or not from users more familiar with this situation. In that regard, Obsidi's comments are not unreasonable, given that AN, despite its name, has served (and continues to serve) as a community noticeboard concerning administrator actions generally. I see nothing inherently wrong with members of the community opining for a particular action to be taken (such as, to pick out bolded words, a couple of the views which are preceded by the words 'semi protect'). In fact, it may be that an administrator will be more comfortable intervening if it is as simple as enacting a consensus as opposed to simply replacing your position in the matter, as views vary on the matter.¶ That said, I can appreciate your frustration, particularly because one editor's assertion 'support continued protection' did in my view misleadingly suggest that an endorsement was sought by you which is not helpful; from what I read, you don't actually really have an opinion.¶ For now, I don't think you need to reopen the discussion, but if it does take off again, probably not worth closing it off either. It's in CIreland's court as to whether he wants the position to change or not. Anyway, it's possible you might disagree or feel differently, but I hope you will take this feedback in the spirit that it is intended (and will not throw your hands up in the air saying it is too hard or frustrating). :) Regards, Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually the policy is explicit: "any user may post or take part in discussions there".NE Ent 13:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Your reply blames everyone else for this situation, and goes on to say my comment is "long and irrelevant". Can you please explain why CIreland's assertion to you that he is involved required you (and not him) to seek someone to "do something"? To put it bluntly, perhaps, just perhaps, this situation has not arisen from everyone else supposedly not reading your comments - but because of the choice and comments you made? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It is evident from your opinion here that, among other things, you have assumed that I didn't read that on-wiki exchange between you and CIreland. That is simply unwarranted and unjustified. That on-wiki exchange informed me that CIreland didn't have an issue with your answer, and subsequently was not interested in pursuing the matter further for now. Perhaps I should have been clearer in my comment above (my bad); the first parts of it were echoing your initial line of thought - but subsequently disagreeing with what you did, and proposing what should happen if the discussion is reignited. CIreland does not lack the ability to request action (that was the ultimate point when I said you would have been better of asking - as in leaving it at that), but the fact that you went ahead asking for action anyway falls back to the your ill-considered choice to request a review at WP:AN and expecting a review or an action to be taken in a fashion which was inconsistent with what the community clearly wanted to do first - discuss it. Reviews involve discussion; if you wanted a more straightforward route, Obsidi has already addressed you on that. Your subsequent comment at WP:AN telling people to go off to Village Pump to make proposals was similarly foolish and ill-considered when proposals for administrator actions such as semi protection or full protection obviously do not belong there. Although my appreciation for what you've done or said today in relation to this is at an all time low, I trust that I have been sufficiently clear now at least, and hope your day improves. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, please would you revert this edit, as the TfD is currently broken. I shan't mind if you collapse the sub-section. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No, because it's thoroughly out of place; it shouldn't have been removed for the reason it was, but the IP's request for arbitration enforcement don't belong at TFD. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. The edit in question blanked an entire TfD nomination; the sub-section to which I referred is the arbcom material. That said, The IP has since restored it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It did? As far as I can tell, both the edit and the IP restoration started with the ===== Ban enforcement request ===== header and ended with your signature. Note that the IP said Wrong section was removed. Nyttend (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Apologies; I was mislead by the edit summary. You're right. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:29, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Block of Pigsonthewing

Hello, Nyttend. I was somewhat surprised at a number of aspects of the way you handled the unblock request from Pigsonthewing. I disagree with some of the things you said, but that is not the issue, as there is room for different people to have good faith differences of opinion: it is the way you handled the matter, and some aspects of the way you expressed your disagreement.

I had already indicated that the issue of breach of a topic ban could be set aside, and the outstanding issue was what I saw as vandalism. (After I had clicked "save" and shut down my computer, I realised that I had been somewhat too tentative in my wording: where I wrote "in view of the fact that there is some ground for doubt" it would have been better to have said something like "in view of the fact that the issue has been discussed, and there was no consensus to take any action", but the fact remains that I had explicitly indicated that the vandalism was the outstanding issue.)

You said that you "can't imagine" why anyone would refer to adding this to a deletion discussion as "vandalism". If you had merely said that you disagreed, I would have accepted that different people have different ideas what constitutes vandalism, but if you really can't imagine how anyone would regard that as vandalism, then I suggest that your imagination is limited. I regarded it as vandalism, and I still do.

I was at first puzzled by your remark "let alone why anyone would block the displeased person immediately after a dispute with him", with a link to WP:INVOLVED. I had no memory of ever having had any interaction with Pigsonthewing before, and while I might well have forgotten a disagreement years ago, "immediately" suggests that the dispute was very recent. It then occurred to me that you might be treating reverting what I saw (and still see) as vandalism and the block as two separate incidents, rather than as two different parts of the same response to one request for admin help. I can only assume that that is what you meant, as I have now searched extensively with the interaction analyzer, and have not managed to find any incident ever of any interaction between the two of us, "dispute" or otherwise.) If that is the way you meant it, then are you suggesting that an administrator who blocks an editor for vandalism may not also revert the vandalism? Or do you think that it would have been different had I blocked first and then reverted, so that the block was not "immediately after" the revert?

OK, so much for the respects in which I don't see eye to eye with you. The aspects of your handling of the case which seem to me questionable are as follows. (1) Your decision not to simply say that you disagreed with me about the vandalism issue, but rather to dismiss my view as though it were blatantly unreasonable, which reads to me rather as a slap in the face. (2) Your claim that I was "involved", where it must surely have been clear that reverting and blocking for the same edit that I reverted were part of the same administrative action. (3) Your unblocking without following the usual practice of consulting the blocking administrator first, and indeed without even the courtesy of informing me afterwards. All in all, the general tone of the message you posted read to me like a rather contemptuous dismissal of what I had said and done, rather than as a respectful expression of disagreement. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what kind of response you're asking for (or are you simply letting me know your thoughts?), so I'll hold off on giving an extended reply at the moment. If you let me know what things you'd like to hear responses on, I'll give those responses. All I will say is that Pigsonthewing's actions were so drastically far from vandalism that I still cannot imagine why anyone would consider them vandalism: it is indeed blatantly unreasonable. In an ordinary case, it would of course be acceptable to block a vandal, but this is so far from vandalism that I do consider you involved, to the point that no consultation with you would be necessary. Nyttend (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, principally I was letting you know my thoughts, but I did think you would also let me know what your opinions were. Why is it "blatantly unreasonable" to regard the edits in question as vandalism? Also, can you explain why you say "I do consider you involved"? I really really am at a loss on that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

How could anyone possibly conclude that the response was a change of content in a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia"? It wasn't a random addition of text, deletion of text, or other senseless change: quite obviously it was a response in the middle of the discussion. If this be vandalism, you would do well to patrol WP:ANI and revert half the comments made by angry or scornful users; something like this one is equally dismissive and equally unworthy of being called vandalism. What about it made you think it was vandalism in the first place? "thhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhp" in the edit summary? This is the kind of mistake a bot would make, not a good-faith human. This is so far from our definition of vandalism that I question your neutrality: anyone can understand that this was part of the discussion, and anyone who's an administrator here understands what vandalism is. The only way one of us administrators can be so drastically wrong about calling something vandalism is if we're passionate about the subject — thus do I consider you involved. You would also do well to read this comment and reconsider the end of your "Another editor has drawn my attention" comment just above it: if a topic-banned person has been doing something publicly for well over a year without sanctions, there's just a tiny tiny chance that other administrators have considered the situation and decided it's not a ban violation, not to mention the obvious statement in Andy's WP:AE link (given before your comment) that this wasn't a ban violation. Nyttend (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

no warning and uncalled for

Keep the 3RR case open if you want, but you gave me no warning and you have made way more than 3 edits to the page, and per WP:3RR you are liable to be blocked as well. Jytdog (talk) 17:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

i just added your diffs. we get blocked together. I encourage you to withdraw it. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog you have been warned multiple times not to edit-war across many articles but you continue to do it. You need a quick and lengthy ban. -A1candidate (talk) 18:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy

I saw you closed the AN discussion, stating that you were just asking for an admin to do something. I don't see a problem with your protection, and as I said there, I think it would be wise to keep it protected until the arbitration case concludes and then re-evaluate. By complete coincidence, I happened to be the first admin to comment in the thread. Were you just looking for a second opinion, or do you want another admin to take the protection over so that your name isn't the last one in the log? Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Carter G. Woodson African American History Museum

Please, you must know that PROD is for non-controversial deletions. Anything concerning African-American History is likely to be controversial, especially in light of recent events off-wiki and the edit wars at related articles on WP. Please, consider redirecting or improving the article. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

CPSU

"was in its peak of influence in world affairs"... Sorry. --TIAYN (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Changing Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota to Episcopal Church in Minnesota

Hello, my name is Annie Flodin and I am the Director of Communications for the Episcopal Church in Minnesota. We are legally doing business as the Episcopal Church in Minnesota now and would like our page to reflect that.

Snide034 (talk) 20:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Howicus, I moved the page per Snide034's request. I figured since the official website says "Episcopal Church in Minnesota", then the article should reflect that. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:09, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there -

Thanks for your attention to this. I understand your argument about the naming conventions, but the Episcopal Church itself leaves the naming of dioceses to the people of that diocese. You're enforcing a naming convention that we ourselves don't use. We would prefer to be known as we want to be known - and in order to facilitate the confused, we can certainly explain why the name Episcopal Church in Minnesota is different, and why/when the diocese itself chose to change its name.

Our Bishop strongly wants our page to reflect our current identity. This is an excerpt from our 2014 Journal that was just published. We have been referring to ourselves as the Episcopal Church in Minnesota (ECMN) for several years.

The Episcopal Church in Minnesota (ECMN) is reclaiming its historical, missional roots. Thus, the Bishop and team of Missioners are charged with assisting our faith communities in getting the resources they need to engage God’s mission in their context and culture. This is the opposite of having an established “Bishop’s staff ” who work to institute a uniform direction of all churches within ECMN. This new, yet ancient approach allows faith communities to do mission within their particular context. Relatedly, while a diocesan model of Church coordinates diocesan-wide events, a missional model relies on the collaboration of inspired and committed leaders in the faith community with the support of the Bishop and team of Missioners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snide034 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Birthday I do not want to show, please delete it.?

I like to cancel my birthday on my time line.

Thanks,

No birthday shown on any page at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.51.158 (talk) 20:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

You would need to specify what page or timeline you're talking about. Nyttend (talk) 20:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Re Cobblestones to Granite Setts

Thanks for your offer to assist. I do have the right to move a page, but is that actually what happens when a name request goes through? I'm a bit rusty on that. If it isn't a trouble to you, could you put in a #3 request for the new title Granite Setts? I think we drop the 01, as it will no longer be part of a series. I think the original contributor will understand why that's been done. Thanks. (I'm following the other page's advice to leave this message here.) Kim Traynor | Talk 02:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Re your message on my Talk page. You're right I did misunderstand. I've moved pages from Sandbox when starting articles, but of course that's not what you meant. Normally I just request a name change at Commons as you describe. Thanks for your help on this. I doubt whether many people will change what they call these stones, but the more that use the correct term the better. Kim Traynor | Talk 03:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Close Review, second closing

You participated in the Overturn of the first closing of the Media Viewer RfC. You are invited to comment on the Close Review Request of the second closing of the same RfC: wp:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Request_after_overturn_and_reclose. Alsee (talk) 14:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

User page

Yeah, if you could undelete it that would be good. I keep meaning to get round to doing something with it. Thanks.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 05:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate unprotection discussion

Thought you ought to know. Bosstopher (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Pennsylvania photos

If you ever feel like digging through Flickr photos, Doug Kerr has a bunch of pictures of Pennsylvania municipalities that could probably help for that project of yours. I've used his pictures quite a bit before, but for some reason I didn't realize until now that he had so many Pennsylvania photos. Not that I want to deprive you of an excuse to travel around Pennsylvania more, of course :) TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 04:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

He does have a lot of unhelpful photos, but if you go through his photosets of specific places (as opposed to the road photos) it's easier to find helpful ones. Unfortunately I'm not sure there's a super-easy way to do that; most of the ones I found were from his most recent sets, and he's been at it for a while. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 23:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Organizações Globo.png

It had a rationale ;). Thank you! OAlexander - 115.69.63.229 (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC) .

"List of colonial governors of Fernando Póo: Revision history"

Your rationale at editing is to make it the responsibility of the reader to verify your statement(s). By reverting, you have made whatever appeared there YOUR STATEMENT OF FACT." "In the middle of" is a lazy attempt at writing. And instead of providing a road to verifying YOUR STAEMENT you basically have introduced a 52 card pickup to sourcing? At least "during" is far more inclusive a phrase that a hit in the dark with your date specific justifications as to why "during" you believe is not useful? It is interesting to note that the onus of reverting a revert is on the person that attempted to improve a WP article. There is absolutely no responsibility placed on "reverters" by WP guidelines and policies, to work with an edit before unilaterally reverting. In fact, it is very common to be identified as a warring editor and usually "vandalism" sneaks in. Talk about what might be knee jerk reactions. All, unfortunately, reinforced by the WP way of advancement--from within by within. Talk about incest. So, maybe along with that reverting the [[]][]] [[]] [[]] get hit along the way? Instead, the latter would add to the reverting activities something for everyone to gain long term benefit instead of returning the article to a state of needing improvement.66.74.176.59 (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

Nyttend, it's perfectly fine to archive a resolved request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, but they do need to be archived. If you do this a lot, I suggest getting the one click archiver installed in your user javascript. I've archived that request for you. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Re 'Quick' CU

Hello! Hope you're having a good Christmas Eve/Christmas. I went ahead and ran a check on the specific account you mentioned. They were Likely related and Confirmed to another account which I blocked. I tried running a sleeper check but the ranges are so busy (and tend to have an emphasis on that area of editing) that it really is futile. If something comes up again I'll likely be able to pin down based upon a combination of technical and behavioral evidence, but due to how dynamic the ranges are, and how busy they are, not a lot I can do from a purely CU perspective. NativeForeigner ^Talk 23:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Nyttend, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
--L235-Talk Ping when replying 03:50, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Revert of AfD relist

I'm curious as to why you not only reverted my WP:RELIST but summarily removed my rationale without comment. Was there something you believe I did wrong in my action, that my assessment was incorrect, or that my assessment was vandalism and thus in need of a revert? If so, please explain. --slakr^\ talk / 06:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

*crickets*... well, I guess silence is insightful in a way, though it sorta sucks for the other person when it becomes clear that it's deliberate. In case it wasn't apparent, the other person tends to feel devalued as a whole, not just for their efforts at trying to do what they feel is right, but also because of the lack of appreciation of the attempt to do so in the first place. It's sorta like saying, "Nah, whatever you have to offer is useless; I'm better and more right than you, so don't even try to question me." That's probably not what you're meaning to say, but that's what the silence sounds like—that is, whatever the listener has to fill it with using their own imagination. It's admittedly safer and more comforting for the speaker (and sometimes that's a good thing), but I'd implore you to try to consider things more from the perspective of others than that of solely yourself, because when you help others, you can't help helping yourself, especially when people start getting angry. Just an observation, FWIW. Cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 00:46, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"Edit war"

So, I'm told that my reinstating an article I wrote (without consulting you first) is considered "editing war," while your deletion of said article (without consulting me first) is not.

OK.

I now consult you, and would appreciate an explanation of your comment "This version doesn't show evidence of significance, i.e. it doesn't demonstrate why it belongs in an encyclopedia".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Creator — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohemian Gal (talk • contribs) 13:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason I wrote the article is because Church of the Creator is a legitimate entity that went through a lengthy legal battle over "ownership" of the name "Church of the Creator" -- which was being inappropriately used by a white supremacist organization. The battle went all the way to the Supreme Court, which issued a ruling in the Church's favor. When I tried to get the redirect corrected last January, I was instructed -- by Wikipedia editors -- that the only way to accomplish that was *TO WRITE AN ARTICLE OF MY OWN* about the church. From my "talk" page:

"The discussion has not been closed, but given responses so far, and under the principle of WP:SNOW, it's improbable that the redirect will be deleted unless and until there is something (an article) to replace it. The article doesn't need to be elegant, but it should be substantial enough (and have enough citations) to establish that the organization that lays claim to the COTC name is notable enough that it should have its own Wikipedia article. I wouldn't wait, if you are so inclined, to begin preparing such an article in Draft namespace (not as a User page), from which it can be moved to replace the redirect when ready. The simplest way is to use the Article Wizard. Start here. Dwpaul Talk 22:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)"

Given the Supreme Court decision and injunction against the hate group using the name, an article about the Church seems pretty "significant" to me, especially since it's an on-going issue. Right now, anyone doing Wikipedia research on the creativity movement will find a redirect from Church of the Creator -- and that's not acceptable.

Now, I get the article's second deletion for copyright issues. I've contacted the Church leaders, asking for their permission to use what I've written. Since THEY have also tried to get the incorrect redirects fixed (so that typing "Church of the Creator" does NOT lead to the hate group), I'm pretty sure they'll support me.

Assuming that happens, will I be allowed to post the article, or is it never going to be considered "significant"?

Bohemian Gal (talk) 13:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh good grief

I'm in no way trying to "hide the existence" of the hate group. The only thing I've EVER tried to do is get the redirect changed so that Church of the Creator doesn't point TO THEM -- the same thing the Church itself asked you people to do. I understand that it does now because the white supremacists used to use the name. The point is that they no longer allowed to use that name, and so it should no longer lead to their page. In the article I wrote, I specifically mentioned the Trademark Litigation, how the hate group used to use the name and included a link back to the Creativity page. How is that trying to "hide their existence"? Seriously.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 15:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat

You're the second person to mention legal threats. I have not IN ANY WAY made a legal threat. I'm simply pointing out the Supreme Court's ruling and asking you to follow it. Please stop threatening to block ME for something I'm not doing.

Thank you. Bohemian Gal (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Article worthiness

In a message this morning, the Church leaders have assured me they will provide whatever information, copyright permissions, etc. are necessary in order to get an article added.

Therefore, please tell me specifically what you need from me to make this happen.

Thank you.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 16:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous

Now I can't write the article? I'm not affiliated or associated with the Church of the Creator, so I have no "interest" other than correcting what this site is doing so that people are properly directed when they come here to search.

Bohemian Gal (talk) 17:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I said yesterday that I was going to contact the Church leaders for their assistance -- why didn't you mention then that it was a problem?

Bohemian Gal (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal greetings

	Merry Christmas and best wishes for a happy, healthy and productive 2015!
	Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:35, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

PS I should be able to work on community photos in the coming new year

Category:Ohio State Route 4

Category:Ohio State Route 4, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Female pubic hair.jpg

{{Badimage}} is only exempt from F2, not G8, i.e. the template is allowed on local file information pages for files on Commons, but not for files deleted on Commons. Also, the template is supposed to mirror the list at MediaWiki:Bad image list, and I believe that there is a bot which removes deleted files from that list. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Mind helping me out here?

Greetings,

Thanks for the comment and action in the recent ANI discussion I opened. :) I had another question however, could you perhaps jump in here as well? [[18]] I created the section some days ago, and while a moderator agreed with me and an uninvolved editor as well, it seems as if the section is going to be forgotten and the user is going to get away with it, which is not what we want. Would be great if you could make an action here. Thanks in advance (if you can do so) - 94.210.203.230 (talk) 07:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to be on the road most of the day and don't believe that I have time to help deal with the situation appropriately. As a result, the only way I can help you is moving the section down to the bottom of the page and adding a single comment, so that it potentially gets more human attention and certainly don't attract the attention of the archiving bot until two days later at the minimum. Nyttend (talk) 13:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Nyttend. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Mdann52talk to me! 17:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Lafayette UMC

Morning, Found the Lafayette UMC building in Lafayette, KY. I added the lat/lon to the table. Found a picture of it here[19], and happened to spot it in GE. Found a couple articles in news.google about it when it was listed. Just FYI. 25or6to4 (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Saturdays category

Hi, I saw that you declined the CSD at Category:Wikipedians who like The Saturdays, saying there was nothing about that specific category there. However, as noted at Category:Wikipedians interested in music, "There is a precedent against creating categories to organize Wikipedians by the musicians and musical groups they enjoy. Such categories will be speedily deleted per G4." –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)