This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This talkpage was semi-protected, again
This user page was move-protected
This talkpage was semi-protected, again
This talkpage was semi-protected, again
This talkpage was semi-protected, again
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has autopatrolled rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has file mover rights on the English Wikipedia
This talkpage was semi-protected
This talkpage was semi-protected, again
Page move-protected

User talk:Tbhotch

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


Hello, Tbhotch! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! fetchcomms 04:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia vandalism information

Level 4

Low to moderate level of vandalism.

[viewpurgeupdate]


2.90 RPM according to APersonBot 10:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


Contents

WP:TFASTATS and WP:TFAREC[edit]

Hello, it occurs to me that we have two pages performing complementary tasks and with some minor adjustments the two could be harmonised. WP:TFAREC is the newcomer - indeed, you may not have seen it. I created it to enable TFAR nominators to see relatively quickly which similar articles had been TFA in the previous six months or so and any future scheduled TFAs. It works on a series on monthly subpages (e.g. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/recent TFAs/November 2014) which are transcluded into the "recents" page until their time is up, when they are then transcluded to the year's archive page. The table coding means that we don't have new tables every month, allowing sorting of columns across different months without difficulty. The topic headings follow the WP:FA topic headings as far as possible (e.g. "Warfare – Biography"), although I then subdivide further, and I also give country details where possible. As people in the past have been interested in knowing how long it takes for articles to reach TFA after promotion, I give this too, along with the method of selection to show the activity or otherwise of TFAR.

TFASTATS presents similar information - it has the date, country details, topic headings and of course page view statistics. However, the way the page is set up does not allow the columns to be sorted across different months; the topic headings do not follow WP:FA (e.g. "military" instead of "warfare", "nature" instead of "biology"); the country details use flag icons, which is perhaps unnecessary decoration; and the list of articles uses {{las}} to give links to history and talk etc, which again is perhaps unnecessary given the primary purpose of the page.

So... what do you think about a "page views" column being added to the monthly recent TFAs page, then combining the two pages? That way, the list of articles/dates/topics/countries only has to be created once, when the articles are scheduled for TFA, and all that needs to be thereafter is to add the page views? It should make it easier to keep the statistics up to date, and ease your workload (as you seem to be the primary updater of the page view statistics). Best wishes, BencherliteTalk 10:06, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and merged WP:TFASTATS with WP:TFAREC; I am nearly finished adding page view statistics for 2014 to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/TFAs in 2014, which will then replace Wikipedia:Today's featured article/Statistics 2014. BencherliteTalk 16:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for not answering before, I'll take a look. Thank you for your job. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tbhotch[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tbhotch, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tbhotch and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tbhotch during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —John Cline (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I have closed this discussion as delete, but I will be happy to restore this into your user space if you would like to keep it. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't worry, as far as I know there's nothing I need from that page. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project[edit]

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) 16:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I'm not very active nowadays. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing problem/Not asking for consensus[edit]

HI there,

I have a problem. User: Atomic Meltdown keeps on changing the Performers table without a through discussion by Film awards members and/or people who have been involved with the FLC process? Can you tell the user to please discuss first before making changes?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

About your (non)participation in the January 2012 SOPA vote[edit]

Hi Tbhotch. I am Piotr Konieczny (User:Piotrus), you may know me as an active content creator (see my userpage), but I am also a professional researcher of Wikipedia. Recently I published a paper (downloadable here) on reasons editors participated in Wikipedia's biggest vote to date (January 2012 WP:SOPA). I am now developing a supplementary paper, which analyzes why many editors did not take part in that vote. Which is where you come in :) You are a highly active Wikipedian (78th), and you were active back during the January 2012 discussion/voting for the SOPA, yet you did not chose to participate in said vote. I'd appreciate it if you could tell me why was that so? For your convenience, I prepared a short survey at meta, which should not take more than a minute of your time. I would dearly appreciate you taking this minute; not only as a Wikipedia researcher but as a fellow content creator and concerned member of the community (I believe your answers may help us eventually improve our policies and thus, the project's governance). PS. If you chose to reply here (on your userpage), please WP:ECHO me. Thank you! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Book:Maya Angelou listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Book:''Maya Angelou''. Since you had some involvement with the Book:Maya Angelou' redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Precious again[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

featured lists
Thank you, Axel, for quality lists and articles such as List of accolades received by Up and Halo, for helping hands reviewing, fighting vandalism, updating stats, creating redirects, for images and the night spent to assemble your userboxes, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (23 November 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 902nd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 17:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Two years ago, you were recipient no. 902 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Tbhotch. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Madere.
Message added 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Like a Virgin (song)#Requested move 4 August 2015[edit]

I recently started a move request. --George Ho (talk) 08:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - new 2015 poll[edit]

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Trouble (Keith Richards song)[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Category:Singles certified gold by the Canadian Recording Industry Association[edit]

Category:Singles certified gold by the Canadian Recording Industry Association, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Sent to oversight[edit]

I couldn't get it deleted...the action kept failing on me so I sent it to Oversight.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 23:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar Hires.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks Tbhotch (Axel Arias), for all the great work ( contributions, articles created, edits) you do for Wikipedia. Regards, 2know4power (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 20:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The third blind mouse[edit]

Hi. I was just wondering if you'd noticed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/The_third_blind_mouse ? I guess you've been around these discussions, it's clearly a sock - identifies itself as an experienced editor - any idea who the sockmaster is or if there are any more? Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Not really. I mean, I can't tell who's him because I can't see other contributions other than his at that talk page. Unfortunately we can't fish it. Unless this account make an edit that reveals himself-- genre-warring, actively participate into RM (I've seen a sockpuppet in some RMs, I think you know him) or revert in places they've been reverted-- there's not so much to do other than his name appearing in a SPI. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 20:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW, "Richonchero" seems Spanish. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 20:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Xmas Ornament.jpg
To You and Yours!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Martha Speaks[edit]

There is no such appeal.Xx236 (talk) 11:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I know, but I am referring to the fact the page was deleted, but not restored. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 19:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe block evasion[edit]

Can you keep an eye on any pages like Ridin' Solo if block evasion like User:Deneoak. 123.136.111.187 (talk)

Probably block evasion is IP Special:Contributions/82.53.179.230, who focus on Jason Derulo. Can you revert edits? 123.136.111.68 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

"A dog" at Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Wikipedia[edit]

At first, I really imagined that this was a ridiculous piece of vandalism. But I looked, and you're pretty experienced. So what I'm assuming here is that you're concerned that someone looking for Lad, A Dog is going to type [[Lad:A dog]] and end up on my project. Do I have that right?

If so, you should probably add a couple of additional capitalization shortcuts here, and I should probably add lad:A Dog (capital D) as well, no? StevenJ81 (talk) (administrator on ladwiki) 19:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Never mind: I found your commented-out note at the redirect. I'll add my additional shortcut with capital D over there, and using a Lua module, I've also added iw links (for the sake of the Danish article). StevenJ81 (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I added it because I typed "lad: a dog" and I was redirected there. I think it has happened before, but no one had noticed it. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 19:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Turns out the capital D version has existed for over five years. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

La Gran Señora GAR[edit]

Hi Tbhotch, I have withdrawn from the GAR for La Gran Señora for reasons listed on the review page. Thank you for taking your time to review the article nonetheless. Erick (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

User page[edit]

Someone tried to send a message to you through your user page, here. Just letting you know. 100.12.206.17 (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 10:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, and thanks![edit]

Re: "Kiss It Better". Not sure what I was thinking at the time, but thanks for being patient and willing to talk it through. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Regards. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 22:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Moves etc[edit]

Thank you for your help. I'm a bit out of my depth with all this nonsense and am now going to bed - I'm hoping that once the "rouge" pages get speedied I'll be able to move things back. I'll have a look in the morning. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. Good night. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Protection tags[edit]

I see you have been adding protection tags to various pages I have protected. You may or may not be interested, but I thought I would just let you know why I often don't do that myself. If you aren't interested, that's fine, and you don't have to read it.

I always used to add the tags myself, but then there were some occasions when I was protecting a large number of pages, all because of the same disruptive editor, which took a lot of time, and adding the time of putting the tags in sometimes made the job take more time than I had available, so that I finished up not getting all the pages protected. Because of that I took to giving tagging low priority: I would protect the pages first, and then add the tags only if I had time. There was also the fact that a bot used to add tags to any protected pages that were not tagged, so if I didn't have time to add the tags, it didn't make a lot of difference anyway. (That doesn't seem to happen any more.) Once I had got into the practice of not always adding tags, I started wondering how useful such tags were anyway. The overwhelming majority of people looking at a Wikipedia article are just reading it, not editing it, and to them the protection tag is completely irrelevant. Anyone with an established account can edit a semi-protected page anyway, so the tag is irrelevant to them. The majority of editors without established accounts probably have no idea what the little grey padlock in the corner of the page means, even if they notice it, so the tag is irrelevant to them. So we are left with what must be a very small minority out of all the people who look at the article: those who enough experience of editing Wikipedia to know what the padlock means, who do not have established account, who wish to edit the particular article in question, and who do look in the top right hand corner of the article before clicking on "edit". Such people will be able to see that the article is protected anyway, as they will see the link "View source" at the top of the page instead of "Edit". So it is really not clear to me that the tags actually serve any significant useful purpose at all. If I had never protected more than a few pages, I would probably have regarded the time it takes to tag them as negligible, but there are roughly 3300 entries in my block log over the five and a half years for which I've been an administrator, and 3000 times the time it takes to tag an article is a significant amount of time taken away from more useful tasks. I therefore now rarely do it.

None of that is any comment on your tagging the articles: I really don't mind whether you do it or not. However, I just thought you might possibly be wondering why I didn't do it, and if so you might be interested to know. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I frankly don't care if an admin includes or not the padlock, I've been doing this for (I think) the same time you've been an admin, so I am accustomed to add it, without prejudice to the admin or discriminating the protected page (excluding user space). For years I did it manually, later somebody programmed a bot to do that (being bold and sounding arrogant I will say it) because of my edits adding the PP, later it stopped working sometime when I was out of the project. Now I use TW as it makes it easier. I really don't mind to spent 30 minutes adding the template (excepting in pages it will expire in hours or I can't even edit). I am conscient it is trivial for readers but it not completely trivial for editors. The way I see it, for casual readers who happen to notice it, it can be clicked and (depending the color) they will be led to WP:PP. PP explains in a nutshell what's going on with that lock, and that's it, it has no major impact in them. But the padlock may have a bigger function for "readeditors" (those who contribute sometimes to the website and full-time editors). For editors, like me, although it is totally trivial that they see a grey lock as they can still edit that page, I, for example, can know the page is semi-protected. What I'm trying to say is that, unless I click "Edit" in a page without the lock, I wouldn't know the page is protected (recently it happened to me with Adam and Eve; in the past it did happen to me with a page it was already semi-protected and I was watching against vandalism; in other words, I wasted my time and data watching for vandalism a page already indef-protected against vandalism). With the PP there, I can see the page is protected, and if needed I can check why it is protected--vandals, socks, etc.--and how much time, if it is a constant problem, and to educate myself with the problems of such page), of course that's in my case, some other editors wouldn't care less. Another one is for Template pages, which they are even more helpful, as there are 3 protections for them. I can see if I can edit it (semi), if I can edit it if I can edit templates--not my case--(template-protected), or if I can't edit it at all (full). Also, you can see it like this; you, as an admin, will never see the "View source" in a full-protected page (I think that´s how it happens). That doesn't mean readers or editors have to have the yellow lock excluded solely because they can see "View source". What I'm trying to say is, the template is trivial/specific-use (as trivial/specific-use as {{use dmy}} or Category:Living people or {{BLP sources}} for any reader or editor) but is not forbidden, not even discouraged, but the opposite, it is encouraged by the WP:PP itself: "Protected pages are normally marked with a small padlock symbol in the top corner." If you don't want to include it, it is totally your right and I support it; in fact if you massively protect pages, trying to add the pp to >25 pages will lag your device, and what you need it to protect them as soon as you can. I, on the other hand, don't mind adding it to the pages as the template will stay there days, weeks, months, or years, and I do find it has an usage. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 02:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Interesting. You mention several relevant points that I had never thought of. Thanks. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Policy discussion in progress[edit]

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style which affects the capitalization of "Someone like You", a question in which you previously participated. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — LlywelynII 17:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Talk:It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine)[edit]

You have a reply. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't Let Go (album)[edit]

Greetings, Tbhotch. Recently you moved "Don't Let Go (album)" to "Don't Let Go (Jerry Garcia Band album)". You then recreated "Don't Let Go (album)" as a redirect to "Don't Let Go", a disambiguation page. That's fine -- there's another Don't Let Go album article -- but there were a number of articles that linked to "Don't Let Go (album)", so now they link to the disambiguation page instead of to the album article. I would request that you update those articles to link to "Don't Let Go (Jerry Garcia Band album)". You might know this already but you can find them by going to the "Don't Let Go" disambiguation page and clicking on What Links Here, on the left side in the Tools section. (It's only necessary to update the articles, not the user pages or Wikipedia space pages). Thanks. Mudwater (Talk) 00:54, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mudwater: I do know how this works--I'm really experienced when moving pages (see logs). Also, I know multiple of these "Whatlinkshere" links link the dab page solely for technical reasons. Multiple of those links come from {{Jerry Garcia}} and {{Jerry Garcia Band}}, and it takes at least some hours to adjust themselves, let's call it "serverlag". The rest of the links are naturally links referring to JGB's album, and now it is visible where they are needed to be dabbed, which I will complete as I finish what I was doing. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I get it now. Due to the links from the navboxes, and the server lag, you can't really see what links to the disambiguation page for some hours after the navboxes are updated -- but you were planning all along on doing the updates after that. Very good, thank you. Mudwater (Talk) 01:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 01:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Bad Day review[edit]

Thank you for addressing my request for a second opinion so quickly. I have already raised awareness towards the nominator of the review in order for correct the issues you have raised. Once he has done such the article will be more than suitable for a pass.

Yours sincerely, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

LARRY JAY LEVINE Page you edited.[edit]

The correct version of this page is the one with all the News Media references on the bottom, and it appears that a Wikipedia Moderator called "Mad Scientist" has vandalized it! Can you please restore the references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:cc02:e180:706d:52dd:8bd:a04d (talkcontribs)

Refer to WP:Edit-war. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 21:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Notability?[edit]

Why are you placing a notability tag again after it's been removed on a Canada No.4 single by a major Canadian band? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Bad Day (Daniel Powter song)[edit]

Hello, once again.

As a reviewer I have also decided to address some of the issues you have raised in the article, such as: References, Critical reception, Performance and Lead. If you cold take a look and cross or amend them it would be fantastic. Thank You.

Yours faithfully, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Viola Beach[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:03, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

When moving files[edit]

Greetings,

when moving files please remember to remove rename tags like {{ShadowsCommons}}. Thanks! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: 1, 2, 3, 4 (Plain White T's song)[edit]

Hello Tbhotch. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of 1, 2, 3, 4 (Plain White T's song), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No indication of consensus to move page over redirect. Thank you. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Deep web, closing[edit]

Hi there,

As a matter of general practice, please don't close discussions with an outcome that requires action you're unable to perform. Nothing to do with your judgment or anything -- it's just unnecessary and leaves room for things to get messy, as was the case with Deep web (search) (see User talk:Anthony Appleyard, and perhaps soon WP:AN). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:55, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:, WP:NACD. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 03:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. "Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement". Also, that's for deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:RMNAC. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 03:51, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Gah. I guess you didn't contribute to the mess, then. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea and only creates an extra step in the process, but meh. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:03, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: as someone who has done quite a few "close as moves" on RMs recently, I actually think there is a lot of use in it. These days if I close an RM that I'm unable to move myself, I tend to list the move requests at WP:RMT, as a non-controversial move. Unlike the WP:RM backlog, which is often very long and needs more eyes on it, requests at WP:RMT tend to get actioned within half a day at the maximum - Anthony Appleyard and Philg88 in particular, are a couple of admins I've noticed that will very quickly effect moves from WP:RMT, but don't tend to close full RM requests so often. So if Tbhotch or I do a non-admin RM close, then one of those admins do the actual move, it's a net win for the encyclopedia, and a better outcome than if we just let the backlog grow ever longer until an admin was able to deal with it amongst all the other things they do. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and apologies I hadn't read the full discussion on Anthony's talk page before I wrote the above, and I can see that the Deep web thing ended up a little messy. However, I don't think that should deter us from the general principle of non-admins listing closed requests at WP:RMT. Only that the admins who process moves on that page need to understand the basic back story of the request they're being asked to carry out. In this case, Anthony should never have carried out the request to undo the move, because it was clear that the reason for its uncontroversial nature was because of the closed RM. And closed RMs are challenged by talking to the mover and going to WP:MR, not by requesting an admin to undo the move. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is an issue that comes up pretty frequently, though I've only really been involved in the discussions regarding XfD. My opinion is colored by those discussions, to be sure, but it may be the case that it doesn't directly translate -- primarily because deletion is a much more significant consequence than a move. I still tend to think that anybody closing a discussion should have the technical ability to see it through. The RfA process is as harrowing as it is because those are the people vetted for their judgment (it's a problematic process, of course, but that's a separate conversation). If there aren't enough admins doing the work, the solution is to get more admins rather than distributing tasks that require judgment to non-admins and using admins just for technical abilities. Honestly, though, I don't really want to rehash one of these threads and don't need to be convinced. I wasn't aware of the guidelines of WP:RMNAC, so my objections are sort of moot. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, fair enough, let's leave it there then. And I do basically agree with you. Admin closures are clearly much better than non-admin closures. Having more properly competent admins to keep the backlog in check would be much better than the current status quo. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Dreams Beyond Grades[edit]

Dreams Beyond Grades

promotional article may be deleted .--Mohit852130 (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sujit Meher[edit]

Reference are not reliable article was previously deleted . This is fake article and information may be deleted .--Mohit852130 (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • Mohit852130 has put this information on User talk:Sitush also, and Sitush and I are discussing it there. It may be better to keep it on one page, but thank you, Mohit, your help is appreciated. Bishonen | talk 20:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC).

I don't know why this was posted here. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 16:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Deceased Organ Donation in India - 2012.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Deceased Organ Donation in India - 2012.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:As Long as You Love Me[edit]

I invite you to discuss the ongoing RM discussion. --George Ho (talk) 04:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

António Garrido (referee)[edit]

208.58.7.77 (talk · contribs) is edit warring. What to do now? SLBedit (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@SLBedit:. You can follow the instructions at WP:3RRN. You are technically edit-warring too, but the YouTube link's author is not an official copyholder, so you are in the exceptions. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 17:30, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Three reverts. SLBedit (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Edit-warring is not about the quantity of reverts, but the reverting in itself. Unless the reverts are about something in the WP:3RRNO, the people involved should seek a resolution of the problem. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 17:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Jerappelle is now adding the same YouTube link. Perhaps the user is a sockpuppet of the IP. SLBedit (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

SLBedit is being extremely aggressive, I would like to report him. I think he likes edit wars, but he needs to stop. He does not even try to talk, if he has a problem, he should explain what the problem is, now there is another reference, it is a sport newspaper, I am not sure why he is being so upset. I understand he is portoguese and maybe he does not like his referee being criticised, but I don't hink anything pejorative was added, just facts, supported by clear images. Jerappelle (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Now he accuses me of trolling, he is going over the top. I have tried to talk, what else can I do? Jerappelle (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


I put this note on SLBedit talk page regarding this edit. I am glad someone is on it. My sense is that my friend is right, can you look at it and get back to me? Thanks. Note on SLBedit page: Hey man, I am a registered user. I have a friend making corrections on wikipedia and asked for my help. I looked at his changes, and I agree with him. He put images from a video, they are clear as the sun, it can't get better than that. He is new and I think you are harassing him a little, be don't. Please, leave the changes, and leave him alone. If you have a problem feel free to write me, I am not here much but will check this page for the next couple of days until this is resolved. If we cannot solve it, I will ask the community to evaluate, or better, I would appreciate it if you left things the way they are and ask the community. I explained my friend that is the way things work on wikipedia, majority rules. I also told him not to make changes from my IP because I don't want to be blocked, but he said he won't. Be a big boy and leave him alone, please, or let's just ask the community but please leave his changes until they have been voted. Thanks!

Jerappelle (talk) 17:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

SLBedit[edit]

Can you help with this user? I find him quite aggressive, honestly. I tried to talk to him, but he does not seem to be interest in talking. I would like to talk to him, but he seems quite upset and not interested. Jerappelle (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Why are you trolling? SLBedit (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Guys, this is not the place for this. And I recommend you both to stop the passive-agressive comments. If this still need to be discussed, discuss this at WP:DRN. Also, please do not include YouTube links unless the YouTuber is the original copyright holder. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 19:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Tbhotch Jerappelle (talk) 19:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

YouTube license question[edit]

Hi @Tbhotch, how do I know if a YouTube video can be linked? If it says YouTube standard license, is that allowed? Jerappelle (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jerappelle:, the standard license (copyrighted) only help us to know if the videos are all rights reserved (copyrighted) or if that are released under compatible Creative Commons (CC) or Public Domain (PD) licenses (in other words, that we can upload them in Commons, for example). The way to know if someone is the copyright holder of a work, is with evidence that that uploader (YouTuber) created the video, or if that YouTuber has a license to reuse such work. In other words, if you look for, for example a football game, in YT, you will receive multiple links to that football game. In this case, you can see in the video was uploaded by SirOmarTV. His profile does not indicates he is a copyright holder of the broadcast rights of that UEFA 1980 match, that he works or worked for the UEFA, or the crew who filmed that video. That upload is unauthorized and as such Wikipedia should not use it.
On the opposite, if a person, a company, or so, has an official account, and--regardless if the license is all rights, CC or PD--the video is theirs. Take as an example this video. You may use it as a source, because UFC on Fox, a brand of FOX, has a license to use such material and/or created the material. But, you can't use a link to a video uploaded by a YouTuber named X901₩8, who decided to upload that UFC on Fox video on his own channel, because he has no rights to use it.
TL:DR,to know if a video can be used as a source or not, you have to check if the uploader is undoubtely a copyright holder. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 21:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Great, that helps a lot. Thanks! Jerappelle (talk) 22:25, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

On your comments on the need for a move from National Gallery back to National Gallery, London[edit]

Please calm down. The change was listed on Wikipedia:Move review the day before. Second, I claim it is arbitrary and cite facts to the effect. Again you misquoted my sentence that said that my opposition will not cease unless someone gives me reliable data that their answer is justified on a general consensus of the sources. I am concerned that the process fails to apply the rules of Wikipedia, mainly WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and is just depending on a handful of people who say "I don't wanna change the name." If that is not ridiculous and arbitrary, then what is. Again, I am persistent with facts. Show me evidence to the contrary and the argument becomes reasonable. Apply the same rules to this entry that are touted for others, and it will be reasonable. Nobody lives or dies because the name is one or the other, but principles do matter. This is a move that repeatedly gets suggested. I did so with strong data to support to move and three guys say just "no" and the discussion is closed. Three or more people said move the title, the discussion should not have been closed, there was no consensus to close. The original move to the present title was arbitrary, no debate. Is that how we want to work in Wikipedia?

Also the please calm down, your are disruptive is silly to quote when someone argues that the decision was inappropriate based on numbers and that the change is appropriate based on data. My recommendation, is that if you wish to wade into this debate come armed with facts. I would be delighted to have you join in. Rococo1700 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Your comment resumed in two words: Boring bullshit. You cannot comprehend the word "consensus", so there is nothing to discuss here. And considering you still battling over this in 3 different places now, I'll step aside as this is completely irrelevant for me. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 00:09, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! :-)[edit]

Thanks for catching my mistake for a test edit and for reverting my idiot edit to the redirect. Much appreciated! :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:55, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hines delete[edit]

Hey I was looking at the Nico Hines article and it looks like if a few weeks were given more articles about him will surface. And because he is a popular journalist he might have garnered articles mentioning him elsewhere that would make him worthy of a stand-alone article. I'm just bringing this up because while I do agree that the article should be deleted, I don't think it should be salted or anything like that. Just needs a little time and care put into the matter. Thoughts? 66.87.113.199 (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I never said it should be salted. WP:BLP1E was created for this purpose, for people that are notable solely because sources exist and solely discuss one single event, in this case his article. He also fails WP:NJOURNALIST (or WP:NPEOPLE in general), so no. Unless the article covers other stuff other that this event, it cannot be recreated. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 22:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Boys' Record[edit]

Hello, I have a question. Boys' Record by VIXX is a single not an EP. The play length is too short to be an EP and it was marketed as a single. My question is was the infobox changed? Alicia leo86 (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Alicia leo86: It was marketed as single album in Asia. In western world, a single album is an extended play. It is not too short to be an EP, it is in fact too long to be a single, and too short to be a studio album. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 04:54, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Ah, alright then. So it must have the EP infobox even though its a single because its US Wikipedia? How short does a single by US standards have to be? Alicia leo86 (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Length aside (length was important when vinyls were used), it has more to do with the quantity of songs given in the same release. One or two songs are still a single, but 3-8 is an EP (excluding remixes and the instrumentals of those songs, for example A (Ayumi Hamasaki EP)). An EP would last between ±8 to 34:59 minutes (varies depending some countries like the UK). © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 05:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
@Alicia leo86:, a good tip I can give, because sometimes it is hard to distinguish them, is to check the music charts. If it charted on album charts, treat them like EPs, if they chart on the singles chart, as singles. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 05:45, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
That tip wouldn't work with Gaon (South Korea's music chart), all single albums, EPs and albums are listed in the albums chart. But there's also the digital chart which is for singular songs which could have all songs from a particular album chart in it. I still think Boys' Record should probably be noted as a single by your example of Ayumi's release its only three songs plus an instrumental which is excluded. Alicia leo86 (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
It includes 3 songs, "Love Equation", "On a Cold Night", and "Memory" (this would make it an EP in itself), and it charted in 3 different album charts. The reason some singles chart in albums charts is because they are EPs but that are promoted as singles (once again, this is a territorial classification). A true single from VIXX is Super Hero (VIXX song), which includes 2 songs, one instrumental, and it charted on the singles chart. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 19:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Gareth Bale[edit]

Hello, I add a source which is a news about Real won the super cup. In fact, another source which is about 2014 super cup also belongs to this form, so I think it should be ok. Of course, if it actually doesn't meet the requirement. I can replace it later. 七战功成 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I notice that I am already be reported by you. But according to your previous message, the edit war happened at "Christiano Ronaldo" page, I didn't do any change on it and only revert another one's edit on "Gareth Bale". That also belongs to edit war? 七战功成 (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@七战功成: 3RR applies to any page in Wikipedia. I only warned you for Ronaldo's to avoid 3 or 4 messages for the same issue for all the players. At the moment you reverted at Bale's page, you continued the edit-war and not followed the instructions of the message I sent. Due to this, you have been reported to WP:3RRN, you can follow the instructions in that page to know what's next. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 20:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. But I am still not clear about what the penalty is. Could you explan it a little bit? 七战功成 (talk) 20:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@七战功成: Rather than a penalty, you will be temporarily blocked from editing. The blocking admin will explain this. In the future please do not engage in edit-wars and discuss the issue at talk pages or noticeboards. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 20:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring?[edit]

Surely I'm well within my rights to revert the addition of inadequately sourced information to a BLP? – PeeJay 19:59, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You are labelling it as vandalism (when it is not), and not a BLP violation, which may not necessarily be one. Tone down or both will be reported. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 20:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you! 2[edit]

Hi Dear. I have been updating Hari Moha Jha page for last 2/3 years . Please do not treat my changes as act of vandalism Suyasham (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Its not question of deleting data or evading any blockage.I have been updating it for some years and probably other user also would have been attempting to update Suyasham (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Your revert of Traditionalism[edit]

Hello, you reverted my change of Traditionalism. I wanted to make a full article out of this disambiguation. Hm. Technical revert. How can I do this? --IbnTufail (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I will see what I can do. --IbnTufail (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Anything new yet from the Mexican media?[edit]

I'm just wondering if close sources have confirmed that JuanGa has indeed died. I'm seeing sources listing the LA coroner and his family. Erick (talk) 22:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: [1] this source mentions that his family confirmed it, but that's it. I've been looking at all the record labels and nothing. TV Azteca confirms it, but ironically, today they will broadcast the last chapter of his biopic Hasta que te conocí. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 22:32, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Well to be fair, it is a Sunday so business tend to be closed, but Leila Coboi from Billboard has confirmed it. Damn... Face-sad.svg Erick (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Too sad. There is nothing else to do but to update his article. RIP. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 22:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've added a "legacy and influence" section and have added you as a major updater along with two editors because you put a of work into it. Just wanted to give you a heads. Cheers! Erick (talk) 15:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 17:41, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hey, sorry to bother again, but a user on the nomination suggested that it could be blurb material and just wanted to hear your two cents on the subject. Erick (talk) 20:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so into ITN (other than technical stuff), so I don't know which is the solid criteria for recently deceased people (Bowie, Jackson, and Prince were kind of obvious). I frankly don't know if he would qualify as a full-blurb for the English Wikipedia (otherwise, you would have seen this kind of quick response from other members). You don't lose something with trying it though. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 20:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh no that's fine, I just wanted to know your opinion about the subject. Either way, I'm okay with it since it's already on the front page. Erick (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
@Magiciandude:, you win me to reply. On the other hand, if he and his recordings have global relevance[2], it might be material for the blurb. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 21:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point as well. Maybe if you post that on the ITN nom, it could convince some of the other members. EDIT: Also, when you mentioned the television series ending the same day he died, it gave me an idea to expand on the article about it to make it a DYK nom. Erick (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
If you need material, you can contact me. I didn't watch it though, so I can't help you with plots. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 22:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Juan Gabriel[edit]

Gnome globe current event.svg On 30 August 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Juan Gabriel, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Jr.[edit]

What's up with the move of Hank Williams Jr.'s Greatest Hits, Vol. 2 to include the comma before Jr.? Evening the album cover doesn't do that. Dicklyon (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

If you look at Hank's discography, you will find lots of albums with "Hank Williams Jr." and lots of albums with "Hank Williams, Jr.", so "the cover" is not a reliable source. The only third-party source present in the article says: ""Hank Williams, Jr. [– Hank Williams, Jr.'s Greatest Hits, Vol. 2"]. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 06:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)