User talk:Mz7

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

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

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

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

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

Click here to start a new message

It is approximately 10:42 PM where this user lives (Eastern Time Zone). []

Ongoing vandalisms by random-IP-only user

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page creation: Dissimilatory Reduction of Nitrate to Ammonium

Hello,

I am a student editor who is very new to all of this! I, along with 3 other classmates, are working on creating this Wikipedia article as a project for our microbiology course. We were asked by our professor to assign a topic to ourselves in our class group, and since this page had not previously existed, we created this page in order to be able to do that without adding any content, so it's understandable why this page would have been deleted. I was wondering - when we are ready to add content, can we recreate the page again and add sections, even if the Wikipedia article itself is noticeably incomplete? I just want to make sure we do the right things to avoid deletion again in the future.

Thanks so much!

DorothyDXY (talk) 18:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi DorothyDXY! Thanks for contacting me. When you are ready to add content, one of your options is indeed to go ahead and create the page again. Wikipedia is a work in progress, so articles are, in principle, allowed to be incomplete. However, in practice, the community does have some expectations for new articles—for example, they should not be advertorial in tone, copy the work of others, or be about a subject that is not notable—and if these expectations are not met, a new article can be nominated for deletion.

To avoid deletion, another option for when you are ready to add content—and this is the one I recommend—is starting the article as a draft in a place like your user sandbox. When the draft is ready, it can then be published into an article by moving it to the correct title. Drafting first helps you develop the article and receive feedback before it is subjected to encyclopedic standards. Our help page at Wikipedia:Your first article contains a good summary of our expectations for new articles and also provides some tips. In my experience, the biggest thing that Wikipedia editors look at is the quality of the sources in your article. Wikipedia editors generally determine which topics are notable by looking at whether they have received significant coverage in reliable sources, so having citations in your article to a range of reliable sources is often the best way to avoid a deletion nomination.

I hope this information is helpful. If you need any other help, please feel free to ask me at any time. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mz7! Thanks for getting back to me! What you said sounds good :) Would the content in the sandbox be safe from deletion then, even if it is incomplete or not up to standard? I've seen other classmates write informal notes and outlines in their sandboxes, so would things like that be okay?

Thanks so much!

DorothyDXY (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

@DorothyDXY: Yep! Informal notes and outlines are perfectly fine. Editors are given a good amount of freedom with regards to what they can have in their userspace (for your case, any page with "User:DorothyDXY/" in the title, including the sandbox). As long as the content is related to building an encyclopedia, it should be safe from deletion. The one thing I would be careful of is making sure that you do not post content that infringes copyrights in your sandbox. It might be tempting to copy and paste a source into your sandbox so that you can easily pull from it or paraphrase it, but copyrighted material is not allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, even in the sandboxes. We also delete libelous content from sandboxes, but I'm sure that won't be a problem here. All the best, Mz7 (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: sounds good! Thanks so much for your help; I really appreciate it! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DorothyDXY (talk • contribs) 04:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Mz7 (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Revdel request

I note that you're listed in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to handle RevisionDelete requests and also recently active, so I'm hoping you can look at a WP:REVDEL case: diff. I believe this change should be revdeled per WP:CRD#2. If you agree, can you please take appropriate action? Thanks! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@WikiDan61:  Done Thanks for letting me know about this. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to help. Mz7 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

If I spot 'em, I'll call 'em! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

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

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Sebastian Stan

You need to calm tbfh, like SEBASTIAN IS PAPI CHULO GET OVER IT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maraisbrutal (talk • contribs) 23:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Maraisbrutal. Thank you for contacting me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and you wouldn't find any serious encyclopedias directly referring to their subjects as "papi chulo". I reversed your edits for this reason. Please do not make them again. If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know. WP:Contributing to Wikipedia has some good advice on how you can contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, if you're interested. Regards, Mz7 (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Albicelestes

• Albicelestes (t · th · c · del · cross-wiki · SUL · edit counter · pages created (xtools · sigma) · non-automated edits · BLP edits · undos · manual reverts · rollbacks · logs ^{(blocks · rights · moves)} · rfar · spi · cci) (assign permissions)^{(acc · ap · ev · fm · mms · npr · pm · pc · rb · te)}

Wikipedia is a major source of information. I wish to help this source clean of problems all the time! Albicelestes (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done We appreciate your willingness to help out. However, I took a look through your contributions, and I do not believe you have enough experience in counter-vandalism work for the rollback permission at this time. Here are a few links to get you started, if you are interested: Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit, Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol, Special:RecentChanges. Note that the rollback permission is not required to participate in counter-vandalism, and it is not necessary in most cases to help "clean" Wikipedia of its problems. If you have any questions, feel free to let me know. Mz7 (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Mz7OK...Note that the administrator permission is not required in answering permission requests, and it is not necessary in most cases...Peace! Albicelestes (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Albicelestes: Well, administrator access is required to assign permissions like rollback to other users, but overall, I would definitely agree that being an administrator is also not necessary to help out on Wikipedia. The issue is, permissions like rollback give you the ability to potentially make many hundreds of edits in rapid succession, which can take a lot of time to clean up if done incorrectly and can also alienate new editors whose contributions are incorrectly reversed. That's why we want to see experience in knowing what is and what is not vandalism before we grant rights like rollback, and at the moment, we don't have enough information at this time to make that evaluation for you. Spend some time reading over the links about vandalism I gave you, and come back in a few months when you have more experience reversing vandalism. I hope this helps clarify my decision a bit. Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mz7: :)Thank you for response it is not required clarify. This reply was not that serious. I am doing another things unlike anti-vandalism (templates, fixing issues) which needs no abnormal permissions. it was only try(test) to so how things done!...Peace! Albicelestes (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Pls. check Fred Penner

Good afternoon, Ponyo. The article is Edit Protected due to past vandalism. See the most recent Talk section; Married? Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2017

Apparently, Penner has gotten married to his longtime partner. There is some evidence, with a link to a source to confirm it. I am a Confirmed User so I can make edits (I believe) but I am not sure if a single source for the information re: being married (from his wife) is adequate to do so. Your thoughts? Thanks, Peter K Burian (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Peter K Burian. I think you may be looking for Ponyo, not me. I'm Mz7, but I was the administrator who applied the most recent page protection to Fred Penner, so you may be looking for me after all. In any case, I took a look at the discussion and left a comment. In summary, I do think that it is reasonable to include the new marriage in the article since the subject's official website states it (see this page), and there is no reason to believe the website is false. WP:SELFPUB allows for the use of self-published sources like personal websites to be used as sources about themselves, as long as the claim is not exceptional. Hope that helps. (Also, I checked and you are indeed extended confirmed, meaning you have the ability to edit the page directly.) Mz7 (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Mz7 I was looking for you. (I think Ponyo was also involved in this page.) After I commented on the talk page, Penner and his wife both updated their Bios. Then, it was definitely confirmed that they are married. ......... I'm "extended" confirmed? Wow. Cheers, Peter K Burian (talk) 13:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Peter K Burian: Yep, you're "extended" confirmed. It's a fairly new feature on Wikipedia, activated last year. For some background, once an editor has a registered account for 4 days and has made 10 edits, their account becomes "automatically confirmed" (or "autoconfirmed" for short). Being autoconfirmed allows you to edit semi-protected pages, rename pages, upload files, and do other things. At the end of 2015, however, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee ruled as a result of an arbitration case that "All IP editors, accounts with fewer than 500 edits, and accounts with less than 30 days tenure are prohibited from editing any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict." (see full text of ruling) After this measure was passed, the Wikipedia community was unsure what the best way of enforcing it was – we didn't want to have to revert obviously good edits like typo fixes just because they came from a user affected by this ban.

Eventually, the community decided that the best way to enforce it was to make a brand new level of page protection that only allows editing from users who have registered accounts for 30 days and have 500 edits. As we were discussing how to implement the new level of protection, we were unsure how to name it. At first, users with 30 days and 500 edits were to be given the established user user right, which would allow them to edit pages under the new protection level. However, we realized that we needed to make the new user right sound as "unsexy" as possible, since it was really intended to be no big deal. We didn't want people to think they had some higher status by merely having 500 edits and 30 days. Xaosflux suggested in this discussion we name it extended confirmed since it was basically an extension of the preexisting autoconfirmed condition. It sounded unsexy enough, so we all ended up just rolling with it. Now it's a part of the protection policy. Mz7 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Seven years of editing, today.

@Chris troutman: And I've more-or-less enjoyed it these seven years. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter K Burian (talk • contribs) 16:33, March 14, 2017 (UTC)

Very belated but congratulations on over seven years on Wikipedia! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

suggestbot

Few minutes ago, i added the sgeestbot template to my userpage. Within few seconds, the bot suggested me. Just a few seconds from that, i added a specific category "cities and towns of india" to the bot's template. And within few seconds, the bot suggested me another set of pages. But the new set was not much related to my request.
How to improve the bot's suggestions? And also, how to remove his entries from talkpage once i am done with the pages?
And also, how often he will suggest me, and how to adjust the frequency of his suggestion?

PS: after a few days when i will get enough track history, and experience; i will place a request for PCR authorisation to you which you will not be able to decline :-p
And when you will grant me the right, i will abuse it to "splinter your adminship into a thousand pieces and scatter them into the wind". :-p
Note: thats just a sarcastic joke, as the PCR right has no potential to be abused. And that was an alleged quote by JFK. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Responded on your user talk page Mz7 (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Happy birthday!

Thank you! --Shruti14 ^{talk • sign} 05:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Strange user (attention needed)

Hello, a few days ago a user by the name Rævhuld tried to create disturbance on JFK assassination page. It was methodical, and preplanned. He is still doing that on other articles, including Emma Watson. At the time of JFK incidence, I contacted another senior/experienced user to get a second opinion. You can see that discussion here.

As Rævhuld was trying to create disturbance regarding JFK through legitimate methods of wikipedia, i had added his talkpage to my watchlist (JFK means a lot to me lol, so it is my policy to keep an eye on activities of users which i suspect for vandalising JFK related articles). Recently he did some edits there, and now i think he has requested to archive all the discussions of his talkpage, i am not sure what it is. If his talkpage becomes clear again, he might start creating disturbances again. Would you please take a look at his talkpage, and his recent activity? Thanks a lot.

PS: belated happy b'day @Shruti14: —usernamekiran (talk) 18:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Hmm, I'm not sure I agree that it was "methodical" and "preplanned", as you say. I took a look at their edits to Talk:John F. Kennedy and Emma Watson. I also see the ANI discussion and your discussion with I dream of horses. In the edits to JFK and Emma Watson, they appear to be trying to add more-or-less sensationalized details to the articles, such as that "I will splinter the CIA" quote in the context of his assassination. I don't see this as blatant vandalism, however; I could still see them believing in good faith that the details belonged in the article. It wasn't really the most disruptive disturbance either: the edit to Emma Watson was reverted, and the talk page discussion looks like it's heading toward a consensus not to include the JFK quote.

But there are other interesting details too. As the ANI discussion found, the Danish English article they created was found to be a hoax, and they were correctly warned about this after it was discovered. On the other hand, a look through their contributions shows that they do good work occasionally, such as removing unsourced BLP content and updating television series articles (Note: I haven't checked these edits for their veracity). At this time, there is not enough evidence for me personally to deviate from WP:AGF, but the hoax is definitely a red flag. We'll see. Note that per WP:OWNTALK, editors are allowed to archive or even outright remove most kinds of messages posted to their user talk page without penalty, so there is nothing we can do about that. (The caveat is that this is usually taken as evidence that the messages were seen.) Mz7 (talk) 20:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, and i totally agree with you on most of the points. This is the reason why I contacted i dream of horses, and you actually. He seems to be aware of wikipedia policies/guidelines, and he tries to cause trouble without crossing them (without vandalising anything). I mean, he creates disturbances by staying within the lines, and by using legitimate methods. I am not asking you to serve him a warning or anything, i am contacting you as an experienced user n not as an admin. I just wanted to know your opinion about his activities.

but it doesnt seem to be "innocent un-constructive contributions" to me. I apolgise, but i forgot to include most important discssion earlier. From his profile and contributions, an admin stated that the user is "not here to build an encyclopaedia" in this discussion. In same discussion kindly look for the meaning of his username. From his activity he definitely seems to be aware of the "encyclopaedic content", and yet he keeps on including "innocent un-constructive content" to wikipedia. :-D

and for his good contributions, maybe he does it once in while to be a "wolf in sheep's clothing". Sorry, i am sounding like a stereotypical conspiracy theorist lol. I am not that btw. It is just, that user really seems fishy. I am going to keep an eye on his activities for a while. :-p (is this okay with wikipedia guidelines? I didnt come across any documentation regarding that.)

but please, do let me know what you think of his activities after you read that ANI discussion. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: As I stated, I did see the ANI discussion, and I factored that into my response above. The ANI discussion rolled off the noticeboard and was archived without any further administrative action beyond a speedy deletion. If what you are saying is true – that the user is trying to disrupt Wikipedia in a more subtle manner – my opinion is that we need more evidence. There is not enough so far for me personally to deviate from WP:AGF. If you want to pursue this yourself, I think a candid discussion with the user about why they created the hoax (maybe they were misinformed?) and an explanation of our core content policies (re. Emma Watson and JFK) is in order. (Avoid using a templated user warning for that. I find it more effective in many cases to write in your own words, maintain respect, and assume good faith, even when you disagree.) On the whole, I think the biggest red flag for me is the hoax. I would like to see an explanation for that, if there is one, or an apology, if it was deliberate. Mz7 (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

hmm. I completely agree with you now actually. I would keep an eye on his activities for few more days, if he does something fishy again, i wil initiate a casual conversation. If he iremains active, but no fishy activities, we can assume his contribution skills have improved, and his previous edits were in good faith. :)

PS: do you think it will be a good idea me adopting a user? I think, that way, both of us will learn a lot. This guy is a native Englisg speaker (from Ireland) but i had to tell him about signing. He is good with creating content, but lacks technical knowledge, and wiki policies. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Hmm, I've never had much experience with the adopt-a-user program, so I'm probably not the best person to ask. Perhaps you could ask someone at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area/Adopters for guidance on that front. Mz7 (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• roger that. —usernamekiran (talk) 02:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Zueni

Hello, can you offer some advice please? I tagged this page earlier as G11; the creator removed the speedy which was then replaced by another editor. The creator then removed all the content and replaced it with just one line, which is less promotional in tone. I have considered just restoring the page as at this version but it doesn't seem to be quite the right thing to do after the removal of most of the content. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eagleash. The relevant issue is that in order for a page to qualify for speedy deletion, all of the revisions in the page history must also qualify for speedy deletion. As a result, it probably no longer qualifies for G11 now that it has been reduced to the less promotional one line, but it probably still qualifies for A7 (no indication of significance). I will let another administrator make the final decision on the A7 just to be sure, but in the meantime I've given the page creator some advice about drafting ({{uw-draftfirst}}). Mz7 (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well it's gone now... That's what I thought about G11. I considered A7 also but wasn't entirely convinced (WP:CCS seems to have a very low threshold). Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 13:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Help wih infobox

Hello,
A few moments ago, i reworked the infobox of Amravati, you can see the edit history here.

But, I couldnt work out the spacing within the infobox. I mean, there is too much space between "country" and "india". I tried a lot to find a solution regarding that on wikipedia, but i couldnt find it. Would you please tell me how to repair it? Thanks a lot again. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:16, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I'm looking at the infobox now and the spacing between the "Country" label and "India" appears fine to me. Is there something I'm missing? Mz7 (talk) 00:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

• i apologise for not updating you. I alreadt fixed the problem like 20 minutes after contacting you. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Soundtrack covers for discussion

Hello. I have just noticed that the following movie-related articles on Wikipedia contain soundtrack covers in the "Soundtrack" or "Music" section of them. These files should be listed at WP:FFD. Here is the list:

1. Shark Tale#Soundtrack
2. Brother Bear 2#Soundtrack
3. Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie: Pyramid of Light#Soundtrack
4. Inside Out (2015 film)#Soundtrack
5. Alvin and the Chipmunks (film)#Soundtrack (contains two covers; one is the film's soundtrack and the other is a CD sampler.)
6. Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked#Soundtrack
7. The Fox and the Hound 2#Soundtrack
8. The SpongeBob Movie: Sponge Out of Water#Music
9. The Rugrats Movie#Media
10. Rugrats Go Wild#Soundtrack
11. Zootopia#Music
12. The Muppet Christmas Carol#Music
13. The Muppets Take Manhattan#Music
14. Pokémon: The First Movie#Soundtrack (contains two covers; one is the soundtrack and the other is the score.)

There may be more, but these are the ones I came across so far. Per WP:FILMMUSIC, soundtrack covers are only allowed if the soundtrack itself has its own article on Wikipedia. These soundtracks do not have their own articles, and are probably not notable enough unless they been mentioned by a certain number of sources. Please list these files at WP:FFD and notify the uploaders of these covers. Thanks! DBZFan30 (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@DBZFan30:  Done for all except Shark Tale#Soundtrack, the CD sampler one at Alvin and the Chipmunks (film)#Soundtrack, Inside Out (2015 film)#Soundtrack, The Fox and the Hound 2#Soundtrack, and both of the ones at Pokémon: The First Movie#Soundtrack. These ones are substantially different to their film posters, so further investigation is needed as to whether they contain critical commentary of the albums sufficient to meet WP:NFCC#8. Mz7 (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Finding unconstructive edits?

Hi,
It was you or somebody else that recently told me about "Lupin" or a tool with a similar name. I cant find it now. Can you suggest me some tool or way to find unconstructive edits? These edits dont have to be "recent". You know, articles that need to cleanup, rewording/copyedit, grammatical corrections, and stuff like that. Is there a way to find it?
I tried the old-school "recent changes". But it is way too random. It showed all the changes from all over english wikipedia, which is a lot. And most of the the differences that i saw were good edits. It was just a "recent change log" apparently, not "suspicious or poor edits". —usernamekiran (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

You may be looking for User:Lupin/Anti-vandal tool, but I haven't used it before so I can't give you any guidance about it. Back before I got rollback permissions, one of the lesser-known things I did to find vandalism was patrolling Special:Log/newusers, which is the user account creation log. In this log, you'll notice that if an account has not made any edits, their "contribs" link will appear red. I spent my time looking through the blue "contribs" links and finding vandalism that way. It was also a great opportunity to welcome new editors when I found good-faith changes. (Fortunately, the majority of edits are good-faith. Being bored while looking for vandalism is a good problem to have.) Once you have 1,000 edits to the article namespace (you currently have 547) or rollback permissions, you can also use STiki, which is a Java application you can download to your computer, and it can find diffs for you to review for vandalism. Hope this helps. Mz7 (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

hi, thanks for the reply. I apologise for the delay. As you hadn't pinged me, I didn't realise you replied me.

spookily enough, I got permission granted for STiki on the same day that you suggested it to me. March 17, UTC. I haven't used it though. I haven't got my laptop back yet. And I can't find SD RAM , buy for desktop.

I tried using Lupin from my BlackBerry Q5, but it became very tedious because of the (comparatively) small screen, and it's 1:1 ratio. Thanks agaon. —usernamekiran (talk) 14:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

Could you please take a look at the revision history of Nowruz? I dont know why but my previous request was declined. There is a clear and ongoing vandalism problem by mostly anons and it did not stop 2 days ago, as the admin said. @Favonian:,@NeilN:.46.221.197.193 (talk) 17:28, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I wouldn't object if the page were protected as you requested, but I think you should ask the administrator who originally declined your request first for clarification. In the meantime, I will keep an eye on the article. Mz7 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the page has now been protected by another administrator. Mz7 (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Mistaken click

Sorry about the inadvertent rollback of one of your edits I did - I undid my own edit immediately after. Accidental click, entirely unintentional. --Krelnik (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Krelnik: No worries. I've been caught by the good ol' autopilot before too. Mz7 (talk) 23:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

New account making apparently single-purpose edits.

Hello, I wonder if you could take a look at this very new account's activity here? Account created today and the only edits (bar just one...that I noticed) seem to be undoing just one other editor's contributions in respect of removal of links to countries (per WP:OLINK). That's a concern in itself but to do only this on the day of account creation makes me think there just might be some SP'ing going on. (Just a hunch). I've left a welcome message and link to WP:OLINK at their TP. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, similar batch of edits, from an IP yesterday. Eagleash (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Eagleash: I think this is a content dispute regarding those links that's spreading across many articles. It looks like relevant discussion is at User talk:Argentina Sweden#Stop removing wikilinks. I've warned the user about edit warring for now, and I've also left a comment at Argentina Sweden's talk page. Mz7 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for help and for taking a look. Eagleash (talk) 23:47, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

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

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

I'm referring to myself lol.
Would you please keep an eye on my activity for 45 days more? You know, a check-up just once week or once a fortnight would suffice.

Sorry for such an odd request. I hope you would do that. Thanks a lot.
PS: in the first check, would you please run a detailed check on history as well? Till the point of your previous check? —usernamekiran (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Is there anything specific you want me to look for? I guess I'll write down some disjointed thoughts. I noticed that you've recently put in a request for rollback, in which you refer to your last request for pending changes reviewer rights as a "joke". That's a bit disappointing to me, as I thought it was a serious request, though perhaps a little premature. Realize that rights like pending changes reviewer and rollback aren't really all that special. Getting them is just as momentous an occasion on Wikipedia as installing Twinkle. They don't grant any sort of status – the opinions of an administrator, a pending changes reviewer, a rollbacker, or an editor with no tools in content and policy discussions should all be evaluated by the strength of their arguments, not by how many buttons they have available to them. There shouldn't be any aura of authority around these rights.

Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason why you aren't interested in "fighting vandalism"? In my view, fighting vandalism does in many ways fall under your goal of "find unconstructive or unencyclopaedic content on wiki, and then improve it." Vandalism is unconstructive and unencyclopedic, isn't it? And by reverting it, you do improve the encyclopedia. Huggle, Lupin, STiki – all of these tools are specifically tailored to help you identify and revert vandalism in the edits recently made to Wikipedia, not really to find articles that you can contribute to. Wikipedia is filled with articles that could be improved – it's all a matter of finding one that interests you and working on it. It is unlikely that rollback will help you find such an article. Mz7 (talk) 01:24, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it was a joke. I mean, it wasnt exactly a "joke", but i found that idea humorous, along with the "manually confirmed user". "A sense of family".

Yes, I am aware these "user rights" arent anything special, and fhe user's discussions are evaluated by his arguments. If you did see the history, I was recently subject of a complaint regarding edit war. It was not a violation. (I think he is a "difficult user" as wiki says, I am not sure about him.) I made my arguments clearly on the board.

Now you are playing with the grammar of language and technicality of wiki lol. By "fighting vandalism" the (new) users usually mean "undoing disruptive editing". I want to improve the articles with typos, or grammatical inaccuracies, or by adding citations and similar stuff. Most of the times, such articles are very less frequently visited, sort of ignored/forgotten by the editors and readers as well.

And yes, thats the exact problem. There are many articles that needs to be improved, the problem is I cant find them. I read a lot on wiki, but I cant come across any articles with such "needy content". I even contacted [user:Dianna] about that. The conversation is still going on. She is co-ordinator of copy-editors guild.

It is not about the rollback right. I honestly dont care about the user right :) I want it so that I can use Huggle. I hope you are understanding what i am trying to say :) —usernamekiran[talk] 01:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Thank you for your response. If reverting disruptive editing just doesn't appeal to you, I can respect that. I'm not sure whether Huggle will do any better than STiki at doing what you want it to do. It will simply give you a feed of recent changes for you to analyze, be it for grammatical errors or vandalism. Perhaps you could take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you look at today's log, you'll see a number of articles that are on the chopping block for deletion. Many of these may not deserve deletion and could be improved if sources can be found – Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron is a WikiProject dedicated to saving poorly written articles from deletion by improving them. We could certainly use more editors giving their input over whether an article should be deleted, if that interests you. Mz7 (talk) 03:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

thanks a lot jersey man! :) this seems interesting, helpful, and intellectually stimulating as well. I will definitely look into that.

Btw, are you cushioning the blow? About rejection of rollback? lol —usernamekiran[talk] 03:18, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: As far as I can tell, your request at WP:PERM/R is still pending, and I'm planning on letting another administrator handle it, so my words are certainly not intended to be any sort of consolation—they are genuine advice. I'm glad you're interested in the deletion process, as I think it can always benefit from more quality input. The most important set of guidelines that most participants at Articles for Deletion ("AfD") will refer to is Wikipedia:Notability. In a nutshell, in order for a topic to warrant an article in Wikipedia, it should be notable, and oftentimes the question at an AfD discussion is "is this article topic notable?" Wikipedia generally determines notability by looking at whether a topic has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"—see WP:GNG. Essentially, if reliable sources have significantly covered a subject, that carries a presumption that that topic is worth also covering in Wikipedia. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Mz7 (talk) 03:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

lol! You still think i am newbie!

i have been editing wikipedia for more than 10 years now. I edited it for 3 consecutive years. Then took a long break, and forgot my username, and i didnt have email address attached. And I am regular wikipedia reader, and i also read talkpages. I find the requests for permission funny. When i cant fall asleep, I either read warren commission's report, or HSCA report, or something regarding law, or wiki policies. I recently merged a few articles, and nominated two articles for deletion. It has been less than a week. Latur Police, and Dnyanopasak College of Arts, Commerce, Science, and Technology. Even though very few edits, i am a lot experienced user who knows almost all the wiki policies. :) —usernamekiran[talk] 04:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Neighborhoods of Latur, Maharashtra Institute of Dental Science and Research Latur. —usernamekiran[talk] 04:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Oh my goodness. That totally flew over my head. My comments above must have sounded incredibly condescending, and I apologize. Do continue with your work. Mz7 (talk) 04:15, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I apologise, my statements above were sort of vague. And you are way too formal! You dont need to apologise, and your comments were not condescending at all either.

I meant, like 10 years ago, i had an account, i edited wiki for 3 consecutive years, but there was no email address in that account (that i can recall of, i had many-many email addresses at that time). Then i stopped editing for like two years. When i wanted to come back, i couldntnt recall my username, nor the pages that I used to edit. Most of the pages were about music though. So i couldnt find my username anyhow. Thats why i had to create this account 5 years ago.

I have severe insomnia. During the day time, whenever i get free time from work I read normal wikipedia articles. But at bedtime I read report of Warren commission, and House Select Committee on Assassinations. These two are investigations of assassination of JFK. I have soft, and hard copies of both of these reports. If i cant fall asleep, then with intentions to bore myself, I read the "bare act copy" of Indian Penal Code or anything regarding law, or policies. That includes policies of google, facebook, amazon, ebay, wikipedia among a few. Google, and wikipedia policies are something that i keep myself updated with. Wikipedia policies/essays are interesting to read.

That 3-4 years of reading made me amass a huge understanding of wiki policies. Thats what I was trying to say above: I dont have many edits on wikipedia, but that doesnt mean I am not aware of the policies. —usernamekiran[talk] 18:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Sounds good! If you are interested in applying and receiving feedback on your knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, WP:AFD is a great place to do it. Mz7 (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

i think you provided me wrong link lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usernamekiran (talk • contribs) 19:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: No, that's the right one. Scrolling through AfD logs and adding your input to deletion discussions—perhaps leaving comments to help rescue articles that shouldn't be deleted or leaving comments in support of articles that should be deleted—is a great way to not only help out the project, but apply one's knowledge of policies and guidelines, since all AfD participants are expected to base their arguments around policies and guidelines. Just a suggestion, as I'm gathering that you are trying to find more ways to help out. Mz7 (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I would definitely do that alon with my previous work. It is thought provoking, interesting, and generates leads for content writing as well. Thanks a lot. :) —usernamekiran[talk] 20:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting an unbiased vote

Hi,
Your unbiased vote is requested here.

Thanks. —usernamekiran[talk] 20:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

kindly respond to my request. —usernamekiran[talk] 21:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Apologies for the late response. I looked over the thread so far, and it appears there's a bit of background reading I'll have to do before I can form an opinion. I'll see if I can get that done by the end of this week. Mz7 (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:PERM(rollback)

Hello. Would you mind taking a look at my request logged at April 1? (note: please run Xtools again, when i submitted it, it had an alert of high lag, so the bots comment is inaccurate)--Kostas20142 (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done [1] Mz7 (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about MfD discussions

Hello there! First off, thanks for closing Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Asilah 1981 as it was deleted (outside of MfD discussion). Secondly, I had a question for you: as I asked in my comment requesting it be closed, is it possible/allowed for regular users to close a discussion in the event that the page that is nominated has already been deleted, or should I just tag an administrator when coming across entries like that? If the former is true and it is allowed/appreciated, how would I be able to do something like that?

Thank you for your time and help (and sorry for bugging you)!

TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:23, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor. In such a case where the outcome is clear, non-administrators are indeed allowed to close deletion discussions by themselves. There are some guidelines on when this is appropriate at WP:NACD. To do so:

1. Add {{subst:mfd top}} '''RESULT'''. ~~~~ to the very top of the MfD page, replacing RESULT with what the result was (e.g. "withdrawn", "delete", "speedy delete", "keep")
2. Immediately after "RESULT" on the first line, you should feel free to add any comments that may be relevant to the closure, such as listing the name of the administrator who performed the deletion. As a non-administrator, you should also clarify that this is a "non-admin closure". {{subst:non-admin closure}} is good for this purpose.
   • Example (what you could've used to close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Asilah 1981):

     {{subst:mfd top}} '''speedy delete'''. Article was speedily deleted by Nyttend at 01:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC). {{subst:non-admin closure}} ~~~~

3. Add {{subst:mfd bottom}} to the bottom of the MfD page

If you do these steps, the discussion page will have the purple background signifying it is closed. You should then carry out the outcome of your close, if applicable; for example, if you closed as "keep", you should remove the MfD banner from the page in question. You can find additional instructions on how to close an MfD in the collapsed box at Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion that says "MFD Tools", which should actually be in the edit notice of all MfD discussions. Of course, if this is all going over your head, feel free to keep pinging administrators about it, and we'd be happy to do it for you if you'd like. Mz7 (talk) 03:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

That isn't going over my head at all. Thank you for taking the time to give detailed instructions and I will certainly do that in the future for situations like the last one that I created this question about. I know (generally) administrators are fairly busy and thus want to avoid adding unnecessary work like the situation above when I could do it just as effectively.

Thanks again! :D

TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Question regarding the moving of Draft:Third-generation sequencing

While looking through the afc submissions (as I qualify to add myself to the list of reviewers tomorrow, Apr 8th and wanted to look around more), I discovered this draft where the reviewer, Yash!, had an issue where they were unable to move the draft (saying they would have accepted it if they could move it) and I was wondering if you could take a look?

The reviewer's comment was: "I would have accepted this but a redirect exists for the same. I would appreciate if any admin got around this."

--TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @TheSandDoctor:  Done. Per Yash's request, I've deleted the redirect that was holding up the move, but I haven't actually performed the move since I haven't reviewed the article. I noticed that Yash hasn't been actively editing for a while, though. Mz7 (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I am glad that I could bring it to your attention and hopefully it is dealt with soon :D That is unfortunate that they have not been online for a while, I just saw it draft hopping (as I normally do) and thought I would let you know. If they are confident that it qualifies for acceptance (as they were), would it not be wise to approve it? In looking at the references, they do look notable and have ISSNs and dois (a sign of at least some notability to the references themselves). If you agree with this would it be unwise for myself to simply accept it tomorrow when I qualify? Would be good practice for accepting articles (properly etc) haha --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: That is, of course, assuming no one does between now and then. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be okay to defer to Yash's judgment and approve the draft on his word, but I would personally do some quick fact-checking myself first by following the references to see if they verify the content in the article. While the references may look good, whether they support the article is another question. I would still do your own thorough review, and based on your own review, if you believe the draft is okay to accept, then go ahead and accept. Mz7 (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Will do - thanks for the suggestions there, I am always looking to improve myself as a person and Wikipedia editor :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Uncharted (album)

Hello Mz7,

First of all, thank you for putting the "Uncharted" album cover onto it's page. But, getting to the point, how did you get the image from the website you got the image from and put it onto the "Uncharted" page without putting it on Wikipedia Commons in the first place?

Thanks anyway! Pianoguysfan (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pianoguysfan. While editors normally upload images to the Wikimedia Commons first before using them in Wikipedia, you can actually upload files locally to Wikipedia. If you upload a file to the Wikimedia Commons, all Wikimedia projects will then be able to use it. However, if you upload a file locally to the English Wikipedia, only users on the English Wikipedia will be able to use that file.

The most common reason why an editor would choose to upload a file locally to Wikipedia instead of the Wikimedia Commons is because the Commons only accepts free content—that is, content that have been licensed in such a way that anyone can use them without having to ask for permission. Wikipedia, on the other hand, does allow for the use of non-free content, subject to strict conditions. The album cover for Uncharted is not freely licensed, so we wouldn't be able to upload it to the Wikimedia Commons. However, the cover does satisfy Wikipedia's conditions for using non-free content, so I've uploaded the cover locally at File:Uncharted album cover.jpeg. I hope that answers your question. If you are still confused or have another question, I would be happy to clarify. Mz7 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Mz7,

Thanks! That was very useful.

Pianoguysfan (talk) 13:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Page history merge request for User:MauraWen/sandbox and Draft:Ida Thallon Hill

I again Mz7, I was wondering if you could possibly merge the page histories of User:MauraWen/sandbox and Draft:Ida Thallon Hill as they are created by the same user in different namespaces and are about the same thing (User:MauraWen/sandbox is newest version)? Thanks for your time --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: All right, this should be resolved. I've merged that one stray revision into the article (now in mainspace) here. Mz7 (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ida Thallon Hill

Was there an existing draft or a redirect that you deleted in order to move a sandbox draft to Draft:Ida Thallon Hill just as I was trying to do the same? Do you plan to accept the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: There was an early version of the draft from the same author, and just as you moved the draft to mainspace, I restored the revision here. (I was planning on doing it right after the move, but something interrupted me.) Do you think that stray revision should be merged into the history of the version now in mainspace? Mz7 (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Alright, I've merged that revision that I originally deleted so that it's now a part of the page history at Ida Thallon Hill. Here's the permanent link. Hope that resolves the issue. Mz7 (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion request on Draft:Hanover Research

Hi there Mz7! I have been asking SwisterTwister my reviewing related questions for the past couple of days (which they have been really helpful with) but I thought I should spread them around a bit more than I have been. That brings me to my question for you that hopefully you can answer, what is your opinion on the references for Draft:Hanover Research? It has been brought back to my attention after I declined it for not having enough sources as they said that they have added some notable ones (which they have) including Washington State Post and Virginia Business. I am not sure if it is acceptable in its current form or not (I am 'on the fence' about it) and was wondering if you could give me a second opinion on it.

Thank you for your time and if you cannot give me an opinion on it, that is okay, I will either ask another reviewer or leave it for someone else.

Thanks again

TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking. Mz7 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I took a look. The main thing we are looking for are in-depth articles in independent, secondary sources that provide substantive information about the organization Hanover Research—see WP:CORPDEPTH. A lot of the articles appear to only mention the organization in passing, including the Yahoo Finance and Huffington Post sources. We need to see coverage about the organization, not about something else related to a study that they conducted. Press releases like [2] are not independent, because they typically come directly from the organization itself. The Viriginia Business article, in my view, also does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH on its own. Per the guideline, routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel are considered trivial coverage. At the moment, I personally do not believe that the references establish the notability of the subject, but feel free to ask for a third opinion; the main question would be whether the coverage about the studies Hanover conducted go towards the notability of Hanover. Mz7 (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the input on this. Mind if I ask another reviewer here (ping them) to keep it all centralized or would you rather I just link back here so they can see this? Either is find with me --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I don't have a strong preference. Do what you feel is best. Mz7 (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Roger, @SwisterTwister: What do you think? I am including you in this discussion here rather than your talk page so that it is centralized and you can see the above easier. Feel free to weigh in if you wish. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

TheSandDoctor Thanks for notifying me, and yes, I'll note the sources are only announcements or notices, not nearly enough of what we consider notability. Certainly if it's resubmitted or declined again, we can start MfD for it. Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 20:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome and thank you SwisterTwister for tagging me so I saw this sooner. They have removed it as an AFC submission and I have advised them of this discussion. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Page history merge request for User:Tsmsyen/sandbox and Draft:Patrick Shannon

Could you please merge the histories of User:Tsmsyen/sandbox and Draft:Patrick Shannon as they are by the same author about the same individual? (The newer of the two appears to be User:Tsmsyen/sandbox). Thanks! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I'm not sure whether a history merge is necessary in this case. Note that the AfC submission template was added when the sandbox looked like this, so I'm not sure if it was their intention to submit the article. Technically, the main reason histmerges are done is to preserve attribution when there are multiple authors to an article – see WP:CWW. When there is only one author, merging the histories is not strictly speaking necessary, since the history still contains all of the necessary author attribution. I would ask the user whether they truly mean to submit that draft for publication. Mz7 (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm....that is odd. Anyhow, I have asked them. Who knows if I will get a response though, only time will tell and I will have to monitor that talk page too in case they don't ping. Will let you know if I hear anything. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: If you don't hear anything back, I think it's safe to remove the AfC submission template from their sandbox and, if you want, let them know that you have done so. Mz7 (talk) 03:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I was beaten to it by a reviewer who declined it but I commented out their declining message etc explaining that you had said to remove the templates in the edit description thing - I hope that is okay. I did not remove them, just hide them from view. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I should also note that I did hear back from them the same time I did from you (as in they pinged me but it didnt alert me for some reason and I happened to check because I saw your message). It was accidentally submitted and they did not even know it had been - submitting it was not their intention according to their response. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Sounds good. I took a look, and the ping didn't work because the user forgot to sign their message. Pings will only send a notification to the pinged user when there is a signature. Mz7 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I did not know that, should have said how to sign theirs as well I guess. I am glad that you approve. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Is a template like this allowed?

Just saw Draft:Template:Uw-editfilter in Category:Pending template and disambiguation AfC submissions and was wondering if something like that is allowed/needed? I have approved two other templates recently that had an obvious use within a particular group of articles relating to a Japanese TV station (if I recall correctly) but this one has me unsure. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 06:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: That template would be an example of a user warning template, which are indeed allowed on Wikipedia. We have a variety of different user warning templates available, and they are used by editors working to counter vandalism as a convenient way of informing a user that their edits are problematic. Mz7 (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I just thought that we already had one like it and was wondering if another would serve a purpose. Thank you for your response and ones like that in the future (if I see them) I shall accept. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Ah, gotcha. We do have a series of similar templates at {{uw-attempt2}}, {{uw-attempt3}}, and {{uw-attempt4}}. These user warning templates usually increase in warning, with level 1 warnings being the most delicately worded, and level 4 templates being "if you do it again, you will be blocked". Sometimes, in the event of particularly egregious vandalism, it is appropriate to escalate immediately to a level 4 user warning. In such a case, we have level "4im" warnings (short for 4-immediate), which say something along the lines of "This is your only warning. If you do it again, you will be blocked without further notice." It appears the editfilter series of warnings didn't have a level 4im template until now. Note that not all issues are appropriate for a 4im warning; for example, addition of unsourced content should usually be met with assuming good faith, so a level 4im might constitute biting, which we want to avoid. Mz7 (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

my article

Of course my article is not abour a how to guide...but it shows a the users and viewers how to deal with this program... — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Article Genius (talk • contribs) 15:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi The Article Genius. I meant that Wikipedia itself should not be a how-to guide. Your article appears to provide instructions to readers about how to use the program. This is not Wikipedia's purpose, as outlined in this policy page, since how-to instructions are not characteristic of an encyclopedia. I hope this clarifies that Wikipedia may not be the best website for this kind of information. Mz7 (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

hOW TO LOCK EDITING OF ARTICLES BY OTHERS?

How do I lock editing of my article by others? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Article Genius (talk • contribs) 16:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@The Article Genius: Wikipedia is a collaborative project, meaning that editors are expected to work together to build an encyclopedia. Accordingly, no editor "owns" any article on Wikipedia. When you submit content to Wikipedia, you agree to allow the content to be edited by others—the article is not technically considered "yours". For this reason, it is not possible to lock editing on an article to allow only one editor to make changes. If your article is facing persistent vandalism, we are able to protect the article against editing by new and unregistered users for a length of time proportional to the problem. Page protection, however, can only be applied by an uninvolved administrator in accordance with the protection policy. Mz7 (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion request on Draft:Computerized Archaeology Laboratory

While I think that Draft:Computerized Archaeology Laboratory is most likely notable, I am concerned by the 28.1% possible copyvio returned by Earwig here and the fact that it is not mentioned at all in Hebrew University of Jerusalem or Weizmann Institute of Science (according to Ctrl + F 'computeri' returning 0 results in both cases) and was wondering what your opinion is on it? Thanks for your time. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I definitely see that the draft is based off of http://archaeology.huji.ac.il/depart/computerized.asp. However, I think it is sufficiently different from the website so that it is not a copyright violation. Instead, I have placed the copied segments picked by Earwig in quotation marks – that should resolve the issue. I took a look through the sources, but they all seem to be about studies, perhaps conducted at the laboratory in question. For notability, we would need significant coverage about the laboratory itself. Perhaps the draft could be merged into Hebrew University of Jerusalem or Weizmann Institute of Science. Mz7 (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! I declined it with the reason being that it could be merged into the two you listed. Thanks again for your help! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion request for Draft:Nancy Hale

Hi there! Could I please get a second opinion on Draft:Nancy Hale? Also, please see this on my talk page. Thanks again for your help! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi TheSandDoctor. I think there are indeed enough references to establish the notability of the subject. Firstly, the subject had an obituary in The New York Times. The mention in the Kunitz book is also significant, and this whole book was published fairly recently (2012) and focuses deeply on her work. There are more reliable sources presented in the draft. Overall, I would accept the draft for publication. Mz7 (talk) 17:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the response and help as always. I have accepted the draft and apologized to the editor who brought this up on my talk page. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion request for Draft:Mud Masters

What are your thoughts on this draft? Personally, I think that it could use some more references and inline citations. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I think you're right, it could use some more references. I'm pretty sure one of the four sources provided is an ad for the event, not a secondary source that would go towards notability. This video appears to be dead, although it looks like it was once a news source. This source and this source seem okay – I'm not sure whether they're reliable, but they seem to provide reviews of the events. Perhaps we could encourage the author to provide more references along these lines so we can get a clearer picture of notability. Mz7 (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

So you would recommend declining it at this time and let them know the gist of what you said above? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Yep, decline and encourage them to provide more references that provide independent coverage of the event. Mz7 (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again for your help! :D --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion request for Draft:Deep Time History

Hi there, I was wondering what your thoughts are on Draft:Deep Time History? I was thinking that it is notable (somewhat inherited from parties involved) and that it is possibly ready for inclusion. I was wondering your take on it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion request for Draft:Yali Saar

Hi there, I was wondering what your thoughts on Draft:Yali Saar are? I am thinking it is potentially acceptable but am unsure. Thank you for your time! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Alright, I took a look through all of the sources in the draft. The subject has two claims to notability which I will address separately.

The first is his career as an actor. Per WP:NACTOR, actors are notable if they have had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. There are several prongs to this notability test: (1) did the subject have a significant role, (2) did the subject appear in multiple works, (3) were those works notable? According to the article, Saar was involved with Arutz HaYeladim, which appears to be a major television network in Israel, and it claims that he appeared in Zoomzoom, a weekly sitcom series, and filmed 120 episodes in another show, perhaps a starring role (i.e. significant). [3] confirms that a יהלי סער (translates to "Yali Sa'ar") was nominated among several dozen other actors for the best actor in a drama series award. On the other hand, Zoomzoom and Alifim are currently red links, so it's inconclusive whether they are notable shows.

The second claim to notability is his career as an entrepreneur. The issue with this one is that almost all of the sources pertaining to this primarily discuss the organizations that Saar founded, and not Saar himself. He is quoted several times, but there isn't much coverage beyond the fact that he was the founder of these organizations. We want the article to be about Saar, not a coatrack article about the activities of the organizations he has founded.

Overall, like you, I'm not sure whether this should be accepted. In the past, I've heard that some reviewers believe that the notability threshold for an accepting an AfC draft is ("above a 50-50 chance at AfD"). I'm thinking the two claims to notability together might push this over that threshold, but I'm curious whether there's more information about his acting career and more sources that go into detail on him as a person. Apologies for the lengthy comments—I tend to write too much. I hope this provides a new perspective to the draft. Mz7 (talk) 05:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

It does help and thank you for your input on it. As for the comment length, I honestly don't mind one bit - I'd rather have detailed feedback than unclear and too short :D. Not sure how to proceed on this though. Any ideas? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Indeed, I think this is fairly borderline for both of us. I'm slightly more inclined to decline it than accept it for the concerns I express above, but perhaps you could ask for additional input at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help. Mz7 (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Posted it there. Hopefully we get some additional opinions there. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm signing off for the night now. Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Input on draft for MfD

I am wondering if this draft (Draft:Nitin Rawat) would qualify for either CSD or MfD? If so, which would you recommend? Its only contents are a broken template and external link with section headers. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: The formatting was indeed pretty screwed up when I found the draft. I've attempted to clean it up a bit. It appears to be about a young weightlifter who won a few times nationally in junior men's 105 kg according to two of the sources in the article: [4][5]. WP:YOUNGATH seems to be the relevant guideline (not sure if he's graduated high school), but it doesn't seem coverage is any more than routine coverage. I don't think it falls under any criteria for speedy deletion, but you might have a case for MfD on the basis of WP:OVERCOME. Personally, I would let it sit and let WP:G13 take over eventually. Perhaps the author has access to sources we don't. —Mz7 (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. The draft mentions a university team, so WP:NCOLLATH is probably the relevant guideline. Mz7 (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, will leave it be - that is why I asked before nominating . --TheSandDoctor (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Typically, the time to MfD a draft is when a user persistently keeps submitting it for review, and the subject is undoubtedly non-notable (thus wasting our time). Otherwise, G13 allows the draft to fade away quietly and gives the user a second chance in the event that the subject is actually notable. Mz7 (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure if Draft:Andy Tong qualifies for anything but it does appear hopeless in its current state failing NPOV, ilc, BIO, does not have any references, and is just a listing of awards that the individual has supposedly won without anything to back it up. If it was in the user namespace I would nominate it for CSD as U5. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I agree. It looks G11-worthy to me, so I've tagged it for speedy deletion. When a draft needs a complete rewrite, speedy deletion may be justified, as I think is the case here, but I'll leave the final decision to another admin in case I've missed something. Mz7 (talk) 16:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Just for curiousity's sake, I have a question for you: do administrators need to necessarily tag for speedy deletion and leave it up to another administrator or are they allowed to just delete X for a speedy deletion reason? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: I think most administrators consider it good practice to tag for speedy deletion and then leave it up to another administrator, but as a matter of policy, administrators have the discretion to delete an article immediately without tagging if it falls under the criteria for speedy deletion. The latter case is usually done for serious cases where problematic material needs to be removed from Wikipedia as soon as possible, such as in the case of attack pages, vandalism, and copyright violations. Mz7 (talk) 19:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

They agreed with you obviously - it has been deleted. Thank you for your input and responses :D. That good practice and policy makes sense - thanks for answering. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding User_talk:SwisterTwister#15:40:49.2C_9_April_2017_review_of_submission_by_Sharyn_Finnegan

I thought that an administrator would have been best suited to answer that but obviously I was incorrect. Sorry to bother you with that and thank you for the response/answering the person's question. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: No worries at all. I'm happy to help! Mz7 (talk) 22:14, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Newcomers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New page reviewer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Autopatrolled

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pending changes reviewer.

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

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

yes

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

Was just about to block User:EAC tester. Have started a SPI as we have a couple of accounts like this.[6] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Regarding you recent action on Dhulagarh riots

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

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

Firstly, can you please show me where I put my personal views in the article? For each of my edits, I added at least one citation from an acceptable source. See[7], [8], or even [9] where instead of removing any source I put clear edit summaries. Secondly, where did I delete whole article? I did contact you[10]. Again show me where I put my personalized information? The truth is that you made original researches several times which are not backed by the sources in the article and deleted my contributions[11], pushing POV[12] despite clear mention in the source. Again[13] puting your own synthesis within brackets to make a point and many others like[14] and lastly [15] without no valid reasons! --45.123.13.164 (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Question about templates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page history

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on an unreviewed article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tractor Driven Onion Harvester

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good article

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

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

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

Lock Viktor Kassai article?

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

Hi Solomon joe. Your account was temporarily blocked from editing because you persistently removed speedy deletion notices from articles that you created yourself, even after being told three times ([16][17][18]) that this was against policy. Your block has now expired, so you should be able to edit pages again, but please do not repeat the behavior which led to your block. If you are still confused about what led to your block, please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to clarify.

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

Wikipedia:Nabila Erian / Nabila Erian

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts on a template

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requesting protection for my userpage

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

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

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

Another page move query

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

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

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

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