User talk:Nyttend: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:05, 19 December 2017

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.

Invitation to discussion about Per-user page blocking

Hi there,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building User Page (or category) blocking feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you voted or commented in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey about Enhanced per-user / per-article protection / blocking.

You can leave comments on this discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

Eppington

Sure - I'll get to it in a moment. Sorry, I've been on the road all day. Got to Knoxville not too long ago. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 04:57, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At long last...

There are no more red links at User:Nyttend/ZIP! Thank you for starting it up and finishing the first twenty-odd states, and continuing to host the lists in your user space while I and various other folks finished the rest. @RFD: thanks to you too for all your help with the lists, and to the many other people who created new articles through the years. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 17:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nyttend. The unincorporated communities in the United States have unique, interesting histories. Again my thanks also-RFD (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock please

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Nyttend (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

75.75.127.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

Editing from Nyttend backup has been blocked (disabled) by Nyttend for the following reason(s): no reason given. This block has been set to expire: no expiry set.

Blocking administrator: Nyttend (talk • blocks)

Accept reason: Resolved, see below. Huon (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to see the message that happens when you get autoblocked, so I blocked my alternate account, logged out of my main account, logged into the alt, and then logged out again. Having gotten the notice, I then logged back into my main account — and found that I was still autoblocked! And because I'm blocked, I can't unblock other users, so I can't remove this block. My IP address here is 75.75.127.168, although I'm about to leave (it's at a restaurant), so the correct action is unblocking User:Nyttend backup. Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alt account unblocked. Did that work, or do I need to hunt for an autoblock? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it worked. Thanks! Since when can administrators be autoblocked? I thought IP-block-exempt was part of the admin package? Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, not a techie. And wait; I think you can unblock other users even when you're blocked yourself. Has that changed? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's changed. It all depends on your ability to edit a page — if you can edit it, you can move it, protect it, unblock its underlying account, etc., but if you can't edit it, you can't do any of those things. The only things you can do while blocked, aside from editing your own talk page (and presumably protecting it) and unblocking yourself, are doing RevDel and modifying user rights. When you came along, I'd just given myself IP-block-exempt, with which I was going to unblock the alt and end this silly situation :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a difference between an autoblock and the "prevent registered editors from editing from this IP address" feature that IP block exemption deals with. IPBE to my knowledge indeed is part of the admin rights. Huon (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is part of admin rights, at Special:ListGroupRights it's described as "Bypass IP blocks, auto-blocks and range blocks (ipblock-exempt)". Peter James (talk) 20:56, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thornton tombstone

Apologies for the late response - I'm still on the road. Be home tomorrow.

I used the photographs on this site as a guide. Briefly:

Once you get to Oak Hill Forest Road, and start going down it, you'll see a road off to the right with a couple of structures on it. This is one. The path into the woods will be perpendicular to the drive you see by the structure. Take that path - this page says a quarter mile, which sounds a decent estimate. I would follow it until about twenty paces beyond the treeline and then start tacking inward a bit. Have a look at this image, which I took from the stone back the way I came. See that gnarly looking dead tree in the background? That should be visible from the cleared path - if you walk just past it, keeping it on your right, you should come upon the graveyard before too much longer. The obelisk was behind a tree when I came upon it - I nearly missed it. If memory serves (and it's been a few months, so I'm sorry I'm rusty), these coordinates are more accurate than the ones in the article. (I didn't change the article because I'm not convinced mine are right, either.)

The xroads images are very useful; I was able to walk myself through most of the search using them. I also have a couple of other images at home that might be of use - are you going to try again this weekend? If not, I can get them to you when I get home tomorrow night. They don't show much, but they can show you approximately how far from the structures you need to be before you start looking.

You can always ask a ranger, also - I didn't, and I'm a bit sorry I didn't, as it was hunting season and I kept hearing guns discharging in the distance. I figured it might have been better to let someone else know I was there. :-)

That help? Sorry if not - it's been a few months. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.}

Hi

Looks like the nominator is planning to withdraw the Tyrique Jarrett Afd. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Nyttend, WikiOriginal provided proof that Jarrett played in one game. I just read WP:WDAFD, so can you officially withdraw it and do a speedy keep on my behalf, and remove the template from the article? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the nominator, so I shouldn't do it. One keep plus a withdrawal from the person originally responsible for the nomination means that it will be speedy kept by the first uninvolved admin who comes along. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looks like someone took care of it. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8B0:35F4:5401:1C0D (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLEAN


	Hello Nyttend: You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Central Queensland University

Just to explain my revert. Rockhampton is a urban area (town) but Rockhampton City is the central suburb of that urban area (a much smaller area, and very precisely defined by a set of boundaries), so they are not the same thing. And, just to be confusing, Rockhampton City is different to City of Rockhampton (which is a former local government area, now replaced by Rockhampton Region). Alas we don't have an article on Wikipedia for Rockhampton City so it redirects back onto Rockhampton, which is one of those "best places to point it for the moment" kind of redirects. Rockhampton is not the only place that uses this nomenclature, we have the same situation with Brisbane, Brisbane City and City of Brisbane all being quite distinct things, but it's quite confusing for non-locals (and for a lot of locals as well). I'll go and create Rockhampton City to make it a little less confusing. Kerry (talk) 02:12, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, Rockhampton City (now a stub instead of a redlink, I'll expand it later) is just a suburb. It has no power to make local laws any more than the suburb of Norman Gardens does. Like all suburbs and localities (Australia), it has precise boundaries. The laws are made by the local government Rockhampton Region. The town of Rockhampton consists of a bunch of suburbs, including Rockhampton City and Norman Gardens. The town has no power to make laws either. You get the same naming confusion with Brisbane (town), Brisbane City (the central suburb), City of Brisbane (the local government area), ditto confusion around Townsville (town), Townsville City (central suburb) and City of Townsville (local government area). Kerry (talk) 02:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have neighbourhoods too :-) They are not bounded and (where officially recognised) designated with a centrepoint only (like towns). Many of our neighbourhoods are former suburbs/towns. Most of these neighbourhoods don't have Wikipedia articles though, but a few do. Personally I think the "City" in the central suburb names was a dumb choice, it just creates confusion. I prefer what they did in Gladstone where the central suburb is called Gladstone Central. I think that's a less confusing and more self-describing name. I wish that approach had been adopted more widely within Queensland. Kerry (talk) 05:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

The list of Counties in West Virginia made the front page in Wikipedia today (10/30/2017). I wanted to say thanks for your help Coal town guy (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New editing tools

Hi Nyttend, not sure if you can help. If using the new page editing tools, do you know how to sort items in a list? - on the old editing format there was a designated sort function, but this is now grayed and I can't access it. Kind regards $Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...)$ 16:56, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response - I have finally cracked it by altering preferences in the beta tab; it's been driving me nuts!

Brookie :) { - like the mist - there one moment and then gone!} (Whisper...)

16:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello Nyttend:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 21:05, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

RfC de-list

Re: [1][2][3]

First, the first revert is a widely-accepted and routine way to challenge any edit, per WP:BRD, and is hardly disruption worthy of an aggressive and combative "block request" threat. I'm astonished that someone with your experience—an admin, no less!—needs this explained to them. With that out of the way ... Bot de-listing is not a close, and it ends nothing except listing the RfC. The RfC can remain open as long as people feel it needs to, whether it's listed or not. If you already understand that and your opinion is that it needs to remain listed longer than 30 days (which would be extremely unusual), then state it that way and don't call de-listing a "close" and then an "end". Also explain why that needs to be decided 17 days before it would normally be de-listed. We have no idea what the level of participation will be by then. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got to love how people care more about pursuing disputes than avoiding technical problems, which are the kinds of things for which administrative tools are granted. Nyttend (talk) 01:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question

You did not get a response to this question. Did you find out the answer?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, never got an answer. It's disappointing. Nyttend (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inviting you to comment (if you are interested)

Hi. It's been a while since I last contacted you. Though I'm inviting you to comment, it's not a big deal if you don't. I will never be offended if you aren't interested in commenting on any of my invites. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my following question at the Help Desk: Wikipedia:Help_desk#What_rule.2Fguideline_exist_for_photo_albums_in_College_articles.3F

Reconsideration for Siftery

The page for Siftery was abruptly deleted even though it was not established that the page was "unambiguously promotional". A large number of independent publications made notable mentions or coverage of the company. There may have been recommendations for improvement; outright deletion was abrupt and not warranted on the merits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnleecg (talk • contribs) 00:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Alumni Lists and Profile Pictures on University Articles

Hello Nyttend,

I wanted to raise to your attention that I have reverted the deletion of the partial alumni list and profile pictures at the University of Kansas article (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=University_of_Kansas&oldid=810633485). The reason I have done this is that there was not consensus to remove that all of that information even at the Helpdesk thread. The purpose of this section per the WP:UNIGUIDE guidance was to "give a sense of the extent to which persons with well-known deeds or highly significant accomplishments are or have been associated with the school (as by attendance there or by being on staff or faculty). For most schools this might take the form of a list of people meeting Wikipedia's notability standards (each with perhaps a very brief descriptive phrase), where such a list would not be excessively long. For very old, very large, or very prestigious schools it may be more appropriate to use categories ("Alumni of", "Faculty of", etc.) instead, limiting the explicit list to very well-known persons (heads of state, historical figures, etc.) and adding a narrative summary of statistics on such things as Nobel Prizes, other prestigious awards, and so on."

Based on that guidance it is my position that alumni lists are helpful for readers to give a sense of the extent of well known/significant accomplished persons are related to the institution whether that be alumni, faculty or others. Some articles just have an Alumni list, some have a broader People of xyz university list. The guidance does not have specific information relating to galleries in the section or for separate list pages. I think there should at least be some discussion before editors remove information on highly notable articles such as Harvard University. As you pointed out the WP:MOSIMAGE states "images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding." I think the important question is whether alumni images are illustrative to aid in understanding in the culture/notability/significance/importance/idk of specific universities such as Harvard University. I recognize that you do not agree with this and I can see your reasoning for desiring to remove the images. I wanted to clarify if you were also advocating removal of the wikilinks for alumni lists section on the main university pages? Randomeditor1000 (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, it's undue weight to a significant extent. If someone had a significant influence on the university itself, mention him in the history; if not, he has no business being mentioned. Lists are different; since they exist, they ought to be linked in a place where they fit the context, or placed in See also if they don't fit anywhere else. Nyttend (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UNIGUIDE doesn't say anything about photos are mandatory for the notable section. Many school and city articles summarize the most notables in a paragraph of text, of which, the University of Kansas article didn't do, though I wouldn't delete it if it existed. College articles are about the college and founders/employees who made significant long term impact on the college, of which temporary students who attended for a few short years don't. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sbmeirow, thanks for chiming in, I would say that WP:UNIGUIDE also doesn't say that the scope of the articles is mandatory that they are "about the college and founders/employees". In fact, a majority of them have information about students as well and other topics that are tangentially related to the institutions. Part of the reasoning that I believe the alumni section was originally included was out of WP:boosterism/WP:puffery but that was balanced out in that it was encyclopedic to include list/reference etc prominent alumni as again that helped the reader understand more about the institution. Many uni leads include information about the number previous Rhodes Scholars, Marshall Scholars, inventions, inventors etc that are related to universities but not specifically about the founders or significant influence on the institution itself. These may have not "had a significant influence" on the university itself. I don't think that test is relevant specifically to university articles. Again, I recognize your points. I'm thinking there will eventually be discussion at the project page for this so I will leave it at that. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Swish

I'll dispute your speedy deletion of Swish (payment). Swish is widely used here in Sweden and there are plenty of potential sources.[4] From what I remember and what I can see in the Google-cached version, it does not look particularly promotional. The article should at least have been given a chance at AFD. --Hegvald (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

G4 of Draft:Jeffrey Guterman

Hello Nyttend. I felt the tone of your revert of my WP:G4 nomination of Draft:Jeffrey Guterman did not assume good faith. As a non-admin, I don't get to see the deleted article, and can only make an assumption that the subject of the new article is the same as the deleted one and the content substantially similar based on what I can access. From the deletion discussion it appeared the deleted article was about an academic. The new article, which I was reviewing as part of AfC is about a publisher of a book on mental health, which could be an academic work. I don't think it was unreasonable of me to think the two articles were about the same person. Your edit summary "Completely unrelated. Don't abuse the criterion" felt like a harsh accusation. What do you believe I should have done differently? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:09, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no direct evidence of a repost (whether you've seen the deleted content somehow; or you've asked someone; or there's evidence of copy/pasting like citation remnants in the form of [3] or [75], or obviously backdated cleanup tags), do not tag for G4. You presented no evidence whatsoever for this clearly wrong tagging; if you engage in such recklessness, tagging in not-good-faith, expect to be received thus. Nyttend (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using G4 is pointless because only admins can see the deleted content. Not worth the risk of sanctions. Anything that should be deleted as being deleted before likely qualifies for deletion again on the reason it was previously deleted. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am a bit confused about this actually. Suppose I suspect Kartikeya Sharma or All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Deoghar to be G4 candidates, what should I do? Further, given that admins have the last word in CSD (ie they can choose to delete or not), does it not make sense for a non-admin to use G4 as a way of saying "please check if this is a repost or no"? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can go to an admin and ask whether it's a G4 candidate, or you can go to a Wikipedia mirror (e.g. archive.org or deletionpedia.org) and see the deleted article. Also, please remember that page content can be relevant — if a page has had significant content edits from multiple people, there's no way that it could be a repost, and the same is true of a page that contains information postdating the deletion date. The AIIMS article isn't a repost; you can't tell this from glancing at it, but the 6 October construction date would be conclusive if the article had been deleted a few days earlier. Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of 🙏🏼

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on 🙏🏼, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Side note regarding this, since the above is just a standard "run-of-the-mill" notification posted by Twinkle: I have brought up an idea for a more sufficient placeholder/target for possibly all emoji redirects at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 November 18#🙃. (I'm thinking of creating List of emoji in the near future to resolve these emoji-related issues that seem to come up at RFD quite often.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
...And I also withdrew my G4 tag since retargeting to Emoji was never mentioned in the discussion, so I realized that G4 could potentially be invalid in this case. Steel1943 (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk

Thank you for the through, helpful explanation of how deleting works at Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2017 October 30#Administrators! Also, sorry for the late reply. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war report

I'm not going to make a song and dance about it but in future if you believe I'm edit warring or have broken another policy atleast have the decency to leave a warning or a note to tell me you've dragged my backside to 3RRNO or where ever! - Not doing so is very devious and considering you were on for roughly an hour after the report you would've had time to notify me or atleast warn me!. –Davey2010^Talk 10:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe I'll just come and find my own computer, rather than the borrowed one, and I'll log into this account and protect the article, which as policy demands is done without regard to whether I like the current version or the one most recently reverted from; maybe this will prevent petty complaints. I didn't warn anyone because I believed that nobody had broken 3RR (if anyone did, I've forgotten), and since I often see "help, RFPP is backlogged" notices but don't often see comparable things for AN3, I figured it would get a quicker response. This will be my only response, unless you give me a good-faith question, or unless you leave several more responses of this sort and prompt me to request sanctions. Nyttend (talk) 12:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanctions?

I do not disagree with your edit, but threatening sanctions for a G5 seems a little harsh, especially against an editor who (by rough count) is more than 90% accurate with CSD tagging. Primefac (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AGF goes a long way

I just wanted to make mention of something that really seemed unnecessary, particularly this edit. I feel the need to defend myself as sanctions have been threatened with no reason to warrant them. I think most people, even those on WP who don't necessarily agree with me would say that I don't generally tag CSDs willy-nilly and certainly not G5. At the time I tagged that, the editor was blocked by a CU and had made the only significant contribution to the article. Meatgains did a lot of minor edits (and i'm not discounting them) but i'd hardly call that significant in the context of a G5 and socking. I'm sure I've erroneously tagged a small handful (less than 5, if I had to guess) of G5s in the last year but threatening sanctions, especially when my tag was in good faith and there has been no discussion and calling another editor clueless is a bit over the top. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Ashika Bhatia

Hello Nyttend,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Ashika Bhatia for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Mark^Dask 20:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(stalking)@Markdask: I'm pretty sure Nyttend knows the CSD criteria perfectly well by now - you might want to check the page's history a little carefully, and see why the tag was incorrect in this instance. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bite me Ritchie333

Mark^Dask 21:24, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitely blocked IPs arbitration amendment request archived

The Indefinitely blocked IPs arbitration amendment request, which you were listed as a party to, has been archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:28, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Create an Article

Hello, iam not able to creating an article so i want help can you please create an article about an indian television and Film Actress name : Shuman Gupta Papular seral : Baal Krishna Role : Yashoda Year : 2016-17 Film : No One Killed Jessica Role : Soma Year : 2011

If you want more information abot Shu Gupta please searching her name in google, But please create it Sir it's big request. Thank you Sir.

create an article

Hi sir i want your help because i am not able to creating an Article about an indian television and Film Actress name ; Shuman Gupta she has appeared television show Baal Krishna as Yashoda in 2016-17 and she has also appeared Film No One Killed Jessica as Soma in 2011 Please you can create an Article about Suman it's big request please sir, create it if you want more information about Shuman Gupta please seaeching her name in google thank you ,sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:A106:2369:0:0:685:50A4 (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Nyttend. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:APPLCOR.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:APPLCOR.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Ashika Bhatia for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ashika Bhatia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashika Bhatia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. PRehse (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR?

Nyttend, I don't understand this edit or its edit summary. Can you explain what you think this has to do with ENGVAR or buildings/structures? Dicklyon (talk) 06:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close comments

Your "extended close" comments [5] of the RfC at WP:VPPOL#RfC: Accessibility versus convenience in indentation (permalink) are a distortion of the facts.

I did not personally attack or otherwise characterize any editor in that discussion. You're sorely confusing comment on content with comment on contributor. I characterized the discussion as having wandered off the topic of the RfC (which was CONLEVEL policy), and characterized some of the comments in it as misguided for various reasons. Until this very post, I've refrained from calling out the canvassing of WT:MATHS as such, on an assumption of good faith and for avoidance of drama. But since you've dumped a toilet-bucket on my head, I'm going to set the record straight.

I did not modify any guideline to support this proposal (which isn't actually a proposal but a request to reaffirm that WP:CONLEVEL policy exists); WP:ACCESS already deprecated using colon markup for indentation, and did so years before [6] the main MoS did [7]. All I did is insert the simple fact that there are convenient templates as alternatives – without inserting any "rule" that people use them [8]. This was a conformance-with-the-main-MoS-page edit, is 100% fact not opinion, and it's entirely normal for MoS pages to link to convenience templates. My edit to MOS:ACCESS is still there, and the material has now been further elaborated by another accessibility-experienced editor [9] in response to a request for more information [10].

This addendum is appreciated, and your concise RfC-top close itself is arguably correct (the RfC did conclude with a result – but it's a false-consensus one that just means we have to re-address the underlying issue later – partly my fault for not writing a better RfC but mostly because WT:MATHS was blatantly canvassed with false information about the RfC [11]). However, it's difficult to see how you could have done any serious commentary analysis, rather just a "vote" count and a superficial skim, or your RfC-bottom commentary could not read anything like it does.

Please remove or very substantively redact that rant you posted about me. The only one being personally attacked is me, by you. You're quite right that "Our policies outright forbid such hostile characterization of other editors". WP:KETTLE, all 'at. What you posted in your supervote at the bottom is a pile of WP:ASPERSIONS, since I can prove my position post-by-post.

In detail:

This is necessarily long given the number of false accusations you made and the amount of material that disproves them ...

If I bothered with diffs for each of these it would take me about an hour or so; the entire RfC is short enough that seems like wasted effort.

The points I raised about the RfC and the evidence for them, which you ignored:

Hostility to CONLEVEL's applicability – See comments by Kusma, CBM, Sławomir Biały, and everyone else asserting something like a "right" of MOS:MATHS to go its own way just on some WP:CONTENTAGE basis (and the circular cause and consequence fallacy). By their reasoning, every single guideline or policy page with material that dates to 2005 or whatever is immune to WP:CCC policy simply by being old. They obviously don't really believe that, so it's the arguments that are weak, and no one is suggesting anything stupid or nefarious about the editors. Some others, including you, make the same bogus argument about old FAs. Obviously any FA can become non-compliant with MoS or any other guideline or policy over time, and is simply adjusted to be compliant when we get around to it. It's always been that way, or WP:P&G material could never change. The central logic problem here, leading to those, is really the supposition that using : for indenting formulas is somehow special and different from using it for indenting anything else; it isn't. It has nothing whatsoever to do with math markup or with the concerns of MOS:MATHS, so all the hair-pulling about maths and the maths articles is immaterial.
Ignoring/mischaracterization of accessibility concerns – See EEng's 17:32, 3 Dec. comment (which I take as frustration with accessibility complications, not real hostility toward the visually impaired and their needs), and general disregard throughout, even the suggestion by Sławomir Biały (echoed more vaguely by David Eppstein) that this isn't a real or serious accessibility issue because that the math markup itself is a bigger one. This is the same fallacy as "I shouldn't care about violence in my neighborhood because it's way worse in the big city down the road" (and is also a combination of several of the arguments to avoid including "harmless", "looks good", "impatience"/"past inaction", and "other crap"). See also the wililawyerish trick (by Blueboar, CBM, D.Lazard and others, in various exact wording) that MOS:ACCESS deprecating but not "forbidding" : for indentation [hint: guidelines can't forbid anything] somehow makes the colon misuse preferable, yet also taking the position that MOS:ACCESS cannot be reworded to deprecate more strongly. Pure circular reasoning. And also clearly disproven by more editors requesting the MOS:ACCESS material be made more explicit, then making it so, without "permission" from Blueboar or WT:MATHS. We all know better than to accept bogus thou shalt not nonsense about how editing and policy-formation work here.
Disregarding HTML standards compliance, and instead claiming that : is a WP "standard" for indentation which should be imposed in lieu of alternatives – See unequivocal comments to this effect by Headbomb, Kusma, Sławomir Biały, DMacks, and Dmcq. See also the variation by David Eppstein, Bill Cherowitzo, and Power~enwiki, who would somehow force WMF to change MediaWiki to redefine the meaning and output of :, but who would keep doing the wrong thing forever unless WMF does what they demand. And see Whatamidoing (WMF)'s 19:47, 6 Dec. comment, misunderstanding which HTML elements are for what purpose (it's not valid HTML to use <blockquote> for material that isn't a quotation). People who advise the wrong markup, whether through ignorance or obstinacy or politics, cannot be taken at face value when it comes to whether misusing description list markup for visual indentation is okay. Knowing that is part of what it means to do a proper comments assessment and close on an RfC like this.

Misrepresentatation of the RfC and the facts behind it, including by you: See counterfactual denialism (confusion? FUD? who knows?) by Deacon Vorbis, Sławomir Biały, D.Lazard, Bill Cherowitzo, Taku, and you all acting as if an alternative to : has not been proposed and tested, when the entire point of the RfC is that a handful of editors at an MoS subpage are filibustering the well-tested alternatives that WP:MOS has long provided. These templates have been around for years. One of them's even a cross-wiki template present on all WMF projects. Two or three of those editors also hand-waved at length about block quotations when they have nothing to do with the matter at all – those auto-indent, and are only used for quotations. The main MoS's material about indentation is not about block quotations, it's about what to do to indent material that isn't a block quote (like, say, an equation example?). Here's the exact wording: "Do not abuse block quotation markup to indent non-quotations. Various templates are available for indentation, including {{block indent}}, and (for inline use) {{in5}}."

Canvassing of a wikiproject, which you ignored or did not know about: The real canvassing was by CBM, and was posted here, blatantly mischaracterizing the nature and would-be result of the RfC (which in reality would have been to do nothing but have MOS:MATH match WP:MOS and MOS:ACCESS in recommending templated CSS indentation over : [12], something no one would have cared about other than gnomes doing code cleanup in the background. Notifying WT:MATHS wouldn't have been canvassing; whipping up a bloc vote on false pretenses sure as hell was, and is why the RfC comments consist almost entirely of panicked maths editors' knee-jerk reactions that have nothing to do with the RfC's actual content. It's the very definition of WP:FALSECONSENSUS.

When an RfC is entirely dominated by people who do not understand accessibility and HTML specs, or CONLEVEL precedence, or the RfC itself (after having been pointedly misled about it), and can't (or post as if they can't) tell the difference between "It's what I'm used to and I like it" versus "It is a standard", then it's reasonable, not canvassing, to identify these specific problems and ask another VP page, full of people from all over the en.WP project (not a knot of like-minded, one-topic-focused editors) who mostly do understand the difference, to go have some input. I did not tell them how to !vote, I expressed skepticism that they'd agree with the assumptions and rationalizations being made as a bloc vote in the RfC so far (without even calling it out as a wikiproject bloc vote, which I certainly could have done). The typical notice left at a wikiproject talk page after an RfC has been running a while is along similar lines, and just as clear about what false-consensus issues may be in play and why more expertise is needed in the discussion (and is also a notice to a far more homogenous audience than VPPOL). Yet no one calls that canvassing even though it's closer to canvassing that my post was (while what CBM did was canvassing, period).

Puerile, off-topic hostility, including by you: Finally, your and D.Lazard's stuff about me using colons myself in the RfC discussion is a cheap, BS-y shot, both an appeal to ridicule fallacy and a straw man. MoS doesn't regulate talk posts, and my opening statement was quite explicit: "we do it all the time on talk pages ... MoS has also long advised to not do this in articles" [since mid-2013, remember] restated again early on in the discussion: "it's not like we're going to stop doing it on talk pages, a lost cause until they're replaced with some kind of threaded messaging system that's also capable of rendering MediaWiki markup samples accurately" [i.e. not WP:Flow].

The editorializing you've done in your bottom statement, echoing the subjective opinions of various !voters who were canvassed in from WT:MATHS, and making a string of provably false accusations, indicates you should not have been the closer. You've !voted and closed at the same time, and are clearly nowhere near neutral on the matter (WP:SUPERVOTE). That said, it's surely sufficient to just strip out the hostile finger-pointing. I don't even ask that the canvassing finger be pointed at the correct party; if I were all that concerned about CBM's actions, I would have taken it to ANI. I'm actually satisfied with the productive side of the RfC outcome: We know the issue is real and people will be willing to address it. I'm decidedly not satisfied with being publicly flogged by you for no legitimate reason.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 06:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan to make any changes. I don't have any opinion on the process, and please note the final comments I made on the close (I made several edits; I'm talking about the later ones) — other people are welcome to re-propose changes immediately. Despite your accusations, I don't care one bit about the result; my statement was derived from reviewing the votes and summarising the strong rationales, not presenting a supervote. If I make any changes, I will also make a request for a sustained block: we show people the door at this website when they try to stack the deck and demonise their opponents in discussions, unless they're newbies or they show solid evidence of understanding the problem and of not repeating. Your response here to my summarising of the participants' position is solid evidence to the contrary. Nyttend (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thanked you, above, for the later "people are free to re-propose" additions. However, if you really believe what you're saying about "show people the door .. when they try to stack the deck", go tell it to CBM, instead of shaking your fist at the person who tried to counteract his canvassing. In retrospect, I should have just ANI'ed and asked for the RfC to closed as invalid and redone it later.

Still, it's quite clear you're threatening me with a punitive post hoc block. You've been an admin for 10 years, so you know full well that wouldn't be legit. I'll be happy to air this with you at WP:AN if you like, since I have a huge pile of evidence that every single thing I said is correct and that your accusations are false (especially with regard to "personal attacks"), while you have nothing here but your subjective opinion. The worst I've done here is tried albeit non-neutrally to draw balancing attention, at a broad venue, to an RfC that had already been derailed by someone else's canvassing (CBM did that at a narrow venue which of course resulted in a bloc vote full of off-topic, panicked hand-waving). Do you really think I'll be blocked for taking that good-faith action? I didn't actually even draw any balancing attention, anyway – you reverted my attempt to do so before it had any effect at all [13] (and you cast more WP:ASPERSIONS while doing so).

But, I'm happy to drop the matter, since the RfC has incidentally resulted in some positive discussion both at WT:MOSMATH and the related Phabricator ticket (the first real action seen about that bug in over 10 years). All's well that ends well, and no one made any deal about anyone's lack of neutrality on either side, other than you. Any of us could have manufactured drama about this from the moment CBM made that misleading canvassing post, but instead we all made what we felt were substantive arguments, and actually moved toward two kinds of practical solutions. Except you, who chose to attack me on two different pages while ironically accusing me of attacking people because you won't distinguish between opposing an argument and opposing a person. That's not what we have admins for.
— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 12:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changing name of two pages

Hey there

I want to change name of two pages named Culture of Kashmir and Music of Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh

I want to change name of Culture of Kashmir to

Culture of Jammu and Kashmir

because Jammu and Kashmir is a state, not only Kashmir

And same goes for Music of Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh

I want to change it to Music of Jammu and Kashmir

Thanks!! Anmolbhat (talk) 16:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the recent edit history. Perhaps pending changes this time. (I protected it last time and then forgot about for several years.) Rmhermen (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refs in medical articles

For medical content we tend to reference every sentence. This makes it easier for fellow editors and readers to determine what ref supports what content. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Put-in-Bay, Ohio

Good Morning. You appear to be one of the main editors/blockers/rulers of the Put-in-Bay Ohio page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put-in-Bay,_Ohio). I was trying to fix the Chamber of Commerce link on the External Links section, but it keeps telling me that another website is blacklisted, and that the Chamber website can not be edited. You have the Chamber website listed as visitputinbay DOT org and that is NOT correct. The Chamber of Commerce website is DOT com, not DOT org. However, Wikipedia won't accept that link because it says "The following link has triggered a protection filter: putinbay.com". Is there any way you can correct this link so it doesn't go to the advertising site of DOT org and instead goes to the real Chamber site? Or provide info on how to get it done? It looks like the revert-war person changed it 3 years ago and no one else has caught it. Thanks!

@@ Line 309: / Line 309: @@
 ==Refs in medical articles==
 For medical content we tend to reference every sentence. This makes it easier for fellow editors and readers to determine what ref supports what content. Best [[User:Doc James|<span style="color:#0000f1">'''Doc James'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Doc James|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/Doc James|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email]]) 00:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
+== Put-in-Bay, Ohio ==
+Good Morning. You appear to be one of the main editors/blockers/rulers of the Put-in-Bay Ohio page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Put-in-Bay,_Ohio). I was trying to fix the Chamber of Commerce link on the External Links section, but it keeps telling me that another website is blacklisted, and that the Chamber website can not be edited. You have the Chamber website listed as visitputinbay DOT org and that is NOT correct. The Chamber of Commerce website is DOT com, not DOT org. However, Wikipedia won't accept that link because it says "The following link has triggered a protection filter: putinbay.com". Is there any way you can correct this link so it doesn't go to the advertising site of DOT org and instead goes to the real Chamber site? Or provide info on how to get it done? It looks like the revert-war person changed it 3 years ago and no one else has caught it. Thanks!