User talk:Cnbr15/Archive 1

Thank you ...

... for the kitten, and for your help at Talmud. Very much appreciated. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

A question!

Hi! RBR here! I have been enjoying in my free time reverting vandalism, and I saw you leave a rather professional looking message onto an IP's page after I noticed you had reverted something before I had.. it seemed to be a template or somesuch and I realized then I hadn't been leaving messages to IPs! Do you have any advice for doing so, or what is the process you use for leaving those messages? Thanks a ton! I'm new to the whole editing wikipedia thing but I like trying to revert vandalsim Rotund but Reasonable (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate the assist!

I know how to do this at least, given that there is a nice heart on every page.. Rotund but Reasonable (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Požganica

Hello Cnbr15. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Požganica, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Thank you. kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:57, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Very well, I'm still trying to get used to how the guidelines for speedy deletion work, they're a bit foreign to me. Typically if an article looks short I'll check the Notability/CSD guidelines and mark it.-Cnbr15 (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

A1 (no context) is very specific. Basically if you can tell what the article is about, it does not apply. Article length is not relevant. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Georg Bayerer

Hi. I've declined your speedy request because he seems to pass A7, it being claimed that he played for Bayern München. I'd suggest AfD if you really feel he's not notable. (Personally, I don't care either way - I think the notability rules are too lax for sports and some other areas.) Peridon (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm also not sure why the BLPSOURCES tag you initially placed on the page was supposed to be valid; there were two sources in the article, and the subject has been deceased for nearly 20 years. I should also note that, as an ex-Bayern Munich player, the article would be kept at an AfD as he easily meets WP:NFOOTY (rightly or wrongly). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:04, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hadn't seen the death notice, just like Saul having been born in 1818. Would be wonderful if people like that were still around. As for WP:NFOOTY I could have sworn being pretty sure he did not. I'll look at the article and reassure myself, but in any case im pretty sure im just going to leave it alone.

Saul Isaac Kaempf

I'm not sure what you were thinking here, but it looks almost as if you're picking maintenance tags at random. This is clearly not a biography of a living person given that the first sentence begins born at Lissa, Posen, May 6, 1818; died at Prague October 16, 1892, and there doesn't appear to be a single primary source used in this article, let alone "relying exclusively on primary sources". – iridescent 18:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

If on the (totally not) off chance I have grievously caused error on AN/I By my recent Archiving...

If I've messed up AN/I by Archiving: Sorry about that, I know that AN/i typically has a good deal of disputes that are closed, however i'm not sure on the policy for what gets booted when. I tried to pick out what looked like stale or completely resolved issues, and moved them over. I tried to do this as quickly as possible for the sake of anyone with rollback being easily able to undo the chaos I potentially caused, and so it had a chance for anyone involved to have read it. Just rollback it if you can or I'll take the time to manually undo what I did if no one gets to it first and I was erroneous in how I archived. Thanks! cnbr¹⁵ 13:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hey there Cnbr15. I'm wondering if you are aware that the version of OneClickArchiver that you seem to be using has been superseded by Technical 13's (Original by Equazcion) OneClickArchiver (Original) script which offers quite a few new features including the ability to toggle the archive links off, maxarchivesize detection and the ability to respect that by creating a new archive and incrementing the counter, and a bunch of other little cool things. I noticed that you seem to use the script on AN(I) a lot, and I was wondering if there is a consensus saying whether or not that is appropriate or not (I'm not criticizing and I don't really have much of an opinion one way or the other, just curious if it has been discussed). As far as your concern for what gets archived when, typically a bot comes around withing a certain amount of time and archives things that are stale or resolved. There are a few of us that do some semi-automatic archival using a version of the OneClickArchiver, but typically we only use it on stuff that has been "boxed" up for 24 or more hours. Thanks and happy archiving. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 14:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Technical 13, No actually I didnt know that at all. As for how I was archiving, if it was a day old I gave it the axe, or if it were extremely trivial. I'll look into the new version of 1CA, thanks! cnbr¹⁵ 13:02, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving ENI

Hi there,

I saw you use OneClickArchiver to archive threads at WP:ENI. The page does have autoarchiving set up. For some reason it had a huge maximum page size, which I recently changed, so the archive you added them to is massive and I'd like for ClueBot to just start a new one. Would you mind leaving that to the bot moving forward?

Thanks --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course! I know some (most?) of the noticeboards have autoarchiving going on. However, ANI's is kinda shit and I saw there's some rather old discussions on many of the noticeboards. I'll just pop over when I'm looking for a good read or I notice something relevant to that page! Thanks! cnbr¹⁵ 12:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was going to just leave it, but I see the script also added them to the wrong page, Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Archive 1. I've blanked that page, requested CSD, and reverted the archiving edits. The bot will get it soon enough. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 12:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Uhh interesting, I read of that happening recently to another editor too. I believe I shall be holding off on using OCA for anything until Technical says anything. He's already been pinged about such a thing happening so I'll just wait it out. Edit: I lied, Pinging Technical to this too. @Technical 13: cnbr¹⁵ 13:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't say I've used OCA, but T13's user page about it mentions it uses MiszaBot config. ENI (a subpage of ENB) doesn't have a MiszaBot config. Its base page WP:ENB had one at some point in the past, but it was commented out (and now I've removed it). Could OCA have looked to the base page for the config? That might explain why it archived there? --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

A Possibility, however i'm very unfamiliar with how coding for wikipedia goes. It could be as much as 1CA looking for a number, the archive page not matching the string given EXACTLY, so it assumes there are no archives and recreates the first archive. Since it can't make two Archive 1's, perhaps it appends a space to the end so it works. cnbr¹⁵ 13:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI I just redid the way those two pages handle archiving, renamed the archives to include the standard space, and added the Incidents page to the no manual archiving category for good measure :) --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Red link removal

Why are you removing red links across Australian politics articles with no explanation? I was about to make a vandal warning until I saw that you're clearly not new, and now I'm just confused. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly not ignoring this, however I'm out and about presently so I cannot give a proper response. In very brief, it's not just Australian politics, I was unlinking articles that do not exist. If there's some consensus against this, show me it and I'll desist at once. I'm certainly not trying to single out anyone or cause trouble, just trying to do simple maintenance and cleanup. As for not being new, my account may be two months old but I certainly am inexperienced in the vast majority of all things wiki. I'm hoping that this quick write up from my phone will suffice for an explanation, but when I return home if you want something more substantial I'll gladly write some more clear material. cnbr¹⁵ 16:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see WP:REDLINK. Basically, red links are a good thing, as long as the subject is notable - they're there to encourage the creation of articles on those topics, and to prevent them from being orphaned when they are created. From that policy, "Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic." The Drover's Wife (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Very well, thank you for pointing this out to me. My understanding of it was that if it didn't exist it didn't get a link, but I'll read over redlink when I get the chance to. Thanks for showing me this, and happy editing to you ^^ cnbr¹⁵ 17:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for being gracious about it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 18:08, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

• Congratulation! Between 13:01 and 13:05 on 21 May 2015 you achieved 26 separate edits on the same article to remove 26 red links. But more! In the same few minutes you also removed links on other articles as well, removing in total 95 links in 95 separate edits. On average, that's a (well considered?) examination of an article followed by a completed edit every 3 seconds. That has to be some kind of record for a Wikipedia editor. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh good god I didn't realize I was going that fast with twinkle! I'm sorry! cnbr¹⁵ 21:42, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Cnbr15. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

Fixed your talk page archiving

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 14:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)