Open main menu

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for always being so kind to users, both new and experienced. I especially appreciate all the work you do at the Teahouse. You clearly have the project and its contributors' best interests at heart. Thanks again for all you do and keep up the good work. SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 04:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Special Barnstar
Thank you for sticking with me and helping me throughout my wiki account history :) Jeriqui123 (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Jeriqui123. Despite what might have seemed like a 'no' to your question asked at the Teahouse today, don't be put off from sticking around there and seeing how people help one another. Once you have gained more practical experience of editing articles, and of solving some of the problems for yourself, I'm sure you'll be able to help out with answering the odd question - especially where you can speak from the experience of a brand new editor and empathise well with others who might be struggling. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


I'm thinking that I might want to become an adoptee given the amount of questions I ask and my plans to continue to edit on Wikipedia. I created my account in September 2018 (you were actually the first user to welcome me), so I've been around awhile. I've also made 518 edits (293 of which have been to mainspace). A lot of my edits have been adding short descriptions or fixing typos, but I'm quite proud of my edits to PC Optimum and Draft: Katherine Hughes (activist). @SkyGazer 512: has been incredibly helpful for a lot of my questions as well as the Teahouse when I've had them, but being an adoptee might be a better long-term route for me. I guess the other thing I should mention is that I'm also a female editor; one of the interests is contributing to Women in Red, but I'm also interested in other topics such as video games and topics related to Canada (since I'm Canadian). Clovermoss (talk) 02:58, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit: I fixed my ping to another editor. I also wanted to mention another one of my interests is translating French. Clovermoss (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Clovermoss, thanks for contacting me, and for the update. I am just drafting a reply to you in the affirmative. You'll get a notification from me when I post it, but I'll be doing so from another page, not this one. I thought it might be a good idea to keep related conversations about 'adoption' all in one place. You'll be able to find it at User talk:Nick Moyes/Adoption/Clovermoss in a few minutes. I won't be replying immediately to anything you might then add, because the UK is in UTC time, so I'm off to bed shortly as it's nearly 1 am here. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I'll take a look at it. Just a heads up about time zone differences, ours aren't all that different. It's just past 8 p.m. where I live right now. I just have a bit of a tendency to have more free time in the evenings. Clovermoss (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Me too - nite, nite. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Guidance Barnstar
Thank you so much for helping me be the best editor I can possibly be at the Teahouse. I had a troubled start in 2013 when I got blocked for vandalizing Wikipedia. When I requested unblock in 2017, my requests got declined because I have evaded by block. It was in 2019 when I finally convinced admins (including the blocking admin) that I could be trusted again and I proved them right. It is unfortunate that many blocked editors who seek unblock have their unblock requests declined. Some of them has their talk page access removed. I'm glad that never happened to me. Since I got unblocked, I have working very hard to become the best editor I could possibly be with the help of other editors, including you. You have helped me when I was at doubts about editing. I try to learn from my mistakes as much as I can. I hope you keep doing your best and look forward to helping me soon. You also do a wonderful job helping others at the Teahouse. I hope you have a wonderful day and happy editing! Mstrojny (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Mstrojny - that's very kind of you. It's really great to see you contributing positively. I hope everyone is treating you fairly? In a way, it's actually you who deserves the barnstar for being open and honest, and for turning things around. Looking forward to seeing you helping out in all sorts of places.
I don't know how old you were when you first caused trouble and got yourself blocked, but I'm going to guess fairly young? Anyway, because of that, I'm going to ping Thegooduser - a young lad with enormous enthusiasm for Wikipedia and potential here who has taken the brilliant initiative of putting together a brand new newsletter. It's produced by young editors and written for young editors, and is called The Wikiwizard. It struck me that he might be interested in inviting you to write a piece for a forthcoming edition of their newsletter about how you first got involved in bad faith editing, how you felt and how you dealt with being blocked and how you've now turned completely around to being a net positive contributor, or something along those lines. I don't want to embarrass either you or him (each is free to say no) but I am just going to play matchmaker for a moment and see if you'd be interested in working with one another. If so, hopefully he'll get in touch with you sometime. All the very best, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)  
I'm happy to work with anyone who is willing to work with me. Mstrojny (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thank you Nick Moyes for your input and advice! KaiserJohn (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Your work at Teahouse is stellar. Don't let yourself convince yourself otherwise. John from Idegon (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Than you, John. But you give some mighty fine answers there, too! Nick Moyes (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Most active member of the TeahouseEdit

I noticed here that you are the most active member of the Teahouse for the last 50,000 revisions with 1,781 edits.
Here are some other editors in the top 10:

Teahouse members by number of edits
Rank Editor Edits
1 Nick Moyes 1781
2 331dot 1444
3 David notMD 1276
4 David Biddulph 1244
5 Cullen328 1212
6 ColinFine 950
7 DESiegel 938
8 GreenMeansGo 801
9 Jmcgnh 764
10 PrimeHunter 690

Hope this was fun to have pointed out. Mstrojny (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, embarrassing for me (David notMD) as I am not formally a Teahouse advisor, and also, this relatively recent fascination has taken time from my more skill-set appropriate role in improving articles related to health, nutrition and dietary supplements. David notMD (talk) 11:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah interesting stuff. I think you should halve my count as I'm always coming back to fix my own spytso erm, typos! I don't think there is any real 'formal' advisor status -I'd certainly regard you, David notMD, as an extremely valuable host. Funnily enough, a few weeks back I was doing some preparatory work, prior to suggesting an update to the displayed, and very out-of-date, list of images at the top of the TH page, and I did consider posting a list of the latest article that each of the most active hosts had created - purely to help new editors see what we each get up to. But it's actually a crude method of competence, especially as some very experienced TH hosts haven't created any yet, or at least for many years. So I dropped that thought.  Nice work there, Mstrojny. The TH is certainly a time-sink, but I still find it a wonderful way to both share and learn new techniques - like PrimeHunter's tip on searching across two categories that was posted today. Regards, all. Nick Moyes (talk) 12:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
You are ranked number 158 on the most active Wikipedians at the help desk. See here. Mstrojny (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, but whilst considered against how many editors are active on Wikipedia, that might sound impressive, the reality is I've only actually ever made 37 edits there! (only click this link if you really need proof). I always tell my daughters that I am actually the 71st best father in the world because, well, I'm happy to be that high up on that list! Nick Moyes (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

England and the United KingdomEdit

I noticed that you took out my previous edits of England, the United Kingdom and reverted it back to just England.

I don't know why you did this, but England is part of the United Kingdom, and under legislation and documents, England is not known as a country  just on it's own, but as part of the United Kingdom, so I don't see why you see this as a problem. It is not vandalising the page. Vandalising is purposely ruining the page with false information and no valid citation. This was a very minor edit and I just find it   inefficient  that you took it so seriously. If you go around giving TW to a minor edit, then I'm going to have to take this up further because you can't just do this for every small detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C823:9E00:4445:CD8E:2E22:4E51 (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC) 
Hi IP editor. You're not being rude by simply asking. But kindly link to the articles or the IP address you were using at the time, so I can take a look and explain, justify or apologise, as appropriate. I help monitor Recent Changes made to hundreds of articles a day, and can't remember each one. I do remember reverting the additions you refer to as being unnecessary over-clarification of a major country. Certainly not vandalism (my apologies if I accidentally reverted them as such), rather than as 'good faith' but unnecessary additions, and not something I'd expect someone to start pedanticly adding to across the whole encyclopedia.
I do take your point about inefficiency. I don't mind if you want to waste your time inefficiently adding United Kingdom after England. My reverts were intended to support and guide you as to what's important and what's not. I'm sorry if you took it personally - that's not my intention. I try to encourage and support all editors to edit effectively here, and as far as I can remember, I didn't think yours were that useful. Good Faith they were; vandalism they most definitely were not. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
OK IP editor(s), so I've now moved from editing on a mobile to working on a laptop, which makes it far easier to search for and address your concerns. I have now found my two edits, and I stand by them. I reject your concerns completely, as I feel I acted appropriately, and had full respect for you as an IP editor. Your edits were, put simply, not necessary. However, on investigation, it seems likely that you may be editing under a combination of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. If so, please stick to one type; doing otherwise is equivalent to sockpuppetry, which might lead to a block. I note that both my reverts clearly stated yours were 'good faith' edits which I was reverting. (see here and here). I note that an IPv4 editor (also you?) then reverted both of my reverts to the two articles without leaving any edit summary (see here and here). I have now reverted those, with a clear edit summary of why.
Look, this is all really trivial stuff - life is too short to get so wound up. Please don't make a big deal of it. I believe you were wrong to make the change, and I believe I was right to revert them. You, it appears, dont. I really am sorry if you feel aggrieved; you need to appreciate how we work here. I believe I am right to be concerned you might be intentionally changing from IPv4 to IPv6 addresses to your advantage. There's no point threatening me to "take this up further". Feel free. I'm not being belligerent. The place for you to do that is WP:ANI, and I will assist you in any concerns you may have over my editing, and be open to apologising if I have acted incorrectly. Until then, I will continue to edit in what I genuinely feel is the best interests of the user experience, and I am genuinely bothered that you have taken this so to heart. It seems so petty. I also recognise written replies never convey the nuances that a verbal reply might have done, and I'm sorry about that. The bottom line, as I see it, is that you should desist from changing "xxxx, England" to "xxxx, United Kingdom" and that you should expect to be reverted every time that you attempt to do that. I'm sorry if you disagree, but that, quite simply, is how I and, I suspect, most other editors would feel the same way.. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are really that bothered by this, then delete my talk page. I used another IP address because my phone IP had problems editing the talk page. I am shocked at your second feedback. You went from being reasonable to being downright rude. Why do you think it's wrong to put United Kingdom, when that is what England is part of? If you go to other sources of where films were made, it wouldn't say England, it would say United Kingdom. So why is it any different to where a person's birthplace is? Sorry, but you're the one being petty over this. I've never seen such controversy. Other editors I've come across have always been more reasonable and have never told me to "desist" changing one thing to another. If you think that I'm the one being heated over this, well I think anyone would if they got a warning for no reason. I realise you need to give out warnings for constant editing that has no valid citaton, but this one was just adding in part of a nation status. I personally do not see anything wrong with that and I don't see why any other editors would either. You are not being fair about this at all. I apologise if you think the "I will take this up even further" was a threat, only because if you keep giving out TW warnings to everyone over very small details, for editing twice, then you have only caused problems for yourself. I don't want to get into a heated argument over this, but unless you apologise for what you said about the "I reject your concerns" the I can't forgive you.

If I now come over as a bit blunt to you, then I am sorry. But it might possibly be because I had to spend two hours investigating and responding to your concerns, yet found no cause for them. I didn't template you with any warning messages (which is what I assumed you were upset about originally). It was a polite, factual edit summary giving an explanation of my actions in reverting your edit which I felt - and still feel - was unnecessary. Maybe you are somehow confused by what TW in an edit summary means? If you're interpreting that as some sort of warning, you are quite simply mistaken. Twinkle is just the tool some editors use when managing edits. I really don't know what more there is left for me to say on the matter. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I apologise for also if I sounded angry when I first started the discussion, mainly also due to the misunderstanding of TW. I would also like to hear why you disagree with what I put. Like I said, I really don't see why that is considered wrong because it isn't. Why do you not want me to put United Kingdom next to England, or Scotland because that's what it is and internationally that's what we're known as? Could you please give a reason why, other than it's unnecessary? They may be separate entities in their own right, but they're still known as the UK. Also I don't think most editors would care if United Kingdom was added, so chances are they would leave it, so what makes you think it would be reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C823:9E00:DC1F:856B:FFCB:49 (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I take back what I said earlier on and stand by my original comment. You just appear to be really obnoxious. Your arrogance is appalling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:C823:9E00:FDC2:A510:E3AB:1F1E (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your considered assessment. Please see The pot calling the kettle black. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:06, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

New user helpEdit

Hello again, if you would care to help guide a new editor and explain referencing and more importantly COI, see User talk:MB#Confusion about edits. Or I could just give a basic answer and refer them to the Teahouse. MB 14:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

OK - I've taken a look. I think it best if I reply on their talk page rather than yours - I suspect they'll be less confused if I do it that way. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

{{Help me}}

Thanks for all the info.

Frankly, I wouldn't know where to begin to implement any changes.

I'm going to step away from the page.

There is no pay involved in edit.

Was simply adding a photo.

It appears all the bio info is simply work credits to be found on IMDB or Google.

Again, I'm going to leave the page alone at this time.

If someone more qualified can make sense of it , please do.


Gg12lloon (talk) 21:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got a mailEdit

Hello, Nick Moyes. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Levent Heitmeier (talk) 13:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

@Levent Heitmeier: Hi. I got your email, but don't think I need to reply by the same means as I don't see it as a sensitive matter that needs privacy. Do you wish me to reply with feedback to you here on my talk page? Or would you prefer me not to respond at all? I'm OK either way. Regards Nick Moyes (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes Give me feedback about it either on my talk page or yours. And one more thing. I don't understand that when i click on the sandbox to open it, it directs me to edit that page and when i can access the original content only when i edit it. This is some kind of fault. From a universal servant 2409:4063:2397:BE12:0:0:27F1:28A1 (talk) 03:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
@Levent Heitmeier: OK. You won't have that problem if you use the normal sandbox link right at tbe top of every page when logged in. The 'template' you added is the issue. If I click it, it takes me to the edit window of my sandbox, not yours. So simply change it to {{My sandbox|Levent Heitmeier}} and it should be fine.
Now, wrt your draft, the most obvious issue is the lack of any lead to introduce the subject in one or two simple sentences. It doesn't yet resemble an acceptable encyclopaedic article. I was left floundering amongst the mass of quoted text. It is simply isn't ok for an article as it's not relevant enough, and just too long (not to mention a possible copyright breach. What you could do is select a key element and say something like: as part of a longer statement, John Smith said of Joe Bloggs: "he's a great man"(cite sources). I did find the long version in many online blogs, but couldn't quickly trace it to an original source. It would be quickly removed were you to try. Moving forward, try drafting the article without the quotation first, having found other reliable sources, then add just a small fragment back in afterwards. Good luck! Nick Moyes (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks brother! I got what you are telling and thanks for the attempt to find an original source.
I have saw the articles of many famous personalities which are really great but in most cases, I can see many other famous guys who have as much achievement as the ones but their articles have so less content and meaning that newbies start to think that the former is greater than the latter which is not so. I judge peoples by their hard work and hugely condemn if they don't get equal respect in society. That's what the issue is with Wikipedia. For example - Singers like Eddie Vedder, Bruce Dickinson, Bruce Springsteen are as much great as Elvis Presley and Freddie Mercury in terms of singing but Wikipedia article states the latter ones as one of the greatest but fails to give any such respect to the former ones which is for me and millions unacceptable because when the newer generations will see the difference in their articles, they will assume that Springsteen is not as great as Presley and Eddie is not as great as Freddie which isn't so. I'm working exactly for this cause. But many of the powerful editors here remove these kinds of claims even if I give a suitable reference. Fan following seems to affect the meaning of every single article and it's disastrous. I can work for the cause but I can't solve the problem unless other great wikipedians support me. It may sound a bit funny but the problem can not be solved unless many of us come together to do a small revolution which will eradicate the over-use of power from the Wikipedia. I wanted to talk about it to Jimbo but I don't know how. From a universal servant Levent Heitmeier (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry I overwrote your signature - we had an edit conflict and I was on a mobile at the time, so it was too fiddly to resolve, so I chose to leave your Ip address in and save my reply to you. Feel free to reinsert it. From my perspective I don't give a damn whether any group of people feel one individual be they musician or statesman is "greater" than any other. Neither you nor I should be here to champion the cause of someone with fewer lines on Wikipedia than someone else. That's bias, and not OK here, but you're fine to to add reliable content to under-developed articles. I guess you're saying you see a bias against certain people. The answer is to monitor those articles and to challenge the removal of statements or sources that are deemed unreliable. But one person's WP:RS isn't always the same as another, which is why we have WP:RSN where any concerns on sources can be thrashed out if your attempts to politely discuss any concerns with another editor reach stalemate. (See the thread two up from this one by an editor concerned about my own editing). Life's too short to worry whether my musical hero, Loudon Wainwright, has more or less content than someone else here. So long as they're both deemed notable, they both deserve pages on Wikipedia. It's then up to individual editors to help those pages grow as encyclopaedia entries, but not as fan pages. I was in support of a new page on Jungkook being created few months back, but I am alarmed at some of the cr*p that his fans think they can add to his and other articles relating to BTS. Our job as editors is to act fairly in all matters, and to minimise personal bias in all that we do. If that leaves us in a minority, then it makes that task even more important. (That said, I have little personal interest in working on articles about modern day people and minor here-today-gone-tomorrow celebrities or so-called sportsmen who joined a national team for one game and weren't ever heard of again.) My own focus tends to be on the sciences and geographical information - the kind of stuff that people actually need to know about or look up and find easily. But each to their own. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm. I know. (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

You and Levent best buds?Edit

Levent added a Recognition section to the Ryan Adams article which in my opinion is over-referenced tripe. I do not intend to delete any of it (I know NOTHING about Adams), but thought you would be amused by part of Levent's edit explanation "Every single statement is well cited from reliable sources and is also checked by Nick Moyes who gave a green signal to add this." David notMD (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@David notMD: Ah, that'll be as a result of my god-like status finally being recognised (- if only by one person, thus far) About time, I say! I know nothing about Adams either - see post above for where my "green signal" came from. Likewise, I'm minded not to delete it, either, but it needs care not to overdo sections like these. Cheers. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


why do you need "ToMonitor" me, what have i done wrongJJBullet (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@JJBullet: Do you think I'm stupid? I shall answer on your talk page in due course. In the meantime be advised that editing other users pages and subpages is taken very seriously. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
im sorry, i Did not knowingly edit your subpageJJBullet (😂 Talk) 20:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I find that hard to believe. CalOtter (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@CalOtter: I've worked out what's been going on. It's a worrying case of WP:CIR which I shall address on their talk page first, but may well take to WP:ANI if it's not resolved. Watch that space! Nick Moyes (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I just looked at his recent edits, and one of them had the edit summary of "Installing User:Nick Moyes/common.js (script-installer)". His edits that were adding things to your pages used the same summary as yours, which makes me wonder if one of your scripts does that. He could have believed that they were going to be added to his userpage, so this could actually just have been a mistake. CalOtter (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes:It appears this is what was happening. When he installed your common.js, he installed User:קיפודנחש/pageCollector, which also had your configuration. Instead of adding those pages to a page in his userspace, they were added to your page. CalOtter (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@CalOtter: Yes, I knew that, thanks. Am just investigating their other activities and the odd mendacious statement. I think it's a case of a fairly bright kid who seeks recognition and lots of fancy hats, but doesn't know enough to drive a big car yet. Hope we can sort them out before they have a head on crash here. Cheers Nick Moyes (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I am extremely sorry to everyone that has been offended by whats been going on, i have not meant to hurt anyone in the process JJBullet (😂 Talk) 09:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. However, I do see far too many apologies from you in the wake of all your activities here, and I don't want to see any more. Just so long as you read and digest the implications of the concerns I have left on your talk page you will be fine. But you have been running before you can walk, and Wikipedia is a serious place with 5.8 million articles that I don't want you messing with until you learn the basics of how to edit encyclopaedia articles (which is why we're all here). Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Im Probably going to stop editing on the wiki until i can get my personal issues sorted, can you block me from editing for 24 hours pleaseJJBullet (😂 Talk) 09:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@JJBullet: I cannot do that as I am not an administrator, nor is that the right way to proceed. Just unplug the computer and only use it for key tasks - that's the best way. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Ok ThanksJJBullet (😂 Talk) 09:48, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

Hello, Nick Moyes. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.CalOtter (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
@CalOtter: Thank you very much for your email. The information you provided was very interesting, and I will definitely monitor the situation from here on in. Nick Moyes (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Checking inEdit

I just wanted to check in and see how you were doing. Are you feeling any better? Clovermoss (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Oops - blooming heck - yes, better now and I got sidetracked. I'm really sorry about that. I'll take a look tomorrow evening and reply as soon as I can after that. (am off to bed right now I'm afraid). Nick Moyes (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Ah, that's okay! Thanks for taking the time to reply. It's getting late for me too, I should probably start gettig ready to go to sleep soon as well. Besides, I got to talk to Oshwah about some other questions I had. He's been incredibly helpful. :) Clovermoss (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Great job helping JJBullet!. CalOtter (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you - that's very nice of you. I'm hopeful they'll get the message that we really do support good editors, even if they mess up, but that we block bad editors to stop them messing everything up. Thanks for alerting me to this. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm okay with waitingEdit

I've asked a lot of questions at the adoption page recently. I'm just writing here because I am aware that it is a lot of questions and that I'm okay with waiting for answers. I've noticed that sometimes you answer all my questions in one big wall of text and if you don't always want to do that, I'm perfectly fine with recieving an answer or two and waiting for the others. I don't want to be overwhelming with all of my questions and I understand that you have a life and even other interests on Wikipedia. I've also noticed that your other adoptee has asked for your advice on his draft. I'm fine with waiting my turn if you want to take a look at that first. :) Clovermoss (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


You used the f word in gender bend

Hailyrulesamerica (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

That’s descrimanation against trans Hailyrulesamerica (talk) 23:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

@Hailyrulesamerica: Hi there. Thanks for coming over to my talk page to discuss any concerns you have, but please take care to post messages at the bottom of an editor's talk page, not some random point midway along, please. That's really unhelpful. Errm, no, I haven't used any such word myself. As you saw in the level 3 warning I left on your userpage, I simply reverted your edits to gender bender which appeared to me to go against consensus on the article's talk page. Sorry if I misunderstood, but I didn't think I had. Please discuss it there, not here, as I was only monitoring vandalism, and you, I'm afraid, appear to be on a one-person campaign to censor articles, as you did at Fuck by blanking the entire article. That way lies doom, my friend. ...OK, slight exaggeration; blocking, anyway. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)  

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thank you... Viki-BSU (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Kashmir ObserverEdit

Levent revealed as sockEdit

I had my suspicions based on writing style and a lot of postings at Teahouse, but Levent H. recently posted a not-logged-in screed at Teahouse (deleted by another editor), revealing to be same person as previously blocked for sockpuppetry. David notMD (talk) 14:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and also had concerns - though it sould be noted at this time that the IP and LH aren't necessarily the same person. I note the IP was swiftly blocked and good to see that an SPI will look into it further, though it could be a 'joe job' (a new phrase on me). I wonder what proportion of those posting at the Teahouse end up getting blocked? Could make an interesting study. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-15Edit

Recent changes

  • More wikis are now testing visual editor section editing for mobile users. You can read more.
  • When you add an edit summary the VisualEditor will search your recent edit summaries in case you want to re-use one. This works in both the visual and wikitext modes on desktop. It also works on the mobile site. [1]

Soft cellEdit


Please advise how I would add a citation or reference? There are various websites mainly that have this text “ They were first spotted by David Oddie, boss of Wakefield based Ambergris Records in a Bradford club, who passed his enthusiasm onto Dead Good Records in Lincoln, famous for their Hicks From The Sticks compilation, who in turn approached Polygram, the newly formed amalgam of Polydor and Phonogram” Smithsonp (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Smithsonp: Unfortunately, Reddit is a user-generate website and is not an acceptable, reliable source, and many sites copy one another's content. A music magazine, book or website under proper editorial/journalistic control would be fine, however, but not blogs or personal websites/social media. See WP:RS to learn what we mean by 'reliable source', and see WP:REFBEGIN for how to add an inline citation. The bottom line is that if you can't support a statement that is liable to be challenged by providing a proper reference to a reliable source - simply leave it out. Google Books can sometimes be a good place to search for sources, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-16Edit

23:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

TheWikiWizard - April 2019Edit

Hello, Nick Moyes! Here is the April 2019 issue of TheWikiWizard.

Hope you like this month's issue! If you'd like to discuss this issue, please go to this issue's talk page. Happy Reading! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 03:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Teahouse observationsEdit

I saw your comment earlier about interest in a study what % of users at the Teahouse are blocked. Here's what I found in a very small sample size of the threads at archive 900. In these threads:

  • 8 editors who had asked a question had edited in the past month
  • 16 editors who had asked questions had edited since the start of 2019 (some were more active than others, but none of these editors were blocked)
  • 1 editor recieved a COI warning. They weren't blocked and haven't edited for awhile.
  • 1 editor was blocked for sockpuppetry.
  • 3 additional threads were started by editors who had previously asked questions at the Teahouse (limited to this specific archive)
  • 5 experienced editors (which I defined as having accounts older than 6 months) asked questions

Some other interesting information:

  • In total, 3 articles were created and passed AFC by 2 editors who had asked question(s) at the Teahouse.
  • In total, 9 articles were created and failed AFC by 4 editors who had asked question(s) at the Teahouse.
  • In total, 1 article that had failed AFC was resubmitted and passed by 1 editor who asked question(s) at the Teahouse.
  • In total, 2 articles that had failed AFC were resubmitted and failed again by 2 editors who had asked question(s) at the Teahouse.

In addition, Denkiden asked questions at the Teahouse that were archived without an answer. I'm also worried that they might not be here to build an encloypedia, since they are here to "raise awareness of memes" according to their userpage. Clovermoss (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Thank you very much for this, and for previous posts on our adoption page. I'm currently on holiday in Spain, and will endeavour to digest and reply asap over the next few days or so. (Ping me again if I don't!) Meanwhile, Cullen328 might be interested in your small sample analysis of Teahouse questions, as indeed might Thegooduser, too. Regards for now, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
As I said, it is a very small sample size. One archive out of 900+ isn't really enough to make any generalizations or anything. If I'm bored, I might look at other archived threads and see how they compare to each other/if there are any signifigant trends. Also, I hope you enjoy your vacation! Clovermoss (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Jim might give you a link to a video of his, giving an interesting breakdown of Teahouse questions a couple of years back. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:54, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-17Edit

Recent changes

  • The advanced search function URL now shows which namespaces you search in. The namespace field is collapsed by default on the search page. You can also add new fields to the search interface through a hook. [4][5][6]
  • The wikis now look slightly different in the mobile web version. [7]

Mary TrefusisEdit

Hello, Thank you for your message; most of the articles I have created were done in the early years under another user name. It seems that the occasional article I create nowadays gets criticized, e.g, Diocese of Aude and Ninove Abbey which got reduced to drafts and were only revived later on.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@Johnsoniensis: I can understand your frustration. But if you've returned after a long break away, you do have to realise that Wikipedia has grown up considerably now. I think there's less concern to get articles created, and more concern to ensure that content now being added meets our high standards of verifiability and reliable sources. Stuff that might once have been OK, probably isn't any more. I hope you can appreciate that's why you might be feeling criticised, when previously your weren't. What you've experienced isn't anything personal - just a reflection of the higher standards we've all set ourselves to work under. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Your explanation makes good sense but I shall probably not be creating any new articles in the future so some editors will need to do so. I have in fact not been away very much but I did change my user name a few years ago after operating as User:Felix Folio Secundus from 2008 and under the present name for a number of years. None of the articles to which I made major contributions has got any more than a B class for quality but it seems no-one else had tried to create them at the time.--Johnsoniensis (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi Nick, how are you getting on?--JJB 10:59, 24 April 2019 (UTC) ─────────────────────────also thanks for the help, everything is going smoothly now, im taking it slow,--JJB 14:11, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

@JJBullet: I'm fine thanks - just back from a family holiday abroad. Lots of sun and not too much Wikipedia - who could ask for more? LOL! I'm glad you've slowed down and I am grateful to Dlohcierekim that they reached out to you. I hope that contact helped. Just remember - if you need any support, we're always available at the Teahouse or you can contact us individually on talk pages if you need advice, and aren't in a rush. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Glad you had a nice holiday! and yeah thanks for the support--JJB 08:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!Edit


Rosey sanchez (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Rosey sanchez, cute kitten :O --JJB 14:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanky you, Rosey sanchez - kittens are always welcomed here in this long as they've been neutered and wear a bell to warn off birdlife. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

May you join this month's editathons from WiR!Edit

May 2019, Volume 5, Issue 5, Numbers 107, 108, 118, 119, 120, 121

Hello and welcome to the May events of Women in Red!

Please join us for these virtual events:

Other ways you can participate:

Subscription options: Opt-in/Opt-out

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
Just dropping by for thanking you for your replies at WP:Teahouse. Sincerely, Masum Reza 09:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Masumrezarock100, that's most kind of you. It's great to see you helping others there, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 06:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-18Edit

22:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)


Hi Nick. I see you've been keeping an eye on JJBullet. I think his editing on Jnr.void is innocent if misguided. I note that both boys are attached to the same trust, Novalis, which appears to cater for "the education of children, young people and adults, including those with emotional and behavioural difficulties". I suspect that having set up his page he is helping out a fellow resident. That brings me to the main point, in the infoboxes for both of them are full names and email addresses. This worries me, particularly in light of the description of Novalis. Should they be redacted? Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you - that's good advice. You'll see I've just replied and await a reply, but am now away for a few hours. I'm happy to contact an admin later re revdel if you aren't able to. i.e. let me know if you do taken any action yourself, so as to avoid duplication of effort. In haste. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
I saw his explanation and your reply after I'd written the above. I think it best to let you run with this for the sake of a few hours, JJBullet seems to relate to you and trust you, I'd just be a stranger upsetting things. If you need to be away for days rather than hours I'll step in, but otherwise let's keep it cool. Best regards, and thanks for your caring attitude to newbies, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Martin of Sheffield:I just saw your message, and thank you so much to both of you for helping me, if you want to help at all Martin then im more than happy, just because i relate to Nick a bit more doesnt mean i wont take on board what you are saying, best wishes, - JJBullet (Talk) 10:39, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Seeking AdoptionEdit

Hello, I found your listing on the adoption page and out of all the adopters, I was most interested in you. We share an interest in the sciences (particularly biology, it seems), and also to WP:WOMRED although that's something of a stretch goal. At the moment I have very little interest in administrative tasks and I am generally most interested in learning to be a more effective editor. NPP is also something I would love to work on in the future when I feel like I really have my editing skills together.

I feel like I should explain my contribs, as well. I have nearly 2,000 edits on paper, but that is a poor representation of what kind of work I have done and I feel like it overestimates me. My first major project on Wikipedia was to completely clear the backlog of over 800 unassessed articles at WP:Biology using Rater as noted on my userpage. If you have used Rater, you will know that it is super easy. I consider it valuable work and I learned some really useful skills from it, but they don't transfer as well to the work areas that I want to break into and unfortunately it sort of pads my edit count.

I am really interested in continuing this kind of work, though--maintaining projects via assessment, management of categories, (tasteful) tagging, and working through cleanup listing. At the same time, I have my own personal backlog of many articles I have come across during my assessment spree that need direct, dedicated work. I have become frustrated with my skills on multiple occasions, especially when I'm working with trickier aspects. Short-term goals would be learning more about formatting, infoboxes, useful templates/tags, and so on, while a good mid-term goal for me would be full proficiency in taking diverse articles (in my field) up to C quality, even from a stub. I'm not interested at this time in contributing to GA/FA-level articles--I feel that would be a waste of my time.

I went over your page on adoption and I want to assure you that I understand the basics of the concepts you listed. I can't say I have memorized them but I am aware of all those policies, I take them seriously, and I plan to review them regularly. In addition, I just completed WP:TWA last night. I left the badges on my page as proof but I'll be deleting them soon for cleanliness. I also glanced at how you made a separate page for User:Clovermoss, and should you decide to accept me I think that would be a good course of action for us as well.

Anyway, thank you for your time in reading this and your consideration. I hope you are not too busy because we seem to be a very good fit! Prometheus720 (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

It might take a while for Nick to get back to you since he's been on a vacation. I just thought I should let you know since I was pinged :) Clovermoss (talk) 01:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice! I appreciate it! Prometheus720 (talk) 02:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, Prometheus720 thanks for coming over to my page to seek some support and guidance. Ironically, I was just thinking of temporarily removing my current offer for adoption as I'm finding I have very little spare time beyond my own faffing about on Wikipedia, let alone rapidly assisting others. That said, if I can help you, I certainly will. I agree with you that working to get an article to GA or FA level takes tremendous commitment and effort, and it's definitely not something to start off with. (I managed it with this article which I converted from a simple list, but burned myself out so that when it got to my FA submission, I took too long to resolve a couple of matters, and it was put on hold. Two years later I now need to find some mental space to sit down and take that final tiny step to get it reassessed, as I'm confident it's there. Lurking at Peer review might be better, but I actually think you might find that simply aiming to improve one or two stubs to Start class is probably the most rewarding for some selected topic you're interested in. I see you've not yet created anything new yourself (which is fine - don't get me wrong), but you could consider giving that a try. For example, there are a million red-linked species articles out there just ripe for creation, and I could guide you through that process if you wished to. I don't do a vast amount of repetitive maintenance tasks myself, despite these being immensely valuable. I have, however, found myself drawn towards some of the other administrative and support work here, and will probably put my name forward for consideration of being given admin rights later this year when I've a little more free and able. I can see that with c 2,200 edits, though less than 150 in mainspace, with no single article you've worked on in detail, you could learn a lot by focussing on just one subject and working to improve that over a period of time. I'm probably not the best person to advise you on some of the more gnomish tasks that you've done so far. In fact, you could probably teach me some of them...I've never tried Rater, for example.
So look, here's the deal. I can offer to support you in the way you've seen I've tried to help Clovermoss. I.e. a dedicated on which we ping one another, keeping everything in one place, though I can't promise to give quick replies most of the time. I have absolutely no issues with anyone going to the Teahouse or to WP:HD for immediate assistance. But I can probably address some of the more complex and general questions you might have on the less gnomish work around her, and guide/steer you through some of them, or you can call me to invite me to look through work you've been preparing. i.e. the kind of things that are bit too long to tease out with a Teahouse question. If I can help you get the confidence to work on writing good, well-referenced article content - even if it's only stub or start level - and to understand where you can find some of the key resources for yourself to do that, I think my job is done. So let me know what you think. It might be nice to know your biological interests and current academic level (I'm more plants than animals). It would also be helpful (but not essential) to have some idea of your age so I can appreciate where you are within the education system (pre University/first year/post grad? etc). Gender is nice to know, but neither are things you should reveal publicly here if you're not OK doing that. Not revealing that is fine, too. Anyway, I must shoot. Apologies for any typos in this reply. Let me know what you think. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)  
Thanks for your reply! I don't so much feel that I need help with the gnomish work. I'm actually in the process of writing a guide for Rater right now, which I will be submitting to Evad37 when I'm finished--I'll be sure to ping you when I do. I would not be surprised if I am one of its heaviest users by the end of this year or even earlier. It is sadly very underutilized. Really the main gnomish stuff I want to get into is categories, citations, and cleanup tags. What I would really like is help getting into editing articles. To me, FA/GA status is an unreasonable standard for most of the nearly 6 million articles on enwiki. Some subjects truly cannot be discussed at that length, and even if they are it is questionable whether it's worth that much time. I see B-class as a more achievable standard--I rarely complain when I look something up as a reader and find a B article. I don't expect myself to be pushing articles beyond B-class probably ever, except perhaps a few B-class articles I have found that seem worth a GA review to me. Even those I would want to be out of my hands.
I'm a senior biology student, very eclectic. I have had less education in wildlife bio, plants, or computational biology, but I find those topics very interesting as well and I plan to educate myself. I think that I have a slight preference for "concept" articles over taxon articles, which is why I have worked mainly outside the purview of Wikiproject Tree of Life so far. I enjoy neighboring topics such as geology and organic chemistry. I am male, but one of my top priorities with Rater is to ensure that all female biography articles are properly included in the appropriate wikiproject (usually WPWS but sometimes others are more relevant). I am feeling a little overwhelmed right now with the sciences but eventually I would like to work with Women in Red as well. After I complete my degree I will be seeking certification to teach high school (or maybe middle school) and I would love to use Wikipedia as an educational tool in that far-flung future, especially with underrepresented students.
So to circle back, I have private lists of articles that I want to improve in various ways, some articles that need to be deleted/moved/merged/etc (which I REALLY need help understanding on a per-article basis), a few articles that I need to create, and a few articles that need further assessment for GA status. I don't desire to do that myself and I'd like some advice on how to proceed with it. All of those are things that are beyond teahouse status for me. I should emphasize that I am actually a very experienced writer and I am used to writing every single day. I don't have any "bottleneck" at that level--it is translating that experience into the very specific style of Wikipedia that is difficult. For example, I have come across articles that are so poorly written that I want to just rewrite the entire thing--but I have to at least attempt to retain some of the aspects of the page that have been contributed by other users. This is not my encyclopedia but OUR encyclopedia, and I'm not used to being constrained in that way. Eventually, once I have cleaned out many of the gnome backlogs and I am only doing maintenance, I hope to be able to focus more on directly working on articles, perhaps improving one per day or so. I don't mind waiting on your responses at all--I have at least a month of heavy work (more than that at a slower pace) that I already know how to do, and I'm learning to do new things every day. There are probably 2-3 pages in my list that need attention very soon, but other than those nothing is really time-sensitive. I'd love to have some feedback on a few pieces of work I have already done, as well, but in due time. I would love to have a page to discuss all of this on. I never expected rapid responses--I assumed something more along the lines of you getting back to me when you aren't busy, more of a sort of within two weeks-ish time frame on average. The other question is, are we considering this adoption or something less formal? Thanks! Prometheus720 (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, Prometheus720, thank you for that background explanation and information about yourself. On the basis of what you've said, and notwithstanding that I've not had much of a chance to look through your contributions thus far, I would be happy to support you as best I can. We clearly have some interests in common, and the idea that you might go into teaching and spread the word about the careful use of Wikipedia in schools is a real positive. I don't personally regard Adoption here as a very formal process. (My approach would not be a very structured one) In fact, the Adopt-a-User project became moribund some years ago when WP:HD and WP:TH were created. These both give users much faster responses to quick questions, and really are far better suited to new users. About a year ago I did start to work on a plan to turn WP:AAU around by making it solely targeted at people like you and User:Clovermoss (i.e. clearly committed and keen to improve across a number of areas in the medium to long term), and definitely not for brand new editors. Just as in real life, adoption does involve a commitment on both sides, and I didn't want to spend my time helping some POV-pusher learn to create one pet article about their company or favourite musician, but who then promptly leaves the project, never to be seen again. I see it as offering longer term support and gentle encouragement to improve - and definitely not instant answers - as you see by the tardiness of my reply to you! It has been my lack of time this last year or so which stopped me committing to try to improve and revive the AAU scheme.
So, if you're OK with it, I'm very happy to support you in learning to create articles from scratch. Providing you can get to a Start class level with most things you work on, and perhaps the odd C-class, I'd be very pleased. Going any further is just a bonus, not a target. I would propose to create a subpage here on my user page. We'd keep all conversations on adoption-related matters to that sub-page's Talk page, and my current approach with Clovermoss is to order the various shortcut links to policies, guidelines and help-pages on the user subpage so we both have a quick overview of what we've covered.
Unfortunately, I discovered that despite every user sub-page having an associated Talk page, the normal means of WP:NOTIFICATIONS doesn't work on them. Thus, you would need to add that page to your Watchlist, and because I'm away from my PC so much, and don't want to be swamped with email notifications, I have currently inactivated my own Watchlist email notifications. Thus I'd need you to 'ping' me correctly if you want me to actually know you've written there. We can each inform the other if we no longer wish to cooperate in this way together. And that might be simply because we have covered the basics you need and you or I now feel you're OK to go off on your own; or one or other of us might run out of free time, or we simply end up hating each other!!! Who knows? It's courteous and reasonable then just to agree ending things. Should you wish to copy over all or any content from the pages we work on, you're absolutely free to do that. If you wish, you may add {{Adoptee|Nick Moyes}} to your user page, and I will probably do the same on mine and on my entry on the AAU project page.
Perhaps I can get you to kick off when you're ready by copy/pasting bits of the summary above about yourself over to an 'About me' post, and perhaps follow it up with a bullet pointed list of questions or just listing different elements of article creation or other editing matters you feel you're still a bit unsure of and would like to get support with. If you can put them in a rough priority order, I can then work through that to get us started. By the way, during the summer the UK here works in UTC+1 hour, so I suspect we'll not be active at the same time. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #031, 01 May 2019Edit

Back to the drawing boardEdit

Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.

Some of the reasons for the purge are:

  • Portals receive insufficient traffic, making it a waste of editor resources to maintain them, especially for narrow-scope or "micro" portals
  • The default {{bpsp}} portals are redundant with the corresponding articles, being based primarily on the corresponding navigation footer displayed on each of those articles, and therefore not worth separate pages to do so
  • They were mass created

Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.

In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.

Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:

  • Manually maintained portals are not scalable (they are labor intensive, and there aren't very many editors available to maintain them)
  • The builders/maintainers tend to eventually abandon them
  • Untended handcrafted portals go stale and fall into disrepair over time

These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG.

However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.

See you at WT:POG.


A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.

There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.

See you at WT:POG.


An observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.

And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.

The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?

And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...

Some potential future directions of developmentEdit

Quantum portals?Edit

An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.

Non-portal integrated componentsEdit

Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.

What kind of features could this be done with?

The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.

Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).

The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.

Where would that leave curated portals?Edit

Being curated. At least for the time being.

New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.

But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.

Keep on keepin' onEdit

The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.

And who knows what else?

No worries.

Until next issue...    — The Transhumanist   00:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Some news :)Edit

It's been a while since we've actually talked with your vacation and all that, but I've been learning a lot of stuff on my own. Anyways, one of my drafts passed AFC and Katherine Hughes (activist) is now a live article! I've also done other stuff and picked up on a few things. Created a redirect (for Katherine Angelina Hughes), talked a bit on article talk pages (for example, Alexei Romanov, and I read and used some of WP:MOS (check out today's article for improvement for an example). I've been busy (and will remain so until the weekend) but I figured I should write an update of sorts. Clovermoss (talk) 02:07, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

@Clovermoss: Thank you. I did see you'd been busy and productive, which is really great. I also recognise I owe you some roplies to earlier questions, which I will get around to doing as soon as I can. You do absolutely the right hing by also posting at the Teahouse for immediate replies when you need them. I generally need access to quiet time and to a keyboard, rather than faff about on a tiny mobile screen at odd moments which I've been doing a lot of lately. (Daughter has been stealing my laptop for doing her exam revision, which doesn't make it easy) Also: thanks for your holding reply to another user re adoption, which I'm about to reply to. Did you know that Alexei Romanov is a WP:DAB page, and that you can display those links as orange if you go to Preferences>Gadgets>Appearance and tick the box marked Display links to disambiguation pages in orange? It's really helpful when checking for accidentally wrong linkages. TTFN, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, at least your daughter isn't procastinating :). I have a lot on my plate too, but at least my exams are still a few weeks away. I was hoping for more time this weekend for Wikipedia, but I still have a lot to do so I won't be around as much as I would like. As for the link, I forgot to check whether or not it was the right one. This sounds like an interesting suggestion to prevent that from happening in the future. Clovermoss (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


Sorry nick, i pressed the wrong button, complete accident - JJBullet (Talk) 10:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

@JJBullet: No worries. If you ever want to test out leaving messages, including warnings for users, you may do so on this talk page, but it would probably help to post a message to forewarn me. You did the right thing by removing the notice and explaining that it was a mistake. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Thanks nick - JJBullet (Talk) 11:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, sorry for the Teahouse host sign-up, just to remind you, you said i could be a Host as long as i only answer questions that i know :) - JJBullet (Talk) 10:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@JJBullet: No worries. I love that you're keen - but I would like to see you actually editing content in this encyclopaedia, rather than 'hat collecting'. Since I made that comment that I was less bothered about you pretending to be qualified as a TH Host than I was about you pretending to be competent to adopt other editors under WP:AAU, we've come to realise how many people have formally signed up to be a Teahouse Host who are no longer active or simply haven't yet got the basic experience and familiarity we need to give confidence to new editors. So we're undertaking a bit of a 'spring clean'. It's nothing personal. Not being signed up as a TH Host doesn't preclude anyone monitoring questions and answering those they're able to. In fact, lurking at the TH is the second best way to learn more about editing. The best way is actually to contribute to improving articles. Do you need any support or ideas in that regard? Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:44, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, thanks nick, yes i still need help in improving articles as im not quite sure what to do still - JJBullet (Talk) 14:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
OK. So can you tell me what type of things do you like to focus on? Is there a subject area that interests you? Or are you fussy about correct spelling and grammar? Do you want to help keep Wikipedia free of vandalism, and want to keep watch on recent changes? Do you fancy digging out references to strengthen articles which have templates highlighting that citations are needed? Tell me what you'd like to focus your time here on, and I'll try and help you further. Nick Moyes (talk) 14:25, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, i want to help keep wikipedia free of vandilism & keep watch on recent changes :) - JJBullet (Talk) 09:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
vandalism* - JJBullet (Talk) 09:49, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.


  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

a barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
For your work in sorting out Pteroplax and working to resolve a conflict between two new well-intentioned users. Many helpers at Teahouse wouldn't have been so diligent in making sure neither new editor ended up deciding to quit editing. valereee (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The Barnstar of Diplomacy would be the more appropriate barnstar for this one. Interstellarity (talk) 18:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah - who cares? It's was a kind thought - thank you, Valereee. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Interstellarity, yeah, I was looking for "Barnstar of New-user Handholding and Encouragement" but that one strangely doesn't exist --valereee (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

TheWikiWizard - May 2019Edit

Hello, Nick Moyes! Here is the May 2019 issue of TheWikiWizard.

Hope you like this month's issue! If you'd like to discuss this issue, please go to this issue's talk page. Happy Reading! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18Edit

Hello Nick Moyes,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Mont Blanc / Goûter Route 2019 Permit systemEdit Can you please have a look at my contribution here? Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by GentleDjinn (talkcontribs) 15:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@GentleDjinn: Even without stopping to look at it in detail I can tell you immediately that what you've added is not acceptable for our encyclopaedia. It might be OK for a website promoting the Gouter Hut and associated dangers and updating access restrictions, but not here. It trays well into WP:TLDR territory. You should really cut that section down to around three or four sentences and get rid of the totally inappropriate red warning text, which goes against WP:MOS. If you used a photo of a warning notice, that'd be OK, but not in the way you've done it, I'm afraid. In addition, you've used far too many references to support each tiny point. Two or three at most are needed, and please use the Cite template tool in the editor to add full details of each reference. Please see Wikipedia:Bare URLs for the problem and WP:REFBEGIN for how to resolve it. I'm sure you can appreciate that including 'access date' would itself be very helpful for topical and potentially changing information. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:11, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

I will not consider it an insult if any able person succeeds in condensing it, but I was not aware of the existence of a Cite template tool.GentleDjinn (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

@GentleDjinn: Sounds like you've done what happened to me. I had been manually adding references for about 6 months or so after I started editing here before I realise that each editing tool has a 'Cite' button in its menu bar. Click that and in Source Editor you have a drop-down box into which you can select a template (website, news, book, journal) then add relevant fields like article title, url, publication, author, date, access date etc and even a 'refname' for re-using the reference without retyping it all a second time. In WP:VE you can paste in a url and it will automatically attempt to extract the reference for you. You still need to edit it a bit as it often gets some fields wrong, but it's a great time saver. The only weakness is that you can't define your own refname. Give them a go and see how it improves the quality of your contributions! Nick Moyes (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Aha, interesting, also to polish up the sources mentioned in quite a lot of previous contributions. I will give it at try in due time. Thanks! GentleDjinn (talk) 16:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-21Edit

13:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


How have you been nick? I have recently not been very active on the wiki and for that i am sorry :) - JJBullet (Talk) 14:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)


Hey nick just catching up, i had my first maths GCSE today, how have you been? - JJBullet (Talk) 09:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Hope it went well, JJBullet

- my daughter also had her GCSE maths this morning and had geography this afternoon. It not an easy time for people of your age, is it? I'm busy doing major house renovation work right now. I will reply with some advice for you on helping to monitor recent changes and to correct any bad edits. But it may a few days until I can find some 'quality time' to sit down at a proper keyboard rather than this tiny iPhone screen. But I guess you need to be revising, not playing here, so I hope that's OK. Good luck with the rest of them. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Please don't rush to correct somebody's typos. I accidentally saved it in error. Rushing to tell me I had not signed it just created an edit conflict just causes delays in giving you the full response. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry nick, - JJBullet (Talk) 13:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


Hi, Just wondering if you wanted to sign my Guestbook, which is located on my User Page

many thanks,

- JJBullet (Talk) 13:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Displaying personal emailEdit

Hi all, i have noticed that a certain user has given out their personal email on his/hers User Page, i wanted to ask you if this is allowed before i hand out a warning.... many thnaks - JJBullet (Talk) 10:40, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

@JJBullet: Don't hand out a warning, but do handout advice - especially if a new user or clearly an underage one. See this advice]. If the user recognises they'd made a mistake, and wanted it permanently deleting this would need a WP:REVDEL request. But you're a fine one to talk, giving out your real name, birthdate and other location information I have already advised you about. Please tell me you aren't bulk messaging other editors with your questions!!! Saying 'Dear all' sounds very suspicious. If you have, promise me you will never be daft enough ever to do so again. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, ok sorry - JJBullet 13:19, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, im just trying to do good - JJBullet 13:20, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@JJBullet: I very rarely feel the need to swear online, but goddamit you are trying my patience, my lad! I've just checked your contributions and YES, you have bulk messaged editors/admins with the question and YES you are once again requesting permissions for which you are clearly not experienced enough to need or use. (Please delete those new requests) Despite faffing around with over 700+ edits to userpages, you have made just 21 mainspace edits. As I warned you a month ago, you are in danger of becoming a timesink if you can't listen to the advice we have given you. Whatever mass messaging tool youve installed, please remove it as you dont need it. Show me 50 or 100 good mainspace edits and no more faffing around with your userpage, making blank pages for other non-existent editors, seeking permissions, and bugging multiple editors, and I might be more willing to guide you. That is the way to 'do good' here. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, the mass messaging tool is installed because my school has blocked using the talk setting on wikipedia, so i had to find a way around it otherwise i might as well just leave, i cant even edit my own UserPage so yeah whats the point. JJBullet 13:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Nick Moyes, I understand the frustration however, taking a quick glance at JJ's userpage shows that he's got Asperger's which sheds some light on his interactions and editing level. Professionally I work with individuals like JJ and I'd be willing to assist you (or him) if needed, providing that his edits don't land him in time out soon. Dusti*Let's talk!* 18:33, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, Dusti. I was aware of JJBullet's issues and, as you may have seen from the history of his talk page which he keeps archiving, I have genuinely been trying my best to keep him on track and not see him blocked. But I have little, well, absolutely no experience whatsoever (!), in handling a young lad like him, or understanding his needs. So I would indeed welcome your involvement and any guidance you care to give me so that, in turn, we can both better support him. I was initially disappointed to see just now when I returned to Wikipedia that he had been blocked, but I am actually very impressed with him for taking the unilateral decision to request a self-block for a week from xaosflux. Very impressed, indeed, actually. As he's right in the middle of his GCSE exams, I think that was a very sensible and very mature decision. As you'll have seen above, I did get a bit frustrated with him this afternoon (sorry, JJB), and I hope he's OK. I do still owe him a detailed reply on how he can make a positive contribution by monitoring recent changes and checking for vandalism, and I'd like to think when he returns after his exams that we can still guide him in supporting the encyclopaedia by focusing on simple and sensible mainspace edits until he gets the hang of how things work here. (Should you ever wish to offer me any personal advice via email, feel free to contact me by that route.) Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Note to JJBullet: Thanks ever so much for contacting me privately (forgive me for not replying the same way, as I prefer not to give out my personal email too widely). I appreciate the observations you made to me, and am sorry you've suffered as a result of one of them. Like I said to you before, we are all equals here, and are (or at least should be) judged solely by the quality of our contributions, not by anything else. I don't actually agree with you that you have a 'short fuse' - in fact I think quite the opposite. You've coped very professionally with people like me trying their best to (albeit sometimes very sternly) tell you how to do things the right way here. You have apologised politely each time you've had this pointed out to you. So I am impressed with that - it can't be easy for anyone. In fact, you saw that it was me who had had enough and 'blew their fuse' with you the other day. That makes you better at handling things than me, eh? Anyway, what I would really like to see when you return is some sort of undertaking of what you will and what you won't do. You're clearly very bright, so maybe he mundane things we do of keeping the encyclopaedia going might seem a little boring without all those extra permissions and fancy scripts. But lets try shall we? When I return from half term, I'll try and put together a few ideas for you to focus on. Cheers for now - and well done for seeing that an enforced break is a really good idea right now. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 24 May 2019 (UTC)  

You've got mailEdit

Hello, Nick Moyes. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Pls help Nick MoyesEdit

Thanks alot for your sincere response to my draft. Please can you help me identify those non free sources you talked about in Teahouse so I can correct and replace them adequately. Thanks alot. Ohanwe Emmanuel .I. (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Replied here. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)


Hello Nick,
I used to be Mstrojny and now I am Interstellarity. I noticed we haven't talked much and wanted to ask how things are doing? Interstellarity (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Interstellarity. Yes, I was aware you changed your username a while back, but didn't want to say anything publicly lest it was not something you wanted to overtly publicise. You asked at WP:TH about how you were doing. Without spending a long time going back through your edits, my impression of seeing you around is that you've been making a great contribution since January following your unblocking. That pleases me greatly as it shows that any young/old or immature vandal can, in time, return as earnest contributors (and I don't mean that in a patronising way). I do sense you are, perhaps, a little too quick sometimes to make up for your past bad actions, by assuming vandalism where it hasn't occurred. For example, I thought it was fair that this uncited edit in January, was recently undone by another IP as there was nothing to support it - see their edit. It would have helped had they added an edit summary, but you should have considered whether, as a BLP, that was fair. Either way, I probably wouldn't have reverted it and left a warning template for unexplained content removal, so I wasn't too surprised by their sharp reaction to you in their reversion. For you to think that was uncivil and something to be concerned about was itself surprising, though I think you got the advice from Huon that you sought. It's great to see you're willing and able to learn as you go along. We all make mistakes, and being able to see them and not repeat them is a great ability to have. Just keep that up, and don't be too quick to rollback or assume bad faith, and you'll be absolutely fine. Keep up the good work! Nick Moyes (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

TheWikiWizard - UpdateEdit

Dear reader,

Thank you for subscribing to TheWikiWizard. This is a special message letting you know that the June/July/August issues of TheWikiWizard may be delayed, due to the absence of User:Thegooduser. Thegooduser and the other editors of TWW will try their best to deliver these issues to you. Thank you for reading TWW, and we hope to see you again in September 2019. Thank you for your patience and understanding, and enjoy your summer! :-) We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Happy Editing!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 00:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

😚😚love and careEdit

Hey Moiidthg (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

About the Page protection on Petr ČechEdit

This is a long message but is worth reading. Some days ago the respective article was protected by RegentsPark due to an ongoing mild edit war. But i think that the protection on this page is not needed anymore with due respect to Regents' decision. It was put up because an edit war started regarding the addition of a statement which was already cited but the other admins failed to notice that because of work burden and were continuously reverting it but ofcourse the dispute ended after i added several more citations to support it. Protection on a page shall only be applied when an ONGOING dispute is the cause of frequent edit wars and more edit wars can occur in future because of the dispute. But if the dispute is already over and none of the involved parties are doing anything again, then why is the protection needed at all. Similarly in this case, it occurred just because of misunderstandings and wasn't intentional at all, so i think the edit warring will never occur again. Hence, protection shall be removed rather than keeping it intact until august which will cause hinderance in the improvement because people like me who dont have an account here and have very good knowledge about this subject can not edit. An example is on the talk page of the respective article, i proposed an edit request there and it is lying un-noticed for a day now. What i think is that have it not been protected, then by now it would have been improved hugely by me. If you want proof of my work, just look in the edit history of the page and the edits done by IP addresses. Every single IP edit has only improved the article (except the guy who keeps changing the height info) and not a trace of disruption followed. Regarding the edit war, i think the admins should have talked to me about it and then reverted because i had the explanation but they didn't which is not my fault. At the end my request is that please remove the protection from the page and i guarantee that not a single disruption will occur. Please feel free to ask an explanation for the above statements if it seems confusing to you. Regards 2405:204:A4AF:E6AB:0:0:1618:30AC (talk) 03:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

  Not done Spam messaging to multiple editors. WP:DNFTT Nick Moyes (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I am Levent Heitmeier, Nick. You know me, i messaged multiple editors because the case is just too much critical. Cech's article requires a lot of work and whatever work has been done so far there has been done by me. Protection of it till august is a complete wastage of time. My edits on the article are significant. I have never done vandalism and even though if i did somehow in the starting days, none of them was deliberate. I reported it to protecting admin RegentsPark, i reported it to WP:RFPP but all declined my request without reading using sockpuppetry as a ground. Ritchie333 too is an administrator and he always looks at what and who benefits wikipedia rather than who is a sockpuppet or who is an admin or something. Please help me get the page unportected and i guarantee that not a single vandalism will follow, if somehow any IP does it then i will do the patrolling and revert every single disruptive edit. If in any case i fail to fulfill my promise, i will set you all free to protect it indef. Regards (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Why did you do that, Nick? Don't you know about football? I can't believe you are doing this to me. Petr Cech is widely regarded as one of the greatest of all time. I have provided 10 citations of different people applauding him (of high stature). And if those critics say that then peoples will agree of course. Please please please re-do it in the form it was. It is an absolute mental torture to me that when Manuel Neuer is widely regarded, Iker Casillas is widely regarded, Gianluigi Buffon is widely regarded then why Cech isn't. Please Nick for God sake restore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:2199:4A03:F153:C50D:1DEE:5AD8 (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
You ain't matching it with cited sources. They refer him to be the greatest ever in premier League and many of them easily say that he is one of the greatest of all time. What are you doing. Please don't do this. Please restore this. I'm raving mad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4063:2199:4A03:F153:C50D:1DEE:5AD8 (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you are also User:Levent Heitmeier, you have been blocked from editing because of sockpuppetry. You therefore have no say in how this article is managed, nor how the page is protected against vandalism. Your continued use of multiple IP addresses is against our policies - you have been blocked, and those IP ranges may well be too. I suggest that you leave it for others with a legitimate right to edit here from one single account to work on the page. In my view, it's already 100k in size and is likely to give fair coverage to the topic. I don't propose to actually read the article in detail as I have zero interest in football or footballers - just in ensuring that Wikipedia is edited fairly and responsibly by users who have not been blocked, and who aren't pushing some personal POV. Many of us edit competently on subjects we know little about, as that ensures a neutral encyclopaedia doesn't turn into a fanzine or fake news site.The two-month semi-protection doesn't seem unreasonable under the circumstances of ongoing abuse for a high-profile page, especially in the light of what followed in your edits made here whilst I was in the middle of drafting this reply to you..
I'm really sorry, but the edits you refer to in your last comment (which overlapped with my reply to you) and which I just made to that page were to match the statement you (under what I assume to be one of your many India-based IP addresses?) appear to have put into the article, but which were not neutral in tone. I checked the references and modified the statement according to those citations. Putting in personal opinions because you happen to admire the player and think he's the greatest person of all time isn't OK. The citations don't show that to me - he does sound pretty amazing, so saying that some players and managers regard him as "the greatest goalkeeper in the Premier League" sounds more encyclopaedic and less like hero-worship to me. I'f I've missed something, I'm quite happy for another legitimate editor to re-read and correct my edits based upon those citations. But I've just gone through each one of those citations. One doesn't function; one, I agree, does say of him "One of the greatest goalkeepers in the history of the game is set to bring the curtains down on his illustrious and trophy-laden career", but all the remaining simply describe him in terms of being the greatest goalkeeper in either the Premier or the Champions League. I can't see why you take such exception to this encyclopaedia reflecting what the sources you've supplied actually say, rather than what you'd like them to say. Can you show me precisely where I've gone wrong in that, please? i.e. paste in the sentences you think I've missed. Whenever I make a mistake with my editing I'm always quite happy to apologise - to anyone. What they most definitely are not is WP:VANDALISM, and your use of threats against me (in the post below which I note you've now just deleted) is not necessary, and really quite unhelpful to your cause, especially as you have no right to be editing here at all. Pinging Ritchie if you really think an admin opinion would be helpful here. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
You pinged the wrong user. Interstellarity T 🌟 14:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Interstellarity: Doh! So I did; thanks for that. This all got a bit weirdly hectic earlier today - I must have had about 6 edit conflicts which required an amended reply before I was finally able to post an up-to-date and reasoned response, before having to then dash away - so, yes, I stupidly got Ritchie's username wrong in my haste. I won't bother him now, although it really saddens me that we were descending into threats and even an attempted WP:ANI complaint against me for vandalism, despite this footballer clearly being an absolutely amazing player, which most of the sources cited by the sockmaster also clearly demonstrated, and to which I concur - but not just the overly adulatory and (in my view, at least) non-encyclopaedic way those sources were being interpreted. Cheers - and thanks to other TPSs here, too. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)  

Tech News: 2019-23Edit

15:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


I added a reply on the Teahouse before realising that there is a team of dedicated hosts for replies. I'm not sure I should've added this message, as I am not a host, so I do apologize! Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Willbb234: Don't for one moment think that you can't reply to anyone at the Teahouse. It's not the preserve of just the Teahouse Hosts. If you can helpfully answer another editor, you feel free, please! The 'Hosts' are just those editors who have accepted the ethos of the Teahouse as a friendly, safe place for new editors and who have enough experience to be able to welcome and to assist with most types of questions.
That said, it might have been better had you not asked the very new editor to contact you on your talk page as it's quite possible they don't know how. I haven't looked in detail at your reversion of their edits - at a glance they did look uncited and rather essay/WP:OR-like. Perhaps if you contacted them on their talk page, they might find that easier. Sometimes new editors get very demoralised if their very first efforts get reverted; some never edit again. Keeping potentially constructive editors on-side is the real key. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nick Moyes: Ok thank you, I will leave a message on the users talk page and try to be as friendly as possible. Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Willbb234: When replying to someone on their own talk page, there is no need to ping them. They are notified automatically whenever you edit their talk page. Interstellarity T 🌟 00:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

  Administrator changes

  AndonicConsumed CrustaceanEnigmamanEuryalusEWS23HereToHelpNv8200paPeripitusStringTheory11Vejvančický

  CheckUser changes


  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

  Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-24Edit

17:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

So sadEdit


Thanks you for assistanceEdit

Hello @Nick Moyes: sir, Thank u for guiding me. It was nice, that you did necessary changes on my behalf. And what was required to be done. And was good for the article and the singer. AR.Dmg (talk) 02:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a pleasure to help you, sir. Nick Moyes (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Nick Moyes".