User talk:Nikthestunned/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Help! Withrow Minstrels Rejection

Hi Nik-

My Minstrels article was rejected because of the references. I don't know what else I can do here. They references are both reputable, - major Cincinnati Newspapers [and Wiki subjects]owned by national companies, like Scripps Howard, and independent of the subject. Plus, I have just added another reference from the noted New York jazz critic- and Wiki subject - WHitney Balliett. What else can I do? Any suggestions? Tigertwice (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they were rejected due to the fact that the "references do not adequately evidence the subject's notability", which is referring to this guideline... It's one of the core policies of Wikipedia so you need to understand before creating any article. Cheers, Nikthestunned 09:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	You were the first on the Talk page of a novice contributor (me) and the praise you put up top keeps me on a positive track. No matter what. THANK you. AnEyeSpy (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Hotels in Maine

I undid you change to Category:Hotels in Maine adding this to the companies tree. Not all of these articles are about companies which is a guideline for adding a parent category. Also, categories by state tend to have the same parents across all of the states. Since most/all of the other states lack the one you added, it is not likely a good choice. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Nikthestunned 22:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Reflinks from October 2011

Guess what? When you ran RefLinks on Douglas Coupland in October 2011, ([1]) you missed a couple of citations that used WP as the reference. RefLinks gave an access date, which was nice, but it only allowed me to zero in on this particular edit. (I'm not going to go back any further in the history.) Well, the offending links have been removed, e.g., converted to Wikilinks, but I thought you might be interested. (And now I'm wondering if the RefLinks bot/application/whateveritis can be modified to catch or alert us to the existence of such citations.) This is just an FFYI (Friendly FYI). Happy editing. --S. Rich (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hehee, ta Nikthestunned 09:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

A little trout for the new year

Hi, this was an interesting mix of nationalities! I only spotted it because it was also missing the sort key for the categories. – Fayenatic London 18:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, good catch! I think I copied a previous category as a template and guess I just missing it! Thanks for letting me know Nikthestunned 23:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Spam URLs

I notice that earlier today you changed the way the URL displays on the James Randi Educational Foundation page. I see that it did not break anything, of course, but can you help me understand the impact of your change? When should I use the URL| syntax? Help:URL was not very helpful to me. Allecher (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Allecher . The {{URL}} template is just a way of ensuring that the URL is displayed in a consistent format - just like the {{Official website}} one. If I see it written out in the manual format, I will change it I then don't need to check if it was correct! Also, if you want to find out about a template, go to the template documentation page, in this example it's here: Template:URL (not the help page!). Cheers, Nikthestunned 16:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ohh, also - the "Spam URL" was the one in the lede ([2]), not the one I stuck in the URL template! Nikthestunned 16:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nikthestunned. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 15:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

List of question-and-answer websites

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries - simple task & quick win . Nikthestunned 10:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification

POTD

Hi Nik,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:ThermiteReaction.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on March 24, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-03-24. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

You have a new message!

Hello, Nikthestunned. You have new messages at Mediran's talk page.
Message added 10:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mediran (t • c) 10:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Nikthestunned. You have new messages at JonRichfield's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Haus zum Walfisch

Hi Nik, since you moved the "Haus Zum Walfisch, Feiburg, 1999.jpg" today, perhaps it's easier to address you directly than to wait for someone else to fix the name... Unfortunately, you introduced two typos into the name of the file, and being there, I would further suggest to specify the full name of the town as there are several towns named Freiburg in Germany. My suggested new title would be "Haus zum Walfisch, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1999.jpg". Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Mediran beat me to it! But yea, my bad - should probably have checked my destination name was correct >.< Nikthestunned 09:13, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Peter Spiegelman

Template:Peter Spiegelman has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. INeverCry 16:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

List of question-and-answer websites

Hi, again. Sorarlar is one of the notable q&a platform in Turkey. News from Turkish entrepreneurship, social media and internet blogs/websites are added as link below;
http://www.sosyalmedyaport.com/sanal-dunyada-her-seyi-sorarlar.html
http://girisimcifikirler.com/yazi/elbet-birgun-sorarlar
http://onayli.net/2012/11/20/sorarlar-com-soru-cevap-platformu/
And finally, I used to be a Wikipedia editor, I know WP policy.
Good wikis. :) 88.253.162.162 (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the references. The message I posted to you was not entirely accurate, it's just easy to understand for inexperienced editors. Lists in Wikipedia should only really have entries in them which link to their own articles - the notability is established for this list (even without references) as the Q&A websites listed all have their own Wikipedia article. If you create this first then feel free to re-add your entry to this list . Nikthestunned 12:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Salute

Dude, respect! Thanks for your hard work & effort. I really appreciate it. Thanks for leaving a comment about it too, that was funny ;-) --Eddyspeeder (talk) 16:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

May Need Help With Image Removal?

Copied from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mars_Science_Laboratory#File:Martian-Sunset-O-de-Goursac-Curiosity-2013.jpg_image_removed_from_article.3F

File:Martian-Sunset-O-de-Goursac-Curiosity-2013.jpg image removed from article?

@Nikthestunned - seems you may have recently removed the File:Martian-Sunset-O-de-Goursac-Curiosity-2013.jpg image from the Mars Science Laboratory article as "against image policy" - if possible, what is the *specific* image policy at issue? - Thanks in advance for your reply - and - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Niiya

If company is notable, plz, specify more than just year of establishment. Moreover, according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#Red_links link to a non-existent article should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article also includes that red link. Currently there is no article, which links to Niiya (company), except one list (which is another from of disambig or service page). Alex Spade (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough Nikthestunned 08:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nikthestunned. You have new messages at TracyNectoux's talk page.
Message added 13:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Nikthestunned. You have new messages at TracyNectoux's talk page.
Message added 14:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Nikthestunned. You have new messages at TracyNectoux's talk page.
Message added 15:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Nikthestunned. You have new messages at TracyNectoux's talk page.
Message added 16:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Nikthestunned. You have new messages at TracyNectoux's talk page.
Message added 13:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Nikthestunned. You have new messages at TracyNectoux's talk page.
Message added 14:45, 11 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HealthcareMagic

Hi, I made an edit on HealthcareMagic with the review of the external links that unreviewed by you. Please see if this is ok.

Krishnan.ramaswami (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the external links are not appropriate, they are spam - so I removed them once more. I also moved your sentence to a more appropriate section. Cheers Nikthestunned 09:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox Bouchercon

Template:Infobox Bouchercon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nikthestunned. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hardcastle.
Message added 10:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Acalycine^{(talk/contribs)} 10:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Sharam Page

Hello, i work for sharam and update his wikipedia according to our sources. Why do you keep removing them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyoshitoshi (talk • contribs) 15:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

As you work for Sharam you should not be updating his page at all, as you have a conflict of interest. Here are some guidelines on further editing in this area: Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. (Point 2 of that page: Do not edit articles about yourself, your family or friends, your organization, your clients, or your competitors.)

As to why I specifically reverted your edits, it's as they were promotional in nature; you were not sticking to a neutral point of view. Who says those songs are "underground classics"? Who says his musical credits are "dynamic"? These are not terms you can use in an encyclopedia article! Your addition is so promotional in nature, with no proper sources added, that the only option I have is to revert you. If you have any questions about this I'd be happy to elaborate. Cheers, Nikthestunned 16:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Image parameter

Yes, I had just backspaced more than it was needed. Although it is good pick but not really a huge potential breakup, I just checked rest of my edits. If the bracket has been broken than it becomes harmful, but brackets remain alright. OccultZone (Talk) 11:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Counted, I've done about 400 today, a total of 4 had broken image type(like you pointed) or broken bracket. All good. OccultZone (Talk) 11:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

1% fail rate is pretty damn good I guess! Thanks for the update Nikthestunned 11:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Cory Doctorow#Cory Doctorow and Creative Commons. Thanks. Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 02:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 10:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly =) Nikthestunned 10:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

deletion of brilliant.org from list of question and answer web sites

Hello Nik: Is there a criterion for marking a web site non-notable on a page like this? I do notice that alexis estimates that its global rank is over 64000. Is that what you used to decide?

SewerCat (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I revert any additions to that page which don't have their own page established already - if a website is notable enough to be on that list then it is notable enough to have it's own article. Cheers, Nikthestunned 08:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Common Projects

The article Common Projects has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Despite the number of references there is no indication of lasting notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Gbawden (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Using your photo of Toledo cathedral

Hi Nik

I'd like to use your photo of Toledo cathedral's west façade in a book I'm writing on Toledo cathedral, published with Penn State University Press. It's an academic book (ie it's not going to make me any money!) - would you be happy for me to use it? If so, how would you prefer me to credit you?

Many thanks, Tom (Nickson) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.186.194 (talk) 14:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Thanks for letting me know about this! The image has been released under this Creative Commons 3.0 license so you only need to attribute it to me and you're all good =) See Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia for more information on this in general. I'd also love to see the finished work, if that's going to be possible . Cheers, Nikthestunned 15:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and if you mean literally - "flickr/electro_n1k" or "Wikipedia/Nikthestunned" would be great thanks! Nikthestunned 15:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Nikthestunned. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Marbles

Well done. Over to you, though. I'm happily "unwatching" the article. (Not that it should matter, but my own "Youtube personality" tastes run more toward this.) If there's a fresh outbreak of inanity and you need help, let me know and I'll return (with machete and truncheon). -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

No worries lol and thanks - though I have to say this is not to my taste either! I'm more into this³ sorta thing. Nikthestunned 13:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

OK; and though they're not remotely vlogs, here are a couple more vids for your delectation. -- Hoary (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Illinois Digital Npaper Collection

Hi NTS,

You commented on the page I was editing about the list I made and the new pages I was creating. I did change my username as per your suggestion (thank you). I am pretty new to editing wikipedia pages, so if you have any suggestions, please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godgilla (talk • contribs) 13:19, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

And now, a rant

You complete prick. I put my list of things for someone to add to the Colin Bateman article on the CB TALK page. So why the hell have you removed it, you complete fool VinDibs (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Fuck off mate Nikthestunned 12:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

ERA-1

You are obviously acting on a 3rd parties behalf removing articles, references and anything positive about electronic recycling association.

Please provide your real name and a mailing address, our legal department has some documents for you to review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.17.96.199 (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No actually I just hate spam and promotion on Wikipedia, especially to a page cleaned up previously by an experienced editor. It's especially annoying when a company puts in a concerted effort to undermine the positive intentions of a small number of volunteers, and seeks to go about it without any consideration for the rules or without seeking help with your edits (and being fkin honest about who you are). My talk page history is full of plenty of people who've done this very thing, instead of the brute-force way you're going about it. Nicely done logging out to make the legal threat though, you do have some concept of the rules here it seems. Nikthestunned 17:26, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing regarding Query

Hi, I am Ian, I was editing on Wikipedia article "electronic recycling association" few days before, Please can you tell how it's looking like an advertising. I was research on net and get some link, so want to add it because it is work for charity and if you think then i am doing any thing wrong then please make me correct, I will welcome your suggestion,but if you think that by mistake you doing anything wrong please undo the change,which you was doing, because i was doing lot's of hard work on it. thanks Ian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianjoy8311 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Chester See

In a situation like this, where there have been multiple recreation attempts in the past that didn't adequately assert or source notability, what you should do is create it as a sandbox draft at User:Nikthestunned/Chester See, or via the WP:AFC process — and then once you're done, you can approach me or another administrator at that time to have that page reviewed and moved into articlespace if appropriate. But speaking as an administrator, I'm not prepared or willing to unprotect a salted redlink purely on spec before I've actually seen the actual text and sourcing of the proposed new version. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. When I saved that comment I saw that you already had a sandbox page ready at the very title I suggested for it — you should actually have told me that up front. I'll take a look at it right now and move the page if it's suitable. Bearcat (talk) 18:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. That's a much better job than has been done in the past, so thank you. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for moving. Just added 27 incoming links so I reckon the article was past due! Nikthestunned 19:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

ERA

You asked for so many details in one comment so I replied to every detail but in same way as you dividing in points so that you can understand. We agree on some things and we can solve other concerns. Another user "Adventurousme is accusing me of too much detail but my each point is small answer to your each point you can see. Can you please tell him to participate in discussion or do not disrupt our hard work? I am waiting for your reply so that we can solve other concerns. Thank you. --TheSawTooth (talk) 03:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but it seems you misunderstood the purpose of my response on that page - I provided it as justification to return the page to a good state, not to start the longest-discussion-ever over a page which is viewed less than a hundred times a week. Nikthestunned 10:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry then you should get consensus with me to edit. I gave my points to answer you because you discussed. If you do not want to discuss then you know that consensus is discussion not who reverts more and only tells he is right. I can answer if you have more objections or I will try to remove some promotional data when block is over. --TheSawTooth (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I don't understand what you're saying. You don't seem to understand me either as I never said that "consensus is who reverts more". Also note, despite you repeatedly mentioning it, I reverted twice, which is perfectly OK. Nikthestunned 12:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, looking at your (only 350-odd) edits, you're meeting resistance with almost all the pages you edit! Have you not stopped and considered you might be wrong? Or do you just enjoy the controversy? Nikthestunned 12:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe controversy is my favorite topic. One day you will choose that I like controversy not COI. --TheSawTooth (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your banter. Nikthestunned 17:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello Nikthestunned. You have not left any comments at Talk:Electronic Recycling Association#article text on the new draft created by User:Jytdog. Does this imply that you have no concerns with the draft version? I was thinking of proposing unprotection of the article, but my uncertainty about your position on this is the only reason to hesitate. The dispute on this article was mentioned at WP:AN3 and at ANI (permanent link). It appears that the related SPI case is going nowhere. As a 3RR patroller, my main concern is that people who feel strongly enough to revert the article will participate adequately in discussions. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't feel the current draft is even remotely appropriate for the extensive list of reasons you can see on the talk page - and don't care to repeatedly counterpoint TheSawTooths arguments ad nauseam (when we clearly don't understand each other). The reason I provided the extensive list was that my editing behaviour was being called into question and I wanted to list my reasons to revert back to a sensible version. It was not a request to start the longest-discussion-ever over a frankly insignificant page. I guess I was hoping an experienced editor would agree with my "review" and we could put this whole mess behind us. Nikthestunned 18:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(You realise that draft is identical to the page as-is right? User:Jytdog just copied from main article in attempts to get a draft going...) Nikthestunned 18:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

One way to counteract promotional editing is just to have experienced editors give their opinions. I'm sorry that you feel that the situation was becoming tedious, since you appear to be a representative of mainstream opinion. Admins are standing by in case this gets out of hand, but I wonder if you can suggest how to proceed from here? If you think that the situation is hopeless then long-term protection is possible, but that's a drastic step. One option is to find some item that is illustrative of the promotional editing and open a WP:RFC about that. EdJohnston (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I've given my opinion over and over and it doesn't appear to be getting through. Per the above, TheSawTooth edits seem to comprise solely of controversial ones and I just cannot deal with it I'm afraid. Frankly, I've no idea how to proceed! Consensus against TheSawTooth's edits seems like a good start, but who wants to wade through 100's of lines of talk messages and point out the reason each bit is incorrect, preferably with incontestable policy links? I tried that anyways and it didn't seem to help. Nikthestunned 19:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ping User:TheSawTooth. It seems helpful he has made links to all the admin discussions about his behavior on his user page. That must indicate confidence in his mission, whatever it may be. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to forget to reply. Is there any other way to do this? --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If it's on my talk page and you require any more preparation than this then don't bother, I won't read it anyway. Nikthestunned 19:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Reply to admin discussions not you. --TheSawTooth (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry I understand. You could just watch the page, no? Nikthestunned 19:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Nikthestunned: It seems that 198.17.96.199 (talk · contribs) who left you a legal threat above is registered to the Electronic Recycling Association. That's not very subtle behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Bahaahaa, subtle as a brick Nikthestunned 19:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there,

Without prejudice.

We have noticed you have made continuous removals of any content on the article. Please explain why the article is not allowed to include any other details other than the contraversies section?

For example; Other locations, charitable work, data protection events with local law enforcement, etc.

Why are all the references constantly deleted and removed, as per Nikthestunned desires.

Controversy

Check controversy section of draft. Is it ok to add or you have concern with it? I will build consensus section by section. If you are not interested I will add it. --TheSawTooth (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

@Nikthestunned: do you want to discuss this issue at dispute resolution noticeboard? Can we copy this discussion over there and continue? I do not want that you disagree with me and we get deadlock. We will have more neutral users without "malformed rfc." ---TheSawTooth (talk) 21:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Tom Cain (author)

Hi Nik, I noticed you re-added a link to here as a reference for the Tom Cains article. That's a deadlink for me, it just redirects to some other random article. I was about to revert you but then saw in the article history that it seems to work for you? Bit odd, but anyway, I was just gonna change it for this, which is on the same website (and is the same paragraph I think), but, er, works. Whatcha think? Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 12:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dylan, I believe this is the article, but will leave for you to update! For future reference, you should not really remove deadlinks from articles - that's why we include all the citation information, as when the website changes we can often easily update . Nikthestunned 12:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Updated, cheers for that, and for the info (I really should have read WP:LINKROT properly before now!) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries; well spotted! Nikthestunned 13:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Girl Online

Hello! Your submission of Girl Online at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see new note on DYK nomination template. Yoninah (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Alfie Deyes Band Aid 30

There was plenty of criticism of rich celebrities – some with questionable tax affairs - asking ‘ordinary’ people to give to charity via Band Aid 30, so I’m not sure why you think this is a ‘fringe’ point of view. It might not have related specifically to Deyes personally, because his appearance at the recording studies wasn’t expected in advance, but surely it’s notable that minutes after raising money to ‘heal the world’ and ‘feed the world’ he saw no contradiction in flying in a private helicopter to a multi-millionaire’s private country estate for lunch and admiring the indoor swimming pool, arcade games room etc. And Deyes posted the film himself, so the facts aren’t in doubt.

I propose adding the following, leaving the facts to speak for themselves: “Immediately after the recording, Deyes filmed video footage of himself and friends travelling by private helicopter from the recording studios to lunch at Burford Priory, an Oxfordshire country estate owned by Matthew Freud. The video also showed a tour of estate’s swimming pool, arcade machines, home cinema and extensive farmland". JezGrove (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a fringe POV, given there's been literally no other mention of it anywhere online. Also, if an event is not covered by multiple media sources, it shouldn't be included simply as it's not notable (and adding it to Wikipedia will effectively make it notable, which is not what an encyclopedia should do). If you'd like to include a point to the Band Aid 30 article about this, and can find a couple of other mentions of this event and/or criticism, then feel free. As is though, adding a negative statement (or any statement really) based on a single article, to a page where everything else can be easily verified by multiple independent reliable sources, is not appropriate. Nikthestunned 12:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

When you're accused of WP:OWN in an edit summary, it is the height of hubris to then revert that edit. Please allow others to patrol the Zoe Sugg article so as to avoid any further conflicts between your ownership instincts and others' edits. Note that if someone other than you had reverted my edit, I would not be making an issue of the matter as I would have considered the reversion to be from an objective, disinterested party. Do the right thing. 32.218.38.227 (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I consider what I did to be "the right thing" - the Girl Online article includes further information, as I stated in the edit summary - and "took a couple of days off the internet" is the height of triviality. Having random policy-links thrown at me doesn't change that in any way. You added a lot of information based on ONE newspaper article when so-very-many have been written in the last few days, from very-different-standpoints, that it's wearying to keep up. If you'd care to expand on the information in the Girl Online article, with proper sourcing, and then add a bit of that to her article also, feel free. For now I'll do my best to keep it balanced. Nikthestunned 16:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

You'll never get to be an administrator by failing to understand that the link to WP:OWN is not a "random policy-link" [sic], but a link that most assuredly applies to you. You'll also never get to be an administrator by failing to recognize that The Guardian is a proper source. You'll never get to be an administrator by believing that whitwashing is "balanced". Finally, you'll never get to be an administrator by failing to recognize your own conflicts of interest. Time to do some self-reflection. 32.218.38.227 (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I have literally zero interest in the mop. And perhaps I was a bit flippant above, but the reasoning still stands IMO. The Guardian is one source of hundreds to have written about this furore, so while it is most assuredly a proper source, it's one in a sea of many. Nikthestunned 16:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'll copy the whole section over though I guess, to hopefully avoid this crap flying at me repeatedly over the next month or so... Nikthestunned 16:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Haus zum Walfisch 2.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Haus zum Walfisch 2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Girl Online

Mike V • Talk 08:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Karlhard

• While we may disagree about the value of keeping his articles, I think we can agree that this edits as a whole do more good than harm to the wiki and that we need more guys like him. Would you be willing to withdraw your delete !votes in favor of userfication? Pages in user space do not show up in the regular Wikipedia article look up and are basically deleted as far as the public is concerned. He's already lost one to speedy today... I just don't want this guy waking up finding that fours of is articles were deleted overnight. —CodeHydro 18:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Notability is a definite thing. If he spend 100 hours on those articles, they're still not going to be notable. SURELY it's better to educate and help new users to create useful content, which won't ever be deleted? Which can be expanded upon by themselves and others? I'm all for inclusion when it make sense - I've saved a few borderline articles from AfD myself - but these articles are useful to no-one so I'm afraid the AfDs will remain. (I did, by the way, do my best to look for sources for these in newspapers or reliable magazines before nominating - it wasn't just based on the pages themselves.) RE: userspace being "safer", I disgree there too. Unfortunately, google indexes user pages so they show up in searches... Meaning that someone looking for one of those completely non-notable companies WILL find the user-space wiki article, due to the way Google works. I've had early drafts copied to mainspace by ips due to this, which did indeed subsequently get (correctly) deleted. Nikthestunned 19:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

If it was for a less productive editor with only a single AfD then I'd have to agree. But the sheer number of AfDs in such a short time on someone who's given us so much in such short a time... well, I think just sending those articles into AfD is enough of a lesson for him. Making him spend time trying to save them in userspace, however fruitless, will teach him better research skills that he can use on writing the next article. In the end, the potential harm that could come from somebody finding a userspace article is nothing in comparison to the potential good that can come from showing this particular editor that his contributions are valued even if misguided. —CodeHydro 19:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

AfDs don't end in a day so I guess we can see how Karl feels. I, for one, would always want to be told where I'm going wrong and why - such that I can avoid it in future. As mentioned also, some of his other articles are properly sourced or can be properly expanded - the non-notable ones should be deleted as they can't. Nikthestunned 19:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:The Spy Who Loved Me (novel)

I saw your comment at Talk:Pure (Miller novel)/GA1 regarding MOS:LQ. Perhaps you would like to contribute to a discussion now taking place at Talk:The Spy Who Loved Me (novel)#Logical quotation. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Sam Roddick

Hi there, I got a message from you yesterday to say you had removed what I had added to Sam Roddicks page. I was wondering if you could help me, the information I am putting onto Sam's page has come straight from herself so how do I input this and reference? Thank Caru — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.68.241.82 (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Caru. Unfortunately the information you added was promotional in nature. To ensure you avoid this in future you should only add information which you have found widely reported in reliable sources. I had a quick look and found a couple of passing mentions (such as this) but that's not enough to add much more than the short statement already on the article. I did find this which looks a bit more in-depth, but again I'd not want to add too much without confirmation elsewhere. Cheers, Nikthestunned 10:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Joe Sugg Brith date

Hi I'm messaging you because you reverted an edit from the article Joe Sugg your reason being that the birthday was not from an official source. The sources I listed in the edit script included a YouTube video made by the person the article is about (Joe Sugg). I also listed Google as a source which if not at least a realible source I don't know what is. Also listed was this, which I can agree is not official but represents evidence that his birth is probably what the rest of the sources state. I don't think its possible for anyone to disagree that his birth is 08/09/1991. I don't know if I needed to cite it or reference it because I don't know how, so is it possible for you to help me. I mean Wikipedia is a place for useful information and this is useful information there are loads of articles that don't even state or reference to where they got the birth date from. I know we both could agree that Joe does not look 23 but the truth is clear with these sources. And also how come you got rid of the updated subscription number. Its the difference between 700,000 don't you think that should be updated and its referenced to an official website which says that there are 3.7m subscribers.

(User:H.Brian Griffin ^{talk | contribs} 18:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC))

Hi Brian. I reverted you again, per the lack of reliable sources... I've updated the channel stats properly (that update was OK you just didn't update the source alongside it) but the date of birth has to be left out for now as Joe hasn't received the kind of coverage we'd want before adding it. Here are some pointers anyway:

• Here are the Reliable sources guidelines, as all of your suggestions above are unsuitable - official sites and Google search results are not reliable
• The Biographies of living persons guideline outlines the reasons why verifiability is so important
• There's a preview button at the bottom of the edit window, which you should use before saving your changes - I received eight emails due to the paragraph above

Cheers, Nikthestunned 09:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Kiss Me Deadly

Hi Nikthestunned! Would it be possible to add a bit more biographical information on Catherine Clavering to the Kiss Me Deadly (company) article to make it a bit more appropriate for inclusion on List of fashion designers? Currently this is only really about the company, with next to no biographical info on Clavering, and the list is focused on pages with a reasonable level of biographical info on the designer(s) responsible. Mabalu (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mabalu Not really much out there I'm afraid, even for an award winning company =/ Feel free to remove if you think it's inappropriate - was mainly trying to find *somewhere* to de-orphan it. Nikthestunned 16:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Kiss Me Deadly bio

I tried to add biographical detail as requested but apparently you removed it. There is considerable information about me available online including on the site itself, not to mention on the foremost lingerie blog in the world, as well as trade journals. I've helped you out by googling myself for you. http://www.thelingerieaddict.com/2013/06/diversity-is-more-than-a-bra-size-what-its-like-to-be-a-woman-with-a-disability-in-the-lingerie-industry.html http://www.lingerieblog.co.uk/profile/profile-catherine-clavering-from-kiss-me-deadly/ http://www.kissmedeadly.co.uk/about/who http://www.liberonetwork.com/bodypositive/bopo-spotlight-kiss-me-deadly/ http://www.thelingerieaddict.com/2014/10/living-vulvodynia-practical-tips.html http://www.lingerieinsight.com/article-2557-opinion-why-we-need-to-cheat/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.49.163 (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Catherine. The problem with the above is Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, specifically that those sources are not reliable and to add the personal information you added _requires_ reliable sources. thelingerieaddict and lingerieblog are both blogs, which are not suitable. Same goes for official material or stuff you yourself have written, which discounts most of the others I'm afraid. To add personal information you need sources from third-party publications (which is to say: independent from you) which specifically state what it is you're adding (here's some further info: WP:BLPSOURCES). If you have some of those I'll be happy to help! Cheers, Nikthestunned 13:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Manchester meetup

Hi Nikthestunned. As requested, here is your reminder about the meetup in Manchester this Sunday. Hope to see you there! Bazonka (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Gold Coast Meter Maids

Nikthestunned,

Would you do me the courtesy of fully explaining why you undid every single one of my edits to the "Gold Coast Meter Maids" entry, which were all supported by relevant cites, by merely stating that they were "uncited (and inappropriate)"?

Tullyvallin (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Tullyvallin

So firstly, I might have been a bit hasty to revert the whole lot - sorry about that... That said, some of the language you've added is not appropriate (emphasis added for the terms I have specific objection to):

• "so-called meter maids"
• "with a bevy of maids to promote the area" <-- which isn't cited
• "A legal battle erupted" <-- this whole sentence is also uncited, not ideal when talking about legal stuff
• "There has been persistent criticism that the scantily-clad meter maids are an anachronism and an embarrassment" <-- is also uncited

As well as that some of the other, less controversial, sentences you added are also uncited - hence the revert. Having looked a bit closer now I guess this was less of a problematic rewrite than I first thought. If you wanna revert and adjust some of the above, I've no issue. (If you'd like the extra challenge it could do with splitting into sections and rewording so that sentences don't start with the word 'however' also ). Nikthestunned 08:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty annoyed. This is not the first time that I've had someone capriciously revert every change I've made to an entry and then admit that such sweeping action was inappropriate.

• I concede that the word "so-called" could be misinterpreted in that context, and should be left out.
• The phrase "bevy of meter maids" comes from Bruce Small's entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which I did omit to cite.
• "A legal battle erupted" is supported by the cite of Kathy Mark's article two lines down.
• The statement that "There has been persistent criticism that the scantily-clad meter maids are an anachronism and an embarrassment" is supported by the cite from the UK Daily Telegraph a few lines below.
• Modern style guides no longer support the "classic" notion that you can't start a sentence with "however", although I concede that a comma might be appropriate to show that you mean "nevertheless" or "but".

All in all then, a few discrete queries or comments were all that were needed, not wholesale reversion. I strongly maintain that, despite the minor problems I've conceded, my re-write of the article was a considerable improvement on what went before.

Tullyvallin (talk) 09:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Tulyvallin

Didn't seem all that neutral to me on the whole, given those above. Just because a newspaper uses highly POV statements doesn't mean we can't interpret than and use a more neutral tone (also, copy-pasting then not putting things in quotes is liable to get you reverted for copyright violations). When you're making large, sweeping changes which aren't 100% in-policy, you have to expect to be reverted occasionally (and should show a little more patience than you're showing here - see the use of "capriciously", and demanding a "full explanation", then complaining when you receive it). If you're upset by this interaction also, Wikipedia might not be the best place for you as I feel the above was perfectly civil. Nikthestunned 09:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and "however" isn't just bad style, see WP:EDITORIAL. Nikthestunned 10:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my annoyance was certainly not at your response, but with the original reversion. I should have stated that I accept and appreciate your statement that you were hasty in fully reverting my changes. I also appreciate your very prompt response to my messages.

I'm perfectly happy to concede that changes can and will be made to contributions I make to Wikipedia, and I have accepted some of your specific criticisms. Nevertheless, I naturally like to feel that any reversions have been made with a degree of thought, hence my request for a "full explanation", which was in the light of the brief explanation on the History page.

I suppose that the use of a four-word phrase from a source can be considered a copyright violation. Perhaps I could could avoid that charge by changing bevy to group and add the appropriate inline cite to the whole sentence.

I now see what you are getting with regarding the word however, and I agree that words such as but, however, and although could suggest a connection between two statements where there isn't any. However (!), I am aware of that, and I don't feel that problem occurred in what I'd written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tullyvallin (talk • contribs) 10:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Come over to the Cox Automotive talk page when you get a chance

I started a thread about listing the divisions at Talk:Cox Automotive.Timtempleton (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)