User talk:Nyttend/Archive 25

Talk page archives Current talk Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 Archive 4 • Archive 5 • Archive 6 Archive 7 • Archive 8 • Archive 9 Archive 10 • Archive 11 • Archive 12 Archive 13 • Archive 14 • Archive 15 Archive 16 • Archive 17 • Archive 18 Archive 19 • Archive 20 • Archive 21 Archive 22 • Archive 23 • Archive 24 Archive 25 • Archive 26 • Archive 27 Archive 28 • Archive 29 • Archive 30 Archive 31 • Archive 32 • Archive 33 Archive 34 • Archive 35 • Archive 36 Archive 37 • Archive 38 • Archive 39 Archive 40 • Archive 41 • Archive 42 Archive 43 • Archive 44 • Archive 45 Archive 46 • Archive 47 • Archive 48 Archive 49 • Archive 50 • Archive 51 Archive 52 • Archive 53 • Archive 54 Archive 55 • Archive 56 • Archive 57 (template link) (revert point)

Boelus vs. Howard City

I see that you've been involved in the question of whether the proper name for the article on the village in Howard County should be "Howard City, Nebraska" or "Boelus, Nebraska".

I've looked for evidence supporting either name, and am inclined to favor the latter. However, I don't want to move the page without some kind of attempt to get consensus. If you'd be interested, I've laid out the evidence that I've found at the article's talk page. Ammodramus (talk) 05:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Re:Attrition

I am glad you have not retired, but can sympathize (and am in a similar funk at the moment). Do what makes you happy - I took a bunch of pictures of covered bridges and am having fun pottering around adding content, albeit slowly. Hang in there, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:19, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Bloomington meetup

Thanks a lot for letting me know! I've added my name to the list at Wikipedia:Meetup/Bloomington, IN; hope that'll do as far as the organizers are concerned. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. And yes, if you'd like to forward the listserv email message to me, that would be great. -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Champagne Bricout

Bricout champagne was an important Champagne company that produced three million bottles per year, in the top 10 of champagne until 2003. I had not time to finish, or reference, you deleted before and you probably did not even read. Your erase criteria: A7. is unfounded. This important company then made the headlines of Champagne and is connected to the historical past of the city Avize. It is an important addition to the history of the city of Avize.

Thank you to tell me whether the article should be written differently from the French to qualify as interesting, because I just translated an existing record verbatim from Wikipedia.fr for Anglophones cares to know this history, so there !

You can also delete the city of Avize, since you do not see the importance or meaning. Patkoc (talk) 10:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Finding images

Hello Nyttend! I noticed you were a contributor to this discussion... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Suggestion_for_programmers_-_finding_images As OP of the discussion, I just posted some new information that I think is important and goes to the heart of the problem. Hope you don't mind my letting you know. Take care. 3dimen (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Ooops, just noticed I probably should have created this with the New section button instead of editing the page. Kinda new to the Talk pages. Hope you get this. 3dimen (talk) 09:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Margaret Curran (disambiguation)

You may want to comment at this page, as you removed the speedy tag. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 12:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of archaeological sites on the National Register of Historic Places in Indiana (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Archaic period

National Register of Historic Places listings in Illinois (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Saline River

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Image protocol question

Hey image expert, what determines whether an image, subject to copyright, but with a non-free rationale, should be posted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion, or Wikipedia:Non-free content review. See User_talk:Dharmadhyaksha#CSD_Notification for background (skipping over the discussion of the first deleted file, and jumping to "This users many uploads are copyvios. Now tagging them".--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, that was helpful.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 18:28, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review of AfD that you participated in

As you participated a few days ago in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road, I thought you might wish to know that the result of that discussion (to keep the article) is being challenged in a deletion review. If you have any views on this (i.e. whether to endorse the result, overturn it or something else) then please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 2. Prioryman (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

File:VictoriaHallUrsulineAcademyLynchHouse.jpg

I thought about getting a photo you asked me for, but it seems we already have a picture (it is used for that entry in National Register of Historic Places listings in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Huntington Grange

Hi Nyttend i see you added a pic to Huntington Grange article. I don't have access to its coverage within any preview from the Dictionaary of Ohio historic places; do you have access i wonder. I was not sure if I could link it from List of Grange Hall buildings back in September 2010, so have just had a question about it at the talk page there. Is/was this in fact a Grange hall of the Patrons of Husbandry? It would be great if you could answer by adding anything to its article. cheers, --doncram 13:43, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Move

There's a "discussion" somewhat related to you're move of Prostitution in Palestine at User_talk:Wbm1058#Move. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Un-ambiguous?

Didn't like to change it, in case you meant it to be 'ambiguous'... (At the Persecution AfD.) Peridon (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Carnegie Library

Please help!!!!!! I have a picture of the former Carnegie library in Akron, Ohio, but I do not know how to post it to the article. The link is http://www.akronlibrary.org/digital-lib/Library%20History/Images/LHM0008B.jpg. Any help that you could provide me in this matter would be greatly appreciated!!!!!! 71.72.29.241 (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC) 71.72.29.241 (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Proxy block

Please see this discussion at WP:AN (if you haven't already). Consider yourself asked (the why, not to bite).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Commission on Elections

Hi Nyttend, I had tagged Commission on Elections with a {{db-move}} from the result of an RM I closed. Either Commission on Elections (Philippines) should be moved there, per the RM, or you should overwrite my closure with a "not moved" verdict. Otherwise, the RM is just confusing and misleading. Don't you agree? --BDD (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hearing nothing, I'll leave a note on the article's talk page. I'm not watching this page anymore, so let me know on my talk page if you want to discuss the matter further. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Watermark removal

Howdy. So the lesson of the day is to not use G6 for watermark maintenance. Roger that. :) I wasn't sure how to indicate that the watermark was removed beyond removing the watermark template. I had asked in both the help irc channel and the main -en channel. It was suggested to me to use G6. The reason I figured that the old revisions should be deleted (at least with the freer images) was the line "Additionally, if this image is a freely licensed image, it is in violation of Wikipedia's image use policy" in the watermark template. That line links to the image use policy. The wording there makes me think that the watermarked revisions should be deleted. What are your thoughts on this?--Rockfang (talk) 16:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The policy says that we shouldn't use images with watermarks, but that doesn't mean that they're banned entirely. Keeping a watermarked image would be bad if we had a non-watermarked image of the same subject or if there were some other way to replace the whole image, but when the watermarked image is the best (or only) that we have, we should keep the original version. Since the problem with watermarks is that they get in the way and are unnecessary distractions, they're not a big enough problem that we should hide all traces of them. Nyttend (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What's more, deleting the original revision would cause problems with attribution. See SfanIMG's comments on your talk page — if we delete the original free images, it will be easy to get confused and think that these images were your creations. Nyttend (talk) 18:43, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. So for non-free images that I remove the watermarks from I should replace the watermark template with {{subst:orfurrev}} and for the freer images I should just remove watermark template?--Rockfang (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that's the best course of action, yes. I'd rather keep the old nonfree revisions as well, but policy is unambiguous that those need to be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Well done for some elegant photoshopping but …. I deleted one previous version that Rockfang had dealt with then I decided it was not worth doing any more. They are not serious copyvios and they are hidden as old versions. Indeed, I question whether it is worth removing the watermarks at all. The images were (correct me if I'm wrong) all present on a fair-use basis and the watermarks were not intrusive, in which case it is reasonable (and more honest) to leave the original watermark in place. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• No complaints about deleting copyvios; that's why I tagged old nonfree revisions for deletion like I would with any other old revisions of nonfree images. I'm only working to keep images that don't violate policies. Nyttend (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

An AFD you participated in has been relisted

After a deletion review, a recently closed AFD has been relisted. I am contacting everyone who participated the first time who hasn't found their way there already. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Bastion Road (2nd nomination) Dream Focus 08:18, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Photos of pending NRHP listings

I haven't intentionally photographed pending listings, but I don't see any reason not to. The only thing odd about having a pending listing category would be that it would be a temporary holding pen, which I haven't seen before, but see no reason against it. Go for it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd thought of tagging it with Commons:Template:Empty category; I didn't make this proposal to you and the others until after checking to see that it existed. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A good idea, conforming to the Moscow Rule of Shopping: if you're on the spot and have an opportunity even if you don't need it right away, grab it. Acroterion (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That's why I've watched this page carefully ever since I discovered it, and also the NR pending lists for soon-to-be-listed sites. Depending on the former list has its risks, since some properties don't get listed, but I'd rather take the effort of visiting a site and uploading a photo that I didn't need than not take the effort for a place that gets listed later. Nyttend (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I also watch the Florida state submissions to the NRHP, since it gives a several month lead time. Didn't create any special "pending" categories, but that could be useful. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 17:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't made a practice of looking for pending listings, although I'd certainly photograph one of I knew about it and was in the area. In that case, I'd probably categorize it in Commons under "NRHP in X County", figuring that it could be removed if it wasn't actually added to the list. Ammodramus (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't keep tabs on pending listings, but I like the idea of having a pending listings category over on Commons. I always search for photos when I add listings to the tables here, but given the shortcomings of the search engine there, it would be nice to have a category to check. --sanfranman59 (talk) 02:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

AN

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at WP:AN.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Quis separabit? 18:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Uvala Help

Hey Nyttend, thank you for your help, I believe that i've made the recommended changes that you advised.

V/R

G310Daniel 

(G310Daniel (talk) 23:45, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

DYK for Lemuel Moss

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Bishop’s Stortford

I’ll reply on my talk page. -- pne (talk) 06:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor

This editor has disruptively edited, even when I warned him to stop. I reverted the following edits because they weren't accurate, as shown in this video uploaded yesterday afternoon (the date is written next to the video description). Then, he pretends that none of his edits even happened by correcting his inaccurate info, as shown here. I would've never reverted had he waited for the real info to appear, but that's not the case here. Is that considered "ownership of an article"? Platinum Star (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

So far, no replies. But no big deal, thanks for the help anyways. Platinum Star (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 20:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Value enhancement

OK, thanks for that, deleted as spam and nn Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Cincinnati, Ohio

Hi Nyt ... I recently put in a good deal of work adding information about Multiple Property Submissions in the Summary column of the northern Cincinnati list. The only explanation you gave for reverting my work was the edit summary "Those comments make the column too wide; restoring standard hidden comments". I don't get it. First off, I think table column widths are mostly dictated by the width and resolution of one's monitor. The column widths looked fine to me. Second, are there guidelines somewhere of which I'm not aware that limit the width of a column in a table?

It seems to me that including the MPS information in the tables is valuable because it can help in article development. I've made adding this information one of the things I routinely do when I add new listings. If you feel strongly that this information doesn't belong in the tables, perhaps we can kick it around a little at WT:NRHP and get some other views?

As for the hidden comments, they really serve no purpose other than adding unnecessary bytes to each page. It's pretty clear from the row header ("|Description=") that one is supposed to enter a description there. It seems odd to me that you apparently find those hidden comments more useful than the MPS information. --sanfranman59 (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the MPS information is trivial. I don't think the information is any more trivial than noting when the building was constructed, the architect or the architectural style. It's among the information that the NPS includes in the weekly new listing announcements, so they clearly don't consider it to be trivial. MPS documents provide historical context for the sites that are part of the multiple submission. This information should be of interest to editors who wish to create articles about a given listing. When adding this information to a list, I provide a link to the WP article that describes what a Multiple Property Submission, Multiple Resource Area and Thematic Resource is. I don't understand why you think a reader would find this confusing. Can you elaborate?

As for citing sources, as you know, the source for most of the information we present in the tables is the NPS NRIS database. I believe that every list includes at least one reference to the NRIS database. MPS information is included in the NRIS database. In any case, I see that doncram has restored the information I added and has added a source for each MPS note. Does this allay your concerns? --sanfranman59 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to work with you here, Nyt, but your responses on my talk page seem to suggest that you're not willing to compromise on this. On the other hand, I see that you've not reverted doncram's work that restored my edits to that page and added some additional information. Does this mean that you're okay with including the information in the Summary column as long as I include a reference citing the NRIS database or an MPS form as a source for each entry? --sanfranman59 (talk) 04:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I see (although I don't know what "he prefers B and RRR with only a pretence of D" means). In that case, I'm going to take this issue to the community at WT:NRHP to get some other views. If you don't mind, I'm going to copy and paste some of our back-and-forth the last couple of days to initiate a discussion there. Please join in. --sanfranman59 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi again, Nyt. Just a quick note to let you know that I've posted a message at WT:NRHP#MPS info in tables or not? about this issue. --sanfranman59 (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Me again, Nyt ... would you please chime in over at WT:NRHP#MPS info in tables or not?? A proposal has been made to include MPS information as a footnote in the tables using the 'name-extra' feature of the 'NRHP row' template. See the Syracuse list for an example. Would this be acceptable to you? --sanfranman59 (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Lofoi

Go ahead and unprotect. The edit wars on those articles have died down. — kwami (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: 2013 tampa bay rays season

I tagged 2013 tampa bay rays season for speedy deletion because when it was created a few months ago, it was incorrectly capitalized. 2013 Tampa Bay Rays season has since been created, capitalized appropriately. As of right now, searching "2013 tampa bay rays season" with all lowercase letters just redirects to the main Tampa Bay Rays article when the redirect doesn't need to exist at all because a search for it doesn't have to be case sensitive in this situation.

For example, I could enter "tampa bay rays" in the search bar without needing to capitalize each word and it would take me to Tampa Bay Rays anyway. However, I would have to type "2013 Tampa Bay Rays season" in order to get to 2013 Tampa Bay Rays season. TampaBay721 (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

photos of bridges restored

You asked in some edit summaries "why are you following me?". Well, I noticed that you weare bashing me in comments elsewhere, and it attracted my attention. You alluded to long-past dispute on List of NHLs in CT, where, when I revisit Talk:List of NHLs in CT, i see really extreme editing in violation of any reasonable interpretation of wp:BRD on your part. It is unpleasant to reconsider that. You have proven to be very difficult to communicate with, over the years. I don't know why you have chosen not to communicate in normal discussions at Talk pages, but rather have communicated by reversion edits with cryptic edit summaries.

You don't own the Ohio NRHP articles. --doncram 00:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You say "when you add content that's plainly at variance with our standards, why do you expect me to attempt to reason with you". I have no understanding of what you think is "plainly at variance to our standards". Obviously there is room in the articles for several photos providing different views. Please do explain with respect to specific articles, what you think is wrong. I don't expect to enjoy this discussion, but at least we are sort of talking, maybe. If you have gone and deleted the photos already, i'll tend to want to take back any conciliatory tone. --doncram 01:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Well i see you had gone and deleted them. I restored them. In one edit summary you assert something about a non-existent page wp:FILE. I can follow a link from that to a style guide, where indeed there is a suggestion that one can create a gallery on commons. That's a good idea when there are lots of pics, like for some HD articles where there are 50 pics and a gallery in the article itself is cumbersome. That style guide does not preclude the use of a small gallery, like for 3 pics in the given bridge article case. You have really dogmatic reading of the guide to feel you must remove good content.

In other edit summaries I think you are suggesting that for a short article it is impossible to alternate pic placement satisfactorily. It is not a reasonable conclusion to delete the photos. Expand the article, perhaps? Don't you have Ohio sources? Why are the Ohio articles not more developed by now. --doncram 01:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why you say that WP:FILE is nonexistent. It's existed since 2008, and when you left this comment, it was a redirect to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images, which is quite relevant for the issue at hand. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Lucy Lippard file

Hi there, I'm responding to your speedy deletion of a photo I uploaded of art critic Lucy Lippard. The image is from flickr (not my account) and licensed as Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0). The license explicitly states that this image can be circulated, altered, etc. as long as attribution is given and the image is used for non-commercial purposes. I provided a rationale as well as attribution, and Wikipedia is a non-commercial site. It does not make sense to me that it was deleted under F9, Unambiguous copyright infringement. Furthermore, there are no free alternatives to this image. I understand uploading this image to Wikipedia with attribution as fair use. Can you explain why you believe that is not the case? --Arthistorygrrl (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Zipcode directory

Hi-The zipcode directory you put together for starting articles on unincorporated communities that have zipcodes is very useful. I like starting articles about unincorporated communities. the communities have their own history. Many thanks for the zipcode directory.RFD (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Linky?? I would love to see itCoal town guy (talk) 17:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The link is:User: ZIP-thanks-RFD (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

GROOOOVYCoal town guy (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A word of caution, if you removed any bluelinks from the list, please make sure they are not redirects. I have come across a few on the list that were redirected-thanks-RFD (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally, I've removed only articles. I've made some exceptions: sometimes the post office name is different from the municipal name, whether completely different ("Boelus" is the post office name for Howard City, Nebraska), or sometimes there's different punctuation or capitalisation, such as the occasional LaSomething, Statename when the article is at La Something, Statename or Lasomething, Statename. However, I've kept the blue links there when they've been redirected to some other place, such as disambiguation pages or articles about other communities. Nyttend (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The effort is duly appreciated in any form. Kentucky is a spiders nest as far as nomenclature and any help with those communities requires the patience of JobCoal town guy (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I created them a few years ago from the deleted lists of ZIP codes in each state (deletion discussion); since I've actively used them for a purpose instead of just keeping them around, they aren't a problem either as a repost or as a WP:FAKEARTICLE. I figured that they'd be useful for starting articles; while we've established consensus that all real communities are notable, it's easier to argue notability when there's something official there: those who doubt inherent notability generally seem to be more easily convinced of the notability of something that's not just a dot on a map, and I like to fill out articles with something more than just a single GNIS feature record. Nyttend (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I lived many many in some of those dots on a map, they are very real and just as notable as some "larger" places. Dont get me wrong, I loved London and Munich just fine, but I love my small coal towns tooCoal town guy (talk) 02:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No disagreement with your sentiment. I was referring to places that are just dots on the map, as far as our sourcing goes (i.e. nobody seems to live there anymore, and they never had anything official except for appearances on USGS quads), but not trying to demean them. Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies, I saw no disrespect at all and I am thankful for your help hereCoal town guy (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Deleted image rationale

Not for nothing (it's a non-issue) but you do realize that the rationale you gave for deleting File:RussanRiverBrewingLogo.jpg was a bit inaccurate -- the file hadn't been on Wikipedia for more than 48 hours... let alone the seven days you cited. I know, from previous encounters with you, what a stickler you are for rules, policies and regulations and whatnot, so I just wanted to point that out to you. Ryecatcher773 (talk) 14:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Conk 9 and 6 years of copyvios

Based on your comments here, I thought that you'd be interested in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by Conk 9 and socks and Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 October 20.--GrapedApe (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Baynard Rush Hall

Hello! Your submission of Baynard Rush Hall 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! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:21, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

ZIP codes R US

Hey there-

I have a few questions that hopefully you can help with. I am at this time hitting all of the KY olocations that have a zip but no article. HOWEVER, I noticed that the WV list is crossed out. SO, does this mean we have hit all WV locations, OR not? IF we have not, is there any way that list can be restored and I would tackle that as well. Again, many thanks for the listCoal town guy (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Swindon Town Swoodilypoopers

I see that you removed the Wikipedia entry for The Swindon Town Swoodilypoopers. I urge you to reconsider this terrible decision. The Swindon Town Swoodilypoopers are an incredibly important, vital cultural identity (one that should certainly be searchable on the fine establishment of Wikipedia). I hope that, in the future, you will research things that you delete rather than doing things impulsively that you have not thought out or about which you have not attempted to find more. You are a horrible person, and should feel bad.

You are named in an Arbcom request

Here. Cla68 (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Baynard Rush Hall

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

IP editor

I'm still convinced that this editor is Lui2021 because he keeps on adding copyrighted material (case in point, this), as well as posting inaccurate info. Plus, I'm noticing that he's been stealing info from sports websites and posting them here, which is what Lui2021 did in the past. Platinum Star (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

please provide copy of page you just deleted

Copyright infringement is illegal, and attempting to convince me otherwise is unwelcome.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nyttend, would you please provide by email or otherwise a copy of Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) page which you just deleted. --doncram 04:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC) I received your negative reply. I believe it is your obligation as an administrator to provide a copy of the page that you deleted. You can certainly do so by email to me. I believe it is an abuse of administrator tools for you to delete an article like that without discussion, as I am rather sure that I would disagree with your assessment of copyright violation. And it is certainly an abuse to do so and to refuse to provide the material that you deleted. Please do send a complete copy of the article to me by email. --doncram 04:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC) I am unsure about your rationale for deleting (again) Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio). You initially deleted the article on September 27, because it "has no meaningful, substantive content." It was restored after doncram added to the content in his sandbox. By October, the article was a pretty decent start with a proper infobox, properly licensed photograph of the building, description of the architecture and some history, and citations to reliable sources. Your stated reason for deleting the article today was that it contained "an excessive quote of nonfree copyrighted material." However, the only quote in the article is a brief 10-word excerpt from the "Ohio Historic Places Dictionary," which was attributed and cited to its original source and author. This 10-word excerpt does not appear to be "excessive" and instead appears to fall quite readily within WP:FAIRUSE, which permits the use of such short excerpts: "Articles and other Wikipedia pages may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author, and specifically indicated as direct quotations via quotation marks." Can you please take another look and explain further your reasoning for deletion? Cbl62 (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Talk-page stalker here... I sympathize with Nyttend's action, although I disagree with some of his reasoning. I agree with Nyttend's judgment that the quotation is excessive; the main thought could be quoted without quoting the entire sentence. However, I don't think that the copyvio is serious enough to justify a total embargo on the article. I can't read Nyttend's mind, but it appears to me that his real concern is that this article was repeatedly recreated or restored to main space without resolving the issues that had led to deletion. The most recent version still had essentially no substantive content, and footnotes like "From another book preview snippet available in Google search results" and "Note, however this would seem not to be covered in Ohio Historic Places Dictionary online book; there's nothing about all of Morrow County" are "not ready for prime time" (i.e., main space). This cited source would be a basis for a fine addition to the article Chesterville, Ohio, but it doesn't seem to say anything much about this particular building. --Orlady (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC) No point in replying at someone else's talk page, since you're all here...Remember that the idea of fair use only permits irreplaceable content. It's excessive to quote anything nonreplaceable and thus a copyvio: unlike when we quote other people's words as a means of conveying their impressions of the subject of those words, this was quite obviously a method of using someone else's words needlessly to describe the article. Doncram has been warned about this in the past, so he knows the difference and is beyond excuse. I'd rather delete the copyvios than go through the hassle of another ANI, but if I find more copyvios, I'll eventually be dragged to the point of believing that deletion will be insufficient for preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia, deterring the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms. Because we're all equal, we're all liable to sanctions for committing copyright infringement; if I did the same, I would deserve to have my creations deleted and my talk page filled with warnings. Nyttend (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Nyttend -- We went through this previously at Talk:C. Ferris White. A single 10-word quote, properly attributed, is the epitome of appropriate fair use and is not a copyright violation. As Moonriddengirl and Dirtlawyer pointed out there, "the 'no free equivalent' provision of WP:NFCC applies only to 'other non-free content,' [e.g., photos, recordings] not brief textual quotations that are properly quoted and footnoted." Even more so here where the quote is not merely descriptive, but qualitative in nature, reflecting a recognized expert's view that the property in question is one of the finest in a particular area. I urge you to reconsider and restore the article. BTW, I do agree with some of Orlady's comments about a couple of the footnotes being "not ready for prime time," but that can be fixed without deleting the entire article. Cbl62 (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Definitely not. This quote was not being used transformatively; it was simply a quick way to expand the article by using someone else's words. Doncram's own words, paraphrasing the statement in question, would be quite capable of conveying the same sense. It quote blatantly fails the first point of WP:F: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose." Kindly stop belaboring the point. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Nyttend -- I'm not belaboring it, but you seem to be ignoring what you've been told here and at Talk:C. Ferris White by Moonriddengirl, Dirtlawyer and others. Will you reconsider and restore the article? Cbl62 (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC) No. Will you reconsider and stop attempting to get me to restore a copyright infringement? You cannot convince me to engage in contributory copyright infringement. Nyttend (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC) You don't seem to be listening. The very passage you have quoted above makes clear in its introductory language that it only applies to non-textual material. It says, "Other non-free content—including all copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license—may be used on the English Wikipedia only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." I will not comment further here, but your interpretation appears to be plainly incorrect and does not justify deletion of the article. Cbl62 (talk) 04:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Very well. Try reading Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, which says nothing about the medium in question, and which stipulates "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." I am quite weary of repeated attempts to convince to participate in copyright infringement; further attempts to convince me will be removed from this page, further copyright infringements will be deleted summarily, and those committing infringement will be blocked. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC) I too agree that it can be considered an abuse of administrative privilege to condenm -an entire article- when only a small portion of it represents CV. At best it would be a failure to behave collegiately among the community. The most appropriate course of action, given the attention this is receiving, would had been/be to restore the article, without the alleged CV fragment and tag the article with any appropriate notices while simultaneously starting up a section in the article's Talk Page about the CV issuue/s in question for community consensus. I am perfectly aware that CV rules allow for immediate deletion of material -and my record will show that I take article CV very seriously myself- but, again, to condenm the -entire- article, was not the way to go in this instance. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC), and I approve this message.

TLDR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nyttend, I asked a narrow question "Nyttend, would you please provide by email or otherwise a copy of Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) page which you just deleted." You replied at my Talk page: No, I will not. You included an excessive quote of nonfree copyrighted material, and I will not commit copyright infringement by copying it. Nyttend (talk) 04:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Administrators are under no obligation to provide copies of deleted content. When the content has been deleted because of a copyvio, it would at the minimum be contributory copyright infringement, so I will not break the law by restoring your copyright infringement. Nyttend (talk) 05:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC) Sorry, didn't respond to your entire message. It is not a abuse of administrative tools to delete pages containing copyright infringement; otherwise every G12 speedy deletion would be an abuse of administrative tools. Nyttend (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2012 (UTC) The narrow question is answered, i.e. that you refused. And another administrator has emailed a copy of the page to me, so I no longer need it from you. I learned from browsing about administrator responsibilities that an administrator is not in fact obligated to provide a copy of copyvio material (tho there seems to be disagreement on whether there is a copyvio, and if there is copyvio, you would be free to provide a copy). Otherwise, I don't know what anyone is learning here. Maybe on one basic level, I wonder if you can accept my saying that if you want to exercise administrative privileges to enforce standards on NRHP articles in Ohio, which you closely monitor, then you need to be open somehow to discussion on what those standards are, and you need to communicate about what you perceive as violations of your standard. If you don't want to be involved in communicating and learning about copyright policy or other matters that come up, then IMHO you should not be exercising administration powers in this area. I personally am willing to make some effort to meet some possibly higher standard for Ohio NRHP articles that you wish to enforce, if you would participate in some give-and-take, including at a basic level your simply articulating what you want and what you don't want, in words. Even though I don't agree that you have any absolute right to enforce an arbitrary standard, I am trying to nonetheless show some respect for your wish that Ohio articles start at some higher level than is required by general wikipedia policies. Signalling this (though you probably did not notice), I put into the wp:NRHPhelp guide some advice that I thought I was discerning from you, i.e. that you think anyone should check the Ohio Historic Places Dictionary in any new NRHP Ohio article (that advice is now directly available at shortcut wp:NRHPhelpOH.) I would be willing to agree to do that, i.e. either to use that source or to indicate it provides no info in a given case, as part of settling something with you. In the very article that you deleted, I had made a point to indicate that I had tried and failed to find anything in that dictionary (i wrote: "this would seem not to be covered in Ohio Historic Places Dictionary online book; there's nothing about all of Morrow County"). That was a message to you, personally, left in a footnote for you to see, knowing you were watching this article topic, and I presume you did see that message. Obviously, the note could have been removed by you or anyone, and perhaps it should have been put originally on the Talk page instead, but i think i was not necessarily expecting you to look at a Talk page before reacting, when you found the re-started short article. (And then later, the footnote should have been removed by me or anyone, because i had in fact later found and referenced OHPD material about the place, after all.) I dunno, maybe you were in fact actually offended by the footnote somehow? I have little idea about what you want and don't want. On your refusing to provide the article to me, I think you need to understand that you certainly could have provided it by email; your statements that you would be breaking a law by doing so are simply and completely incorrect. I think you need to get some clarification elsewhere, somehow, if you really believe that. It would be a pretty horrible world if we could not quote from anything, ever, even in private emails which clearly don't constitute any kind of public publication. It certainly undermines communication and discussion, if you delete and don't share and if you further seek to cut off discussion here. And, as suggested by your top-of-talk-page statement, I believe in general you are usually not willing to discuss things elsewhere. I recognize that you are a volunteer, like me, and that we do not have infinite obligations to participate in useless discussions, but I do think there's some useful discussion to have somewhere, sometime, that you and I and others could actually learn from, around copyright issues. E.g. what is short enough for a quote to be considered an acceptable short quote? (200 words, if you have to set a rule of thumb? 10 words?), what on earth is the "transformativeness" quality that moonriddengirl cited as desirable previously? (probably desirable), is there an operating requirement in wikipedia for quotes to be transformative? (i think not), was the quote I used here actually transformative (I think it was). I thank the commenters in the now-closed previous discussion. I rather assume more discussion won't happen here, and maybe that is best. I guess that a deletion review would be the next step in a process to get more eyes on the question of this one article and its 10 word quote, as a small example to learn from. --doncram 15:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

At my Talk page, you asked me "to write substantially less". Okay, how about this: do you understand that, in the deleted article, I was actually trying to comply with what I thought you wanted? And that I wrote that into wp:NRHPhelpOH? What advice would you give to any editor starting Ohio NRHP articles? What would you change in wp:NRHPhelpOH? --doncram 20:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Beatrice Hicks

I've added 300 characters of prose. I believe Template:Did you know nominations/Beatrice Hicks is ready to go live. On the off chance that you also do GA reviews, the article has been waiting to be reviewed for a few days as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for getting and supporting the "joke", which has led to the creation and improvement of articles in Wisconsin and Australia like Gibraltar District School No. 2, which is just fantastic. :D

LauraHale (talk) 03:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah well. Then just coincidence. ;) Another editor and I have nominated 7 articles not in that European country with Gibraltar in the name for DYK. 2 are in Wisconsin, 3 in the Australian Capital Territory, 1 in New South Wales and 1 in Western Australia. I got the idea to do it after I saw Gibraltar on a map at a museum and was like ZOMG! DID NOT KNOW! Anyway, your article is really impressive. I wish I could write that well. :) --LauraHale (talk) 03:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Just really awesome work. :D There are a number of places in Australia I could work on... but I got to the point where I thought it had become akin to beating a dead horse, and I should work more on stuff for n:Wikinews:IPC Nor-Am Cup Wikipedia wise. Writing Wikipedia articles is good research for interviews. But any more work on USA Gibraltar articles would be nice. :D (Or if anything with a similar name in Asia or Africa or South America or elsewhere in Oceania...) --LauraHale (talk) 03:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome for the photo of the Gibraltar school #2. I have replied more in depth on my talk page. Royalbroil 05:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi-I started the Gibraltar, Washington article and added GNIS to the Gibraltar, Pennsylvania. Both need infoboxes. I hope you can make them DYK articles out of them-thanks-RFD (talk) 13:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

CSD G5 declined

Hello!
You recently declined the CSD G5 request of the article List of awards and nominations received by Hina Khan given reason that "Several people have made substantial contributions here". I would hence like to point out who those several people are. The wikisense tool lists down top contributors as follows:

• User:119.73.46.2 - Geolocates to Islamabad
• User:182.182.21.96 - Geolocates to Islamabad
• User:Amina ashraf khan - Proven sock of User:Mr Hamza. If you ask some regular check users on his case, they would confirm his location also to be same.
• User:119.73.34.219 - Geolocates to Islamabad
• User:Bgwhite - Now him i would call as the genuine 2nd different person.
• User:119.73.47.154 - Geolocates to Islamabad

Do you want to reconsider your "several people" statement now? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

List of Regular Show episodes

On my talk page I've accepted that I made a pig's ear of this — got carried away after deleting the verbatim copyright of Regular Show (season 4). I'm not quite clear what you are asking me to do, you seem to be suggesting that I redelete, but I'm not clear why, given that I made an error in the first place. Is there a "don't" missing, or this this a technical thing that I'll need explained to me? Also not sure about the wheeling comment, I've never edited this before Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. I'm not convinced that this article is as kosher as I've been told by all and sundry.

• For the season 4 article that I deleted, a search with the first sentence of each episode description led to the corresponding verbatim description of that episode on the cartonnnetwork website
• On the main article, I did the same on a couple of episodes, I've picked a few more at random below eg.

• episode 66 first sentence search gives this
• 73 gives this
• 78 gives this
• Sigh... and the season 4 blatant copyright violation ( I used the same search for first sentence) has been reincorporated into the main article

If you are prepared to defend this stuff, it's up to you, and I'm not going to wheel. I got flamed once, and I've no intention of inviting another onslaught. I'm walking away from this, if you think there's anything I really have to do, technicality or not, then take it to ANI. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

but I'm not guaranteeing that I'll ignore season 4 if it's split off again. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for the unjustified comment above, and I got myself into this mess by deleting the whole article. I'm not really a quitter — and even the less civil comments by other editors on my talk page were a bit half-hearted compared to some I get. If we are keeping the article, there is a risk that we will tread on each other's toes, so let me know what you want me to do, and I'll do it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, you've lost me. AFAIK, I deleted the season 4 separate article as per usual, deleted the main article as normal, and I don't think I've restored anything. I don't even know what these meta powers are, let alone have rights (; Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I knew i shouldn't be playing with kryptonite Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Sven Manguard's talk page.
Message added 13:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Gibraltar District School No. 2

Whoops! I should have discussed with you before making the edit. Sorry. If you see any other edits I make that are incorrect, please tell me. Thank you. On another note, would you mind taking a look at WP:Henry Muhlenberg? The last bullet point in Legacy and Honors has his middle name spelled as Melchoir. It should be Melchior. The error was made at the National Register of Historic Places because Melchior is spelled correctly in the application. Thanks for all you do. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Orphaned talk page

No, i will only tag for acknowledgment of admin whether page move to article or delete. Is not my job to justify whether that talk is legitimate to become article because in first if it is legitimate, why user want to create in talk page, and not article itself. Thats the point. --Aleenf1 15:48, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Apologise, i think i'm overreacted to you. I knew your intention, but fair to say i'm not a good judge, many admins already mention about this, still my answer will be the same. Thanks. --Aleenf1 14:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

True Capitalist Radio

I see that you have deleted the "True Capitalist Radio" page right here on Wikipedia. What made you do that? Mario Saenz 16:53, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair use question

Sorry if I'm misreading something here, but to save myself from making the same mistake in future, in what way was File:HashashinvsKnight.jpg not a "non-free image that is tagged with a clearly invalid fair-use tag"? It's somebody's blatantly copyrighted artwork that's been uploaded with the fair-use claim of "this is for critical commentary of the artwork/artist/genre in question and it's also a press kit image", but there is no such commentary (just a vague caption on the Assassins article of how it is an "archetypal illustration") and it's not from a press kit. Or am I misunderstanding what "With exception of the two specific instances above" means here? --McGeddon (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

CD covers

About File:Rebel cd cover.jpg, File:Daruvu cd cover.jpg and File:Gabbar singh cd cover.jpg, note that although the images were nominated as functional duplicates, the uploader replaced the other images in the article on 27 October while the deletion discussion was still running. The images were nevertheless deleted per WP:NFCC#3a on 1 November because it would be possible to reduce the number of non-free images by reverting the modifications made on 27 October. G4 looks correct to me: the article used the same non-free images when the deletion discussions were closed. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

As WP:G4 says, "This excludes...pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". Nyttend (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the reason did still apply 12 hours ago when the files were deleted, and the only edits to two of the articles since then has been reversion of User:ImageRemovalBot. The third page has changed a little, but not in a way which would suggest that the original deletion reason no longer applies. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Long Branch

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Hi Nyttend.

Thank you for intervening with this edit war.

Fwagent (suspended from editing) and one of his IP addresses 206.248.139.134 (also suspended), and I suspect other aliases (HarrisArsenault, Jason Steeven Peck) continue to post fraudulent content to the Long Branch page.

Their posted information is mostly about areas outside the boundaries of Long Branch '(please look at the links to City of Toronto zoning maps I put on Wikipedia for Long Branch, Toronto as well as New Toronto and Mimico).

Those will confirm the accuracy of the boundary info I am posting - which the others keep removing.

Some attempts to damage the New Toronto page have also occurred. Mimico to a lesser extent.

In previous edits of Long Branch there have been links to Penthouse magazine, as well as commercial websites (e.g. reference #10 about a Polish Church).

I have worked over the years to ensure accurate content of Wiki pages for The Lakeshore communities in southwest Toronto (South Etobicoke).

I am not only a lifelong resident of the area, but a recognized Local Historian in The Lakeshore.

I have also won two awards for my local historical work (2011), including the Jean Hibbert Award from the Etobicoke Historical Society

( see: Jean Hibbert Memorial Award

The Winner of the Jean Hibbert Memorial Award for 2011 is PAUL CHOMIK)

Do an internet search on this and you will see a photo of me receiving the award.

Do an internet search on my name, and you will see a longstanding community involvement in The Lakeshore area.

I take this stuff seriously - it is my community.

I endeavour to try and make the info on Wikipedia as accurate as possible, and have even re-posted small pieces of content to the pages in question that I thought may be valid - even though they originated with the editing vandals.

Never facing problems like this before on Wiki, I am still learning about vandalism and how to go about posting warnings, attaching my names to messages, etc.

Even though Wikipedia's aim is for anyone to post information, problem edits seriously compromise the integrity of the site - particularly when false content continues to be re-posted and factual content is removed.

These pages to the best of my knowledge, had never been vandalized until Sunday October 28, 2012.

I hope that you will be able to figure out a way to overcome the problem edits and false content.

Thanks again for taking this matter seriously and intervening.

Paul

Paul Chomik (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I edit articles mostly related to cities in Canada, and I've never seen edit wars in the several years I've been editing Wikipedia like those on the Toronto neighbourhood articles for Long Branch, New Toronto, and Mimico by the same group of users. For some context, these are three adjacent west-end neighbourhoods along the Lake Ontario waterfront.

I would revert them to the last version before the edit wars and fully protect them. Admittedly I may have added fuel to the fire by restoring the articles to the way they were before the dozens or hundreds of subsequent edits, but I always explained why. I normally would manually merge constructive edits with the previous good formatting, but here it was impossible because of the number of edits. There's a serious problem that I see: not only is content being edited (which is fair enough), but these users are applying some formatting that is disrupting the flow of the article and not in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines and the conventions one can see in countless similar articles, like for instance The Annex.

The same problems are arising on all three articles, but let's take a look at New Toronto. For some reason, these editors are adding two spaces between every paragraph. A "Sources" subsection has been created near the beginning of the article under "Boundaries" instead of using inline citations and a reference section. Furthermore, every footnote citation should come after the punctuation, not before it, but this was completely changed for no reason. Under "History" the recent edits have arbitrarily deviated from the subsection formatting hierarchy using equation signs (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Body sections. At the end of the day, it should be clear to those editing that these articles no longer look like Wikipedia articles.

And there's more. The "Institutions" section is full of red links because those local institutions don't have Wikipedia articles at the moment and may never have them. Various functional links have been changed for no apparent reason to the version that redirects. For instance, Etobicoke became Etobicoke (note the redirect). A gallery has been added at the end (strangely beyond even the "external links") section which is untitled, contains similar photos, and does not seem to amount to more than an image depository, flying in the face of Wikipedia:Gallery#Image galleries.

I know that content is key, but Wikipedia has conventions for formatting to keep things consistent and readable. As an editor, I add content and strive towards consistency with the Manual of Style. To see good articles treated this way is unacceptable, no matter the good intentions of the recent editors. I'd keep their constructive edits and using the better pre-edit war formatting, but it's impossible to manually go through all those edits. And I feel they'd revert it anyway calling it vandalism. It's rather amateurish. The editing isn't building on the years of previous work that went into these articles; it's a rogue "my way or the highway" approach that seems careless and is hurting the quality of the articles. -A.Roz (talk) 03:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The Reason for the deletion of the page for Felix Vasquez

I was looking up Felix Vasquez and I found that the page for him had been deleted for 'non-importance'. I wanted to know exactly why he was considered non-important, especially since he won the New York City's Bronze Medallion. Thank you for your time.

Kaileia Kaileia (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Boris Malagurski

Hi Nyttend,

I'm just drawing your attention to the Boris Malagurski wiki page as I have noticed that several editors have had extensive issues with its tendency to negate criticism of Boris and his work. These issues range from having the page nominated for deletion, to exposing self-promotion, to several facts being left out that have a different point-of-view on Boris. I'm not sure how to better round the article to fully reflect the controversy as well as Boris, so perhaps a controversy section is in order? Either way, several valid points have been made prior to this one and there is a clear line of avoiding all view-points as expressed by several editors. Just want to make sure that the page gets its due process by taking into consideration this very important issue, as well as not ignoring the controversies that currently stand. As well, I have noticed that the editor, UrbanVillager, has a tendency to negate at his own convenience. This may be viewed as incorrect, so I leave the decision and attention up to you. Regards: 114.172.134.168 (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reads wiki for fun

Pyramid Mound @ DYK

Hi there. Thanks for your contribution of an interesting & informative article on the Vincennes Pyramid Mound! I made some comments at the DYK nomination page. groupuscule (talk) 04:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your help! Kharzaiii (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Pyramid Mound

Archaeological work: Please read second paragraph, last sentence. A missing word?

If you have time, would you look at my edits for 3 and 4 November. I have been watching DYK nominations and made Minor edits at several controversial articles. If you see anything to revert, please just do it. Thank you. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for calling my attention to Your recent edits. Maybe I was unclear in my comment. What I meant to say is that in the 1890s, to the best of my memory, the concept of Mississippian (at least the term) was not yet in use. I am currently in Mongolia, so I can't check any books to be sure. Some of Your other edits have helped the article.Kdammers (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

How many images in a a stub?

User:Thundersnow is systematically going through NRHP articles removing images, leaving only one. He has done this to more than fifty pages. He supports this with WP:NOGALLERY, see his comment at User_talk:Thundersnow#Blue_Hills_Headquarters.2C_etc. I have asked that he at least add a {{commons}} link to the other images, but he doesn't.

It seems to me that even if the article is thin, that two images are not too many, particularly if the NRHP site is a district with many structures. Since I'm arguing about my own images and articles, I have something of a conflict -- perhaps, if you agree, you could make him see sense. I should add that he is relatively new, beginning August 12, 2012, but has 3,400 edits, many of them useful. Thanks. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

A single non-infobox picture isn't a problem, but image galleries indeed aren't a good idea. I do agree that he's going a bit too fast; he's often adding some of my pictures to lists (example) because I upload in batches and take a while to get all of them added, during which time my images show up in Multichill's list of unused images. However, it's not a big enough deal for me to worry about asking him. Could you link some of the other image removals that concern you, so I can ask him about them if necessary? Thanks, by the way, for the DR on the courthouse pictures. Nyttend (talk) 13:14, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Abismo de pasión

Can this article be semi protected for one day? I warned 3 IP editors for introducing incorrect info. Today isn't November 5 in the USA, yet the editor keeps on insisting that Univision has already broadcasted the last episode of ADP. This video clearly states that the last episode will be broadcast tomorrow at 8pm EDT for two hours. Platinum Star (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Objection on Reverting Tag for speedy deletion.

Hi, Nyttend i have seen that you have reverted the tag placed on a redirect page (Portal:Al-Qur'an). As there is no redirect links to the page (As shown here) so i believe it should be deleted therefore placing the tag again. If there is an objection please feel free to correct me. Thanks. -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 15:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

On similar thought if it is not convincing to you. You can see my reply at Portal talk:Al-Qur'an -- Ibrahim ebi (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Voting - Naming Conventions for Geographic Names

FYI, see Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#RfC:_US_city_names. I also recommend that you put a "watch" on that page. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Holmes County Courthouse (Ohio)

Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at WP:VPT.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DYK for Pyramid Mound

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall

An editor has asked for a deletion review of UFC on FX: Johnson vs. McCall. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI

See the deleted talk page at Talk:MFH (band). I think you will find the reason for not deleting the article interesting. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hobart Steel houses

Disruptive comment is bloating my talk page; this is not meant as an attempt to end the discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nyttend -- I object to your use of administrative powers to delete my treatment of 8 NRHP-listed Ohio properties, by coverage in a list-article which you deleted in this edit (and which I reverted in this edit) and by your deletion of 8 carefully created redirects, that you deleted: (Deletion log); 03:46 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs) deleted page House at 203 Penn Road ‎(R3: Recently created, implausible redirect) (Deletion log); 03:46 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs) deleted page House at 1022 West Main Street ‎(R3: Recently created, implausible redirect) (Deletion log); 03:46 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs) deleted page House at 145 South Ridge ‎(R3: Recently created, implausible redirect) (Deletion log); 03:46 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs) deleted page House at 121 South Ridge ‎(R3: Recently created, implausible redirect) (Deletion log); 03:46 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs) deleted page William Hobart Vacation House ‎(R3: Recently created, implausible redirect) (Deletion log); 03:46 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs) deleted page E.A. Hobart House ‎(R3: Recently created, implausible redirect) (Deletion log); 03:46 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs) deleted page Hobart Circle Historic District ‎(R3: Recently created, implausible redirect) (Deletion log); 03:45 . . Nyttend (talk | contribs) deleted page House at 129 South Ridge ‎(R3: Recently created, implausible redirect) Your use of "R3", reserved for "implausible typos" (see Wikipedia:CSD#R3) with edit summary calling these "implausible redirects" is blatantly inaccurate. You know it is not fair to use that speedy delete category, and I know you do; this has already been discussed in now-archived User talk:Nyttend/Archive 24#Hobart Welded Steel House Co. articles and other Ohio NRHP articles. A less-confrontational option for you would have been for you to start an RFD about the redirects, in which I am confident other editors would agree to keep them. And they certainly would not agree that the redirects merited obvious speedy deletion. After that discussion i put in work to improve the target article to set up individual named locations for each house so that redirects could lead directly to individual sections within the article, and I made other improvements, before I re-created the redirects. Your deleting them all again with the same message "implausible redirects", in context, is even less justified than the previous deletions, and seems like a deliberate insult. Was it meant as a personal insult? Or how on earth do you mean that these were implausible redirects? Further, at my Talk page, you posted a warning: I would strongly suggest that you refrain from creating implausible redirects such as from the steel houses to the Hobart steel house company; anyone who wants to look up one of these houses will not be looking to read an article about the company, and it's no more sensible to redirect them to the company than it would be to redirect C&O 1308 to Baldwin Locomotive Works if Jameslwoodward hadn't created it. Whether or not the article contains a list, it is not a likely target, and lists of products are not appropriate for manufacturer articles. Additionally, will you please refrain from the vague, unencyclopedic content as seen here? You have previously been warned against things such as "seem similar", and it's simply a hindrance to others to place categories on articles that shouldn't have them, such as putting an architectural style category or a houses-built-in-year category on this article. If you wish for these articles to be bluelinks, you need to create articles yourself with information about where the properties are located, their histories, and why these properties are notable — not simply creating one-sentence stubs. Nyttend (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC) I completely disagree with your view. Your example is not comparable. Your "should" statements are not justified by policy or guideliens. In context I think you are being deliberately insulting, and not trying to have any real communication. In fact I made a well-considered decision to cover the all of the works of the Hobart Steel company in one article, rather than creating 9 separate articles, because they are all locally clustered and because I am not finding sufficient information to split out separate ones. I suspect no one else will. I chose to make one article combining the list of works with the company, because I think they are well treated in just one article. You are welcome to discussing the possibility of a split of the company vs. list at the Talk page, or otherwise trying to convince me and others of how that would be better. Perhaps you could suggest how you yourself would split it. Or you could suggest re-titling the article to convey it is about both the company and its works. But your chastising me about how I must, in your view, create articles on topics that I know and you know are notable, and that are sourced fine, is not helpful. As you know, I have already attempted to accomodate you in some ways on the Ohio NRHP article topics that you monitor so closely. (To others: Nyttend maintains a system of monitoring pages by county, at User:Nyttend/Ohio NRHP/Miami etc.) I simply don't understand what is "the vague, unencyclopedic content" that you object to. I had put in sourced material that could be expanded and improved yes, but you are not entitled to simply delete it. What on earth is vague? What is unencyclopedic? Use your words. At the Talk page. Please. It is not your right to use administrative powers to force your way on article topics that you happen to want to control. I think it is an abuse of power, and convenient for you to get your way with article topics that you seem to want to wp:OWN. This seems too convenient for you to avoid the discussion processes of Talk pages and of RFDs and AFDs which usefully collect the opinions of others. I ask you to reconsider and to undelete those 8 redirects. And I welcome your reasoned discussion of possible improvements at appropriate talk pages. --doncram 22:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC) P.S. Please don't split this discussion. It makes it harder for me and others to follow. I will watch here for your response. In previous "discussions", you have chosen not to read what I wrote. It's okay for you to ignore most discussions, but not if you are responsible as administrator taking actions that are being disputed. Please read what I wrote here. --doncram 22:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response; I worked late yesterday and didn't sign on at all. No, this is not meant as a personal insult. This is a course that I would take with anyone who repeatedly creates implausible redirects. This is a course that I would take with anyone who's obviously creating pages solely for the purpose of having something be a bluelink. In fact, this is a course that I would take with any pages like this, regardless of the state; I simply don't find them, because unlike with other states, I track the Ohio articles. Do this with pages such as User:Nyttend/Indiana NRHP/Allen and I probably won't catch you. I've found many such pages created by other people; the difference is that they're substantially older, so deleting them or moving them into userspace would be disruptive. You may have observed that I recently edited other Ohio articles that you created, and because they're decent stubs, I only expanded them. As far as the list, with which I have done nothing except normal editing — you've basically put a little prose from the county list. This is not enough to support a redirect; otherwise we'd create every single title as a redirect to its county list. Just think: if we did that, would you say that the redirects were plausible, that people wanting information on a specific site would be intending to reach the county list? It's time for you to do like you've told other people: request the nominations and write a substantive article, because until you do or until someone else does, these will remain redlinks. And you mention "should" — that's because you're going to waste my time with cleaning up after you, since a company obviously isn't a house built in any year. Meanwhile, because I have followed your demands and read your seven kilobytes of talk page message, I don't have time for anything else. This is the last time I will do this; if you continue to bloat my talk page with such long notes, I will remove them without reading them, and I will consider you not to have responded because of a failure to say something that I can handle. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I've opened a Deletion Review process about these 8 articles/redirects. Please comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 29#House at 1022 West Main Street. Also I un-hatted your hiding of my comment above for clarity for others considering this linked discussion; you are free of course to rehat it. --doncram 21:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, i see you re-hatted it. To any visitors here, please do check under the hidden material labelled "Disruptive comment is bloating my talk page; this is not meant as an attempt to end the discussion." I tend to interpret the hatting, originally and again now, as attempts to end the discussion. I dunno, Nyttend, if your assertion at ANI about your being unaware of invalidity of R3 "Implausible redirect" argument, has to do with your not reading the statements that you hid on your own Talk page. You should not promise to not read statements and then plead ignorance of being informed. Honestly how do you expect reasonable editors to deal with you, with honest disagreements? This situation, in terms of human communications from one person to another, is pretty awful. --doncram 06:31, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Second language acquisition

I have proposed that Category:Second language acquisition be renamed to Category:Second-language acquisition, and I am notifying you because you either participated in discussions about the hyphenation of "second(-)language acquisition" on the article's talk page, or because you participated in the previous CfD discussion. I would be grateful if you could give your opinion on the latest discussion, which you can find at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 10#Category:Second language acquisition. Thank you for your time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 03:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Missouri towns

I originally posted a question about towns no longer existing in Missouri, but after the fact I realized the settlement_type in the infobox has been updated for them so I can determine which is a village now and which is a city based on that. So no need for a response anymore.Jamo2008 (talk) 06:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Louisville and 51.1%

Thanks for all the Louisville pix. While the NRHP tables were slightly over 50% illustrated for the last few weeks, it's now clearly over 50% (at 51.1%). See Commons ... stats (at the bottom) It's your photos that helped make the clear difference. (870 photos for a full 1% - I wonder who else uploaded in the last few days?) You might also want to click the US link on that table, or just go here. If you sort this table (twice) by "Total number" then look at the middle column "image%" you'll get a pretty good idea where we are missing major chunks of photos. In particular, LA county CA, jumps out, then Jefferson County, KY, a few counties in New England, then the "big opportunity" St. Louis, MO.

The tables are a good tool in any case. And thanks again for the pix.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Legobot tagging broken redirects

Hi Nyttend, I would appreciate if you could take a look at User talk:Legobot#Blocked and possibly weigh in on the solution I have proposed. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Eagle eyes

Thanks for the message. How do you account in the DYK statistic since Eagle eyes got 8483] hits while Eagle eye shows 1800 hits. Do I add both--Nvvchar. 03:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)?

Eagle eyes

Thanks for the message. How do I account in the DYK statistic since Eagle eyes got 8483] hits while Eagle eye shows http://stats.grok.se/en/201211/Eagle_eye 1800 hits? Do I add both?--Nvvchar. 03:59, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Ohio City, Van Wert, OH Copyright violation

Is it just me is the entire history a word-by-word reproduction of this? It doesn't talk about any more or any less of the material covered. Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 14:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine with me, just caught my attention. Eventually I will get to writing Ohio City (Erie Railroad station) but that's going to be a while. Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 00:35, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Any word by chance? Been almost a month? Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 03:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Just caught my attention. Anyway thanks for the effort. Guess an email is in order for the village webmaster? Mitch32^{(Victim of public education, 17 years and counting)} 04:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ferlo Desert

Nyttend, you are so awesomely nice to have nom'ed Ferlo Desert! I don't know, though that it qualifies, what with all the quotes and such. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 01:44, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

SDPatrolBot Task

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Kingpin13's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Erica Grow Speedy Deletion

Comment on my talk page from another user is correct in the assessment that the appropriate arena was AFD given notability assertions. Bad call, jumping the gun on your part. I expect your speedy deletion of Al Roker forthwith if you are going to be even minimally consistent in misinterpreting SD policies. --ColonelHenry (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Park Site

Thanks for asking, but I really don't know the answer. Park Site has got to be so common a name as to be essentially useless. I'm not sure that Park Site (Lancaster County, Pennsylvania) is much better in distinguishing it. Park Site (Lancaster, Pennsylvania) is technically incorrect, even though the park borders on the city. Using the trinomial would at least distinguish it, but doesn't give much info to most readers. BTW I'm pretty sure that the ball field pic is not the exact site, but there are 2 or 3 possibilities that are pretty close, in the trees along the ridge. A pic of the exact site, if I wanted to guess it, would just show tree trunks and branches and wouldn't be any more informative. Hope this helps. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:19, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Park Site (36LA96) seems ok to me. You might explain what 36LA96 means in the article, or maybe even start a short article on "Smithsonian trinomials" (or whatever sounds best). I did do a bit more research on the site today - the nomination and the park website. I don't remember if I knew about the plaque before, but I'd think it's pretty hard to find unless you know exactly where it is. It does however rule out the usual reasons for not photographing Address Restricted sites. My on-the-ground search was limited to about 15 minutes of walking, mostly north of the tower plus about 15 minutes of driving all the little lanes. If I were to search again I'd concentrate on SW of the tower. The park site does say that they exhibit artifacts, which I guess are European trade goods, so if I go there again I'll try for the artifacts. If they are in glass cases, though, I usually get pretty bad results. See Duffy's Cut for the best 5% of my photos there!

I've been meaning to wrap up the WLM photo contest over at WT:NRHP when I figure out what I want to say. While I'm quite happy with the results .... I'll also bring up the issue about the upload buttons, which I have mixed feeling on. Your input would certainly be welcomed. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:36, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. I added the park website, and I say "in the township" rather than "at the township." As far as Smithsonian trinomials - I say WP:IAR (3rd time this year). A blog is better than nothing, and when you find a good source you'll be able to go back to it and find out 2 other good sources are there already. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:11, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Potential admin candidates

What do you think about User:Darkwind? Kaldari (talk) 19:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

He seems like he has all the necessary stats, even 330 AfD edits. Only problem is he suddenly stopped editing 4 weeks ago :( Kaldari (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Re:Osea

Why? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Boundary increases

Hi Nyttend ... Apparently, you object to the way I've chosen to include boundary adjustment information in the NRHP tables. Can you explain why? --sanfranman59 (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Since I spend much of my Wikipedia time updating the lists with new listings, I'm guessing that I've edited at least a majority of these articles. I can tell you that there's quite a bit of variability in the way boundary adjustment information is displayed. In any case, "that's the way we've always done it" doesn't mean there's not a better or equally valid different way to do it. As for putting the dates and the reference numbers in the Summary column, given our recent exchange about what belongs and what doesn't belong in that column, I find it odd that you think that kind of trivia belongs there. Since it's additional information that's related to the location, isn't it more appropriately included in that column? Also, you don't include the reference numbers in what you enter in the Summary column. Since this information is useful for finding nomination documents, I think it belongs in the tables (although perhaps it could be commented out).

And by the way, I've been an active and constructive editor of these pages for a long time now. It seems to me that before you summarily undo my work, you could at least extend the courtesy of explaining why you think your way of doing things is superior to mine. In my opinion, your attitude toward the Ohio and also at least some of the Indiana lists borders on WP:OWN. As an admin, you well know that Wikipedia is a collaborative work. A little more collegiality on your part would be most welcome. --sanfranman59 (talk) 21:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies on my talk page (and great photo of St. Anthony's, by the way ... we've got similar cameras ... mine's a PowerShot A620). I can get with the idea of using the {{cref}} system for the boundary increase information. But I'm not completely clear about how you're suggesting we use it. Can you create an example of what you have in mind in your sandbox? You say we can "put the addresses of the boundary increase into the table like normal". If by "normal" you mean the way you currently enter the information with just a semi-colon between the addresses, I don't like that because I don't think the general audience is going to recognize the significance of the semi-colon. And I don't think referring to the boundary adjustment addresses as a "second set of addresses" makes it very clear in many cases where the addresses from the original historic district listing may include a number of different addresses and streets. That's why I've taken to off-setting the boundary adjustments with bullets, making it clear that the addresses that follow are boundary increases or decreases (or both) and indicating the listing date and reference number for the adjustment. In answer to your question, "How is the date and the reference number of the boundary increase in the slightest way a part of the location?", my thinking is that the listing date and the reference number are associated with the boundary adjustment. Again, I don't feel strongly that the refnums should be displayed. After all, they're not displayed for the original listings. But they could simply be commented out if you prefer that they not show in the Location column or we can use the cref system for that information. --sanfranman59 (talk) 03:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that with statements like "the bullets don't work in the table, because the table isn't set up to have bullets" and "Dates of boundary increases don't belong in the address column", you're implying that they're accepted dogma rather than simply your opinion. In what way do bullets not work in a table? I make my living presenting data in an understandable manner. I see bullets in tables all the time. In my opinion, they work just fine in this case and they serve the purpose of making clear the distinction between the original boundaries and the boundary adjustments. In my opinion (again), the date of a boundary adjustment is of interest in the same way that the date of the original listing is of interest. Displaying the dates in the Location column in no way makes the information presented any less accessible. Most of your comments smack of "it's my way or the highway" and not collaboration. I'll tell you what. I'll just leave my hands off of what you seem to think are your parts of Wikipedia (in spite of the fact that I also have a particular interest in the Ohio lists as I spent my first 21 years there and still visit a couple of times each year). I'm tired of expending effort with perfectly reasonable edits only to have them reverted by your insistence that things be done exactly the way you prefer. --sanfranman59 (talk) 06:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI ... I've attempted to initiate a discussion about this topic at WT:NRHP#Boundary adjustments. --sanfranman59 (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

List of Vidéotron Illico TV channels

Hey, Nyttend. With regards to User:Polo200/Sandbox, please see "List of Vidéotron Illico TV channels." It was deleted in the bundled AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd bundle of channel lineups. The sandbox page is most certainly a longterm userfied version of identical deleted content. Per CSD G4, "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion." I think that criteria absolutely applies, just as you found it did with "User:2679D/List of StarHub TV and mio TV channels."

I do understand it's a judgment call, but realistically by rejecting speedy deletion here, you'd just be delaying the inevitable. It's content that was previously deleted with an overwhelming consensus and will ultimately be deleted either by you or another administrator. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Got your message. To your point, I would say that as far as I know, User:Nyttend/Ohio NRHP/Pickaway wasn't identical content of a previously deleted article that is just being stored in a user subpage.

See WP:FAKEARTICLE: "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content. Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Polo's page hasn't been updated by Polo since 2009. It's most certainly a longterm archive of deleted content and can be deleted. -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Old Gothic Barns, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Shingle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

deletion requests

Discussion is not closed. Simply hiding this so that it doesn't overwhelm the rest of the page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Each of the pages has a redirect to another article. It doesn't help to have duplicate talk page because a reader won't go back to the original page you want to keep. I may be wrong on this, but i've had numerous other pages similar pages deleted per my request. See WP:CSD#G8.--S. Rich (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC) Those numerous other pages never should have been deleted. The criterion says that it's only for pages dependent on other pages that are somehow nonexistent, and these are all talk pages for redirects — they exist. When the example of a talk page is quite different from the situation to which you're applying it, the example becomes more of an argument against making that kind of application. If these pages were properly subject to deletion simply because they were talk pages of redirects, there would be no reason to keep Category:Redirect-Class articles, its 700+ subcategories, or the thousands of pages within those categories. Nyttend (talk) 06:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC) The logic escapes me. If these are talk pages for the redirects -- as you say -- then what sense does it make to have a project banners that describes the page as a stub with some importance classification? I picked these out because they were stubs on the California project page listings. (The hope was to give them reassessments.) I saw a pattern of elementary school article talk pages with stub classifications, and saw that they redirected to a school district or city. Well, those articles deserve evaluations, and they have their own talk pages for such project evals. So why restore those stub evals on those talk pages as you did? (Some projects do have redirects as part of their assessment schemes, but it makes little sense to spend time on those redirects when there is so much else to do. And how often do editors make comments on redirect talk pages?) Simply deleting the talk page helps clean things up. The request is not to delete the redirect page. For example, I did a delete request for Talk:Cobblestone Elementary School. It went through. Now if you seek Cobblestone Elementary School, you will get .... In other words, the deletion did not impact the redirect. Another reason for deleting the redirect talk pages -- no one ever directly goes to any article talk page to make a suggestion. They find the article page, read, and then edit or make comments on the talk page. And in the case of these elementary school "talk page redirects" they will only get to the article page, never the talk pages. (Only gnomes like myself come across them.) Keeping these talk pages clutters the stub page list. Cleaning them out is helpful. And to illustrate, look at this listing of California project redirect pages with unknown importance: [1] . Click any of them and you will get to the redirect target. From there you can get back to the redirect page, plus its talk page, but why would you? To do an importance assessment to "Not Applicable"? To restate, the requests were not to delete the redirects (or their associated talk pages). They were to delete talk pages that did not link to article pages.--S. Rich (talk) 07:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC) I'm very well aware of what you say in your conclusion; I don't understand why you believe it necessary to mention that multiple times, since I've not even mentioned the idea of deleting the redirect itself. However, the speedy deletion criteria absolutely do not permit the deletion of redirect talk pages simply on the grounds of them being redirect talk pages. All of those thousands of redirects that I mentioned in the previous comment militate against that idea. Meanwhile, you're attempting to get a few pages deleted that have discussions, such as Talk:Jordan Middle School or Talk:South Pointe Middle School (I'm amazed I found it before; this is far from my normal field of interest); it's not just pages consisting simply of a project banner. Note that a bot will come around and recreate the talk pages of redirects that have been to XFD in the past, such as the Jordan Middle School talk page. Finally, some redirect talk pages do get used for discussions after they become redirects; we shouldn't assume that they don't, and we mustn't mustn't delete pages on that assumption when policy doesn't permit it and when we don't have a very good reason to implement WP:IAR. Nyttend (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2012 (UTC) This is interesting. (Like you, this is not my normal field of interest.) I went back to the Talk:Cobblestone Elementary School page which had been deleted by Diannaa, and was redlinked. (You have restored it.) In clicking it, the "create page" popped up, with a blue-linked article tab to the redirect target (Rocklin Unified School District). In clicking the redirect notice on Rocklin, I got the redirect page, and I then clicked the talk tab. As you had restored it, the old talk page popped up, with the old project banners. I next reassessed the banners and gave them redirect classifications. For the California Project, it recognizes the redirect classification. For the School Project, it just says "NA" as a classification. Well, the California Project tracks redirect pages and the Schools Project does not. (Seems that Schools has a more sensible approach -- that is, why keep track of redirect pages?) With this in mind, a better approach for you would be to simply deny the deletion requests and leave the talk page "empty". That way the talkpages do not show up on Project assessments/assessment categories. When restoring the talk pages you restored the "stub" assessments, which are incorrect assessments. Would the bot you mention recreate the talkpage with those reassessments, or simply create a talkpage for the redirect? Please note that I did not delete any user comments on those talk pages. I only removed the Project banners because I did not know if admins such as yourself thought such comments justified continued existence of the talkpage. (Thanks for an interesting discussion! I woke up at 5 this morning with it rumbling in my mind.) --S. Rich (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC) I'm confused by your chain of actions (the words "I went back" to "the talk tab"), so I'm sorry; if you'd reword it (or provide me links), I'll be able to give you a sensible reply. As far as the rest — I expect that it be easier for bots to fix incorrect tags, such as these ones, than to add tags when none exist. That's the main reason that I didn't simply remove the deletion tag and leave the pages blank. Some time ago, Rpyle731 went around with a bot to mark a bunch of California redirect talk pages as redirects, so I asked him to run the bot with all of these pages; he may be able to help here. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC) Never mind; he just left a comment here, two threads below this one. I'll ask for help at WP:BOTR if he decide that he can't help with the request. If you really really want this to be done soon, let me know and I'll do it manually, but unless you let me know, I'll wait for automatic help. Nyttend (talk) 01:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I regret that I don't know the lingo that better expresses what I've done (above) or describe my concern. At the moment it's TV time (Stanford v. Oregon) with my dad, so I'll read up a bit more on the topic and give a better reply tomorrow. Thanks again.--S. Rich (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll try again:

• The two Project banners on Talk:Cobblestone Elementary School now classify/assess it as a redirect. For California, the assessment show up on the banner. For Schools, it does not. Likewise, on the California Project listing of article assessments, Cobblestone Elementary School shows up as a redirect page. For the Schools Project listing of articles it does not because Schools does not track redirects.
• The editor comment on Talk: Cobblestone is preserved, but it has no relevance. It is a comment related to a page which no longer exists because of the redirect. (At one time the editor comment had relevance because there was a Cobblestone Elementary School article. That article page is gone because it was transformed into a redirect page.)
• With this in mind, I think it is okay to remove the Schools project banner because they do not assess/classify redirect pages. And since California does provide for redirect assessments/classifications, that banner can remain.
• This re-assessment/re-classification should take place on the other California project pages that incorrectly contain stub classifications. E.g., reassesses them as redirects.

Does this make sense? --S. Rich (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the response; I understand without difficulty what you say. However, I don't understand what's wrong with leaving the school banner; it goes without difficulty into Category:NA-Class school articles, a category with lots of pages that aren't California redirects. Why do you think that it doesn't belong in this category? Note that I'm about to leave on an out-of-state trip; I'll have marginal Internet access at best until tomorrow night. Nyttend (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summary mentioned reasoning. My motivation, which may explain the reasoning, was to clear out some of the California stubs. (I presume you caught sight of them when I nom'ed them as "non-articles".) Okay, I'll go back and reassess these stubs as redirects. They will stay in the NA-Class category, which is fine with me. Bon voyage. --S. Rich (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I meant "what your reasoning for rejecting NA-class". Thanks for the clarification. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Paola Barrientos

It looks like Cambalachero forgot to notify you as requested when replying to your concerns in your review of the DYK. Can you please take a look and reply? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

your AWB request

I note that some time ago you did some assessment of California redirect talk pages as redirects, e.g. Talk:Interstate 880 (Sacramento, California). Could you set up AWB to go through my contributions from 17 November 2012 and mark as redirect all the talk pages of redirects that I edited today? This would involve pages such as Talk:Gale Ranch middle school, Talk:Will Rogers Middle School (Lawndale), and Talk:Gonsalves Elementary School, which are currently marked as stubs. Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be glad to help, but it has been some time since I used AWB, and I was never an expert when I did use it. I'm not sure I would be able to make AWB do what you want it to. I can look into it further, and maybe I could cobble something together. A more proficient editor might be able to help you better. Rpyle731^talk 01:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Offensive username contest

There's really no need for that SPI, since Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs) hs already {{checkuserblock-account}}'ed the other five accounts. (They had really obvious usernames anyway.) Do you mind if I delete that SPI per WP:DENY? Getting people to file SPIs and ANI threads is exactly what the troll wants. Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 13:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

photos

Thanks for the adding the Ing-Rich Beaver Falls photo. I've wanted to do this for sometime, but live too far away to go there often. Would you be interested in assisting me in creating a page for the company? I have a strong family connection to the company but am uncertain of such a page would be notable enough for inclusion here. --T1980 (talk) 04:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals).
Message added 10:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

And once more there :). I'm glad I managed to explain it better. Perhaps that needs to be distilled into the essay? I fear I am standing too close to the original piece to do it justice, though? Might you consider having a go? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Rename page

Here are suggestions to rename Relation of Kirchnerism with the press:

• Conflict between Kirchnerism and independent media
• Conflict between the Argentine Government and independent media
• Press conflict during Cristina Fernández administration
• Argentina's government-media fight
• Government-media fight on Cristina Fernández administration

Not sure which. Please choose one for me =P --Neo139 (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Well this is awkward...

...but your move. Swarm ^X 20:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at Swarm's talk page.

DYK for Spencer Township Hall

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Johnston's Tavern, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mercer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Liberia Cement Corporation

Hello! Your submission of Liberia Cement Corporation 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! Yazan (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

deletion of Empire of Aryavart

I was clearly in the middle of editing it, I have references and many articles it could have had importance in (micronation, Flags of micronations, et cetera) and had not added it yet because I WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF DOING SO. Please revert it's deletion. --OCCullens (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

• I have searched for it on the Internet, but the "alternate government" seems to have only been mentioned on micronation wikis. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Most references aren't indexed by google, but I will remove any unsourced content in the event that it gets restored.--OCCullens (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers for that. There are actually a few similar articles all nominated by the same guy that I've declined; they all claim appearances for major clubs, though some of them only claim a few. Do you agree? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 04:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

Hi Nyttend, I've reverted your edit to Template:No article text per the reasoning in my edit summary. Graham87 11:42, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

RE:Imperial Academia

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

Hello. You have a new message at TheJJJunk's talk page.

Fairfield, Iowa

Hi Nytend, per talk page consensus I just merged Fairfield Arts & Convention Center with Fairfield, Iowa. If you have a minute, could you check the Arts and Culture section and see if it needs any pruning or adustments? Also what about these items (below)? Is there any place for them on the Fairfield, IA article? Thanks for all your help.

• http://www.fairfieldacc.com/ Official Site]
• Coord|41.009082|-91.963441|type:landmark|display=title}}
• Category:Convention centers in Iowa]]
• Category:Iowa culture]]
• Category:Music venues in Iowa]]
• Category:Theatres in Iowa]]
• Category:Buildings and structures in Jefferson County, Iowa]]
• Category:Visitor attractions in Jefferson County, Iowa]]
• -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

When you redirect a not-so-notable topic to a more notable one, it's quite appropriate to put categories on the redirect. I've put all of these categories onto the redirect, and I've gone through the Arts and Culture section; I don't see any other substantial issues. I don't think that there's a good place for the convention center's website, and although I wish we could put coords in more places in articles, I don't see a good place to put it. Nyttend (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response and great insights. Still learning about merges and redirects. Thanks for your help! Happy holidays,-- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

blocking threat; disruption of wikipedia

I consider your newest threat of blocking to be totally out of line. I consider your own recent edits regarding MPS's to be contemptuous of the consensus of opinions of other editors. I commented in the open discussion item at wt:NRHP, please respond there. --doncram 17:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Umm, editor Nyttend, you posted the following at my Talk page: (begin copied material) Stop introducing errors, as you did with this edit to the introduction of National Register of Historic Places listings in Allen County, Indiana. Persistent addition of errors is vandalism and will result in blocking. Nyttend (talk) 17:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

This is your level 3 warning for introducing errors. Nyttend (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(end copied material) I take your threats seriously, as if you do mean to intimidate me from editing in wikipedia, particularly on Ohio and Indiana articles that you seem to take a lot of ownership over. It happens that you have had disagreements about formatting and other matters in NRHP list-articles and individual articles. I think you are wrong to imply that you will use administrative powers to get your way, and I do resent your several postings with "warnings" against me. On the Allen County Indiana article, you have proceeded to make some edits removing material and making other changes, and I reverted you twice. Where we are in a BRD process is that you removed stuff boldly, and I reverted you, and i think you should discuss the content--i.e. the MPS information, where the discussion is already going on and where I pointed to you. You should not threaten to block me for disagreeing with you about the useful content. I do think that cumulatively there are a number of disagreements adding up, where some bigger level review of your behavior is becoming needed.

Anyhow I would like to clarify what you mean right now. To be clear, could you please explain what you mean by a "level 3" warning, what do you intend to convey? Honestly I don't know what you are intending to convey, what are you suggesting that I do. I looked around a little searching on "level 3" and don't immediately come to any explanation. Is the general gist of it that you wish to insult me, suggesting that i am a vandal? You know that is not true. --doncram 01:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(new copied material you wrote)

You are to take my second message as a {{uw-error3}} (a template I'll not use here per WP:DTTR) for repeatedly introducing the erroneous claim that there was one former delisting. Let me remind you of your comments at Talk:National Register of Historic Places listings in northern Cincinnati, Ohio, where you accused of making productive edits in order to hide other things. I do not edit in bad faith, but as has been shown here, you consistently assume bad faith. By replacing accurate content with blatantly erroneous content, you're damaging the page, and by edit warring to force through this error, you've thrown away any reason I had to assume good faith. And by the way, I do not claim ownership of these pages; I will make the same edits on any other pages that I find where this kind of undue weight is placed. It's simply that I pay more attention to these pages than lists for California, Texas, or New York counties. Nyttend (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

(end new copied material)

Um, okay, I think i already got that you mean to be demeaning and insulting. Could you explain what you mean by uw-error3 then. Is this in some sequence, where you feel you have established something that then has bigger implications? I don't understand the larger context of that. Is there something specific that you mean to convey? Or should we both reduce this to childishness. Here, try this: I hereby give you my level 10 warning, you must desist or you may be blocked! Is that a valid message that I should convey back to you, in the same spirit?

I do accuse you of editing in bad faith--or having the appearance of that--at the Indiana county list-article, where you have removed material that is relevant and your removal seems to be wp:POINTY. Your proceeding by ignoring the discussion at wt:NRHP and wholly removing, rather than refining down, the MPS material, seems to me to be deliberately insulting. It is silly, I think, for you to suggest that in my reverting you, that I deliberately introduced incorrect material. Rather, there is stuff that can be improved there, yes, but your approach to removing other material at the same time, seems to be calculated to drive up the costs for anyone else in contesting your contra-consensus edits. As I explained already, I simply reverted you. You can change whatever you want to clarify about how many former listings there are, without removing the other material. Would agree to restore or stop removing the MPS material in a wholesale fashion? --doncram 01:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Read the template that I already linked; you'll understand my meaning. I will neither restore nor stop removing material that conflicts with a major component of a basic site policy. Edit-warring with someone else to force through a blatantly incorrect statement, besides being a good reason for reversion, is highly disruptive. Nyttend (talk) 02:21, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk-page lurker comment: How did any user accumulate >100,000 edits without being familiar with the system of graded warnings at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace? --Orlady (talk) 03:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I guess you mean "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you may be blocked from editing." Well, right back at you, you are disruptive and further you have abused your admin privileges several times recently, so here is a customized warning, call this level 4 to top yours: "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing, and worse". --doncram 03:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

Thanks for helping me with my talk page. Your dazzling diligence deserves a delectable Dobos torte. Even if it is bestowed from someone with a blacklisted name. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Guokr

I even wasn't able to find out what's going on before it is speedy deleted. Could I state my argument here? One book of Ken Liu (a Nebula award winner) is published via Guokr, and Guokr has always been reported on the internet in China. There also has a group of users on Chinese wikipedia: zh:Category:果壳使用者. It is not completed and cited well though, but could you please restore it?--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 06:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Could you userfy it, or move the page to here? I will embellish it later.--WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 05:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for that. I was going to dig into it, and appreciate that you already did, satisfying my curiosity.  :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and FYI

There's a deletion review ongoing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 November 25 about the mass deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 November 17, some of which you've now reclosed keep. I'm not complaining, I appreciate the thought, but I don't want to escalate beyond scope, or start an admin/admin battle. At this point I wonder if the DRV should complete, so that my points might be consensed openly:

1. No more misquoting policy to exaggerate it and raise bar artificially high. Revert FFD noms which don't limit policy statements to exact quotes. Just link it and/or quote it, but that's all - all else must be identified as nominator's opinion with "IMO" or "IMHO".
2. No more not-from-NFCC-policy made-up deletion reasons (like "decorative"). Revert FFD noms which attempt to use non-NFCC reasons.
3. No more supervoting against consensus if at all possible (relisting instead).
4. Consensus that NFCC does not require critical discussion of an image, but it does require critical discussion of the image's topic/content in context of an article's topic.
5. Consensus that NFCC does not require an image to be the topic (acknowledging that its content is the topic). (Of course for art and photography articles, frequently the image is the topic. Elsewhere, the image itself is not the topic, and yet it still significantly increases understanding and identification of the topic.)

These are my hopes, vain though they may be. See you at the DRV? --Lexein (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Meigs County Courthouse (Ohio)

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Mentioned you

You were mentioned on my talk page, which topic has now been copied to the NRHP talk page. Thundersnow 16:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you crossed a line with your image undeletions

Your edit summary for the undeletions of the images currently at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_November_2 clearly show that your intent is to override the decision of a closing admin while that action is currently under discussion. While I don't want to appear beurocratic, that is not an acceptable use of your admin tools and I urge you to reverse yourself. You should have instead allowed the discussion to run its course. Your actions also appear to have encouraged another admin who was involved in the discussion to misuse their admin tools and undelete an additional image. Please reconsider your actions and do the right thing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong date in above comment. Correct date: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2012_November_25 --Lexein (talk) 01:08, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Screenshots

It is considered improper form to revert a deletion decision like you did. It is disrespectful of the individual and of process when the close rationale was explained. I have reverted your out-of-process changes regarding FFD. If you wish to challenge the deletions, I invite you to open a discussion at deletion review. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

G8 on obsolete redirect

Nyttend, thanks for the note. I was aware of this, but the editor who created the original page has said that his strategy is to "...overwhelm the opposition with so many articles that some of the truth gets through." To forestall the possibility of this obsolete redirect being used toward this end, if given time, I decided to speed the process. Agricolae (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Ferlo Desert

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Radio Disney logo deletion

I intentionally created an identical new file (File:Radio Disney AM 1260 logo.png) to replace the old file (File:WWMK logo (new).png), as the old file's name referred to only one of the three articles it was used in. I don't see how or why this was a problem. Non-free use rationales were included for each of the three articles (WWMK, WSDZ, WMKI) in the replacement file. Proper (and active) source links were also provided; the source link in the current file is dead. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 18:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

unblock

I never vandalise wikipedia.en. I don't know why you've blocked me user: Kurt4 --31.26.104.73 (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've not blocked you. Your account has been globally locked, although I can't figure out who did it. Nyttend (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: a new task for SDPatrolBot

Hi Nyttend, my appologies again for taking so long to get back to you. As you may have realised, this kind of thing is not top of my priorities at the moment. I'll be happy to write out the new task and request permission for it, but it may take me a while to get around to it. Therefore, if you want to ask someone else to take up the task (or just make a general request at WP:BOTR) that's fine with me. Otherwise, if you're happy to wait, let me know and I might have it done as a late Christmas present ;) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Potomac, Fredericksburg and Piedmont Railroad

The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Mayors of Puerto Rico

Mayoralty refers to the Mayor's Office while Mayor refers to the post. The proper name for the article today should be Mayors of Puerto Rico since the article is about the mayors, and not about the mayors' offices. Hope that clears things up. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

admin rights

no thanks. That's really not my thing.

I only get online when I go to town. The local phone company won't run DSL all four miles to my home. I should be more available if I was to be admin.Roseohioresident (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Suncheon/Sunchon

FYI I restored your edits at both redirects, since User:Sawol has now put in a RM. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I restored them again this time with a note at User talk:Sawol about WP:3RR and advising to contact you. I might personally actually agree with some of his moves/edits, but not done in this manner. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sunchon

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying and pasting its content into Sunchon. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes.

Unfortunately, we will have to temporarily delete the new article you created under speedy deletion criterion G6, so that the page you intended to move may be properly moved in a way that will preserve its edit history. To avoid this problem in the future, please use the "Move" tab at the top of articles in order to re-title them.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sawol (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Check revision histories of them. Do you want to lost page history from '12:15, 24 January 2006‎ Visviva' to '09:49, 6 March 2012‎ MastiBot'? Sawol (talk) 11:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I did check them, and preserving histories is the reason that I didn't delete anything. Nyttend (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The article Suncheon is original. Do you agree about reverting Suncheon to text and redirecting Sunchon to Suncheon. Sawol (talk) 13:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Old Perry County Courthouse (Ohio)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC) 08:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For being an excellent contributor to discussions on wikipedia. ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Jenkinjones WV, and historic places question

Nyttend-

I have a few pics of the Jenkinjones Pocahontas Coal Co store which is on the list below. I did indeed check into it, it is still on the list. I however have a quandry and need your input. By the way, I ask this because I agree with your stance on other Historic places issues at the moment.

My issue is simple: Jenkinjones is in McDowell County WV, one of tyhe poorest in the US. The locations have been utterly neglected and are heavily vandalized. Its not easy to get a pic of the places without seeing this, Its just a FYI for you. HOW would you handle this? I will of course follow your lead. I have supplied the wikilink for the McDowell County WV data below [[2]] Coal town guy (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nyttend, the pictures I would upload would be my own, I drove there in 2011 after 8+ hours on the road and thought, WOW I made it and did not die on the switchbacks, I was so proud.....The pics would be of BOTH structures as they are BOTH on the list and yes, they are the Pocahontas Fuel Co structures. I also did a video of walking in them, would that be OK as well? IF you want to preview the videos, I have some links I cn provide, I made the videos of the buildings as well. After 8+ hours on the road, I spent about 3 hours doing video and photos. As a note, NOBODY accidentally arrives at Jenkinjones WV, remote is a kind word. I fondly wished the buildings in question had been better maintainedCoal town guy (talk) 14:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have others, but here are some examples. They are of the area [[3]] Many thanksCoal town guy (talk) 14:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I managed to get pics for all of the structures for Jenkinjones and Wyco.....If you ever have the time, you should go to those places......BUT, have a friend drive...Again, thanks for the direction on thisCoal town guy (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"Re: User talk:MinorProphet#The Miracle (1912 film)"

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at MinorProphet's talk page.
Message added 08:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for November 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shopping list, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page List (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Kijong-dong

ŏ, ŭ is not used in article titles per WP:NC-KO#Place names. For example Pyongyang is correct, not P'yŏngyang. Re-read WP:NC-KO#Place names. User:The JPS deleted page Kimhyongjik for moving. Sawol (talk) 19:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the pointer to the section itself. I'd read that page before, but I overlooked the thing about ŏ and ŭ not being used in titles. Nyttend (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Seattle Public Library

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Liberia Cement Corporation

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Question (Result: Both blocked)

A picture on massacres of Turkish Cypriots by the Greek Cypriot EOKA-B is available in WP. It is necessary for the pages Turkish invasion of Cyprus and Cypriot intercommunal violence, to counter, even though only a bit, the pro Greek-Cypriot content dominating both articles. (Please spare some time to read the TPs, especially of the latter article.) I have tried to upload the pic to the first of these two articles without success, as an IP user removes it every time. The same IP user is adding POV information to the article to make it even more unbalanced than it already is. I request your help as not many users are willing to enter the area of Cyprus where some nationalist self-appointed guards harass and intimidate objective contributors. (IMO of course, but if you look into the "histories" of such articles it is easy to see that some neutral contributors, very active in other contentious history and politics areas have left this zone all by itself, possibly hoping to be more helpful to WP in editing dispute areas where they will be more helpful, due to the lack of this many -or this obsessed- nationalist bullies...) I ask myself: Do we want a WP as a reliable source of information or as a reckless tool of nationalist propaganda? Thanks for your time. --E4024 (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What happened is that I added some sourced info I found from the report of the council of Europe(1976) about atrocities against greek cypriots during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Then E4024 added some info about atrocities against Turkish Cypriots. No problem so far. Then he added a picture which was previously removed being an unreliable source. That picture leads to a dead link in a Turkish forum-like website. We don't even know if what is shown is true. Then I remove the picture per WP:NOR. Then he puts it again. Then I remove it again. Then he removes the info I added initially "per:NPOV". If i was trying to impose a POV then I would have removed the content about the atrocities against Turkish Cypriots which I didn't.200.48.39.22 (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Nyttend (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• One user has made four reverts on Turkey on the same issue, from 1 to 3 December. Care to apply blocks in this case also? Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Nortel

On Oct 11,2012 you started a chain of reactions when you voted: Delete per the detailed and careful findings that appear at the Avaya Pushers page. We got rid of the Article Rescue Squadron's template…

You may not have been aware at the time that Nortel is a bankrupt company and that deletion of its wikiproject allows the deletion of Nortel related articles to go unnoticed. As an admin I believe you will agree that this is not in the best interests of Wikipedia.

Please come and have your say on the talk page of the deleted project. Thanks in advance. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Marietta Earthworks

I recently split Marietta Earthworks off from Mound Cemetery (Marietta, Ohio) (this really should be about the cemetery and the entire earthworks needed its own article), something I have been planning on getting to for 3 or 4 years, lol. You haven't happened to have went there on one of your photo trips have you? The old article has plenty of pics of the Conus, but I cant find any of the other remaining mounds (with the park, library, etc.) or the surviving chunk of Sacra Via here or at Commons. If not, thats cool, just thought I'd ask. Hope you are well and happy holidays, Heiro 20:57, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking of putting it up for DYK with this tidbit from the Modern history section : The site was first investigated in 1786 by Captain Jonathan Hart, the commander of Fort Harmar. Hart drew a plan of the site that appeared in the May 1787 issue of Columbian Magazine and conducted investigations into one of the mounds, now thought to have been the first archaeological investigations in the state of Ohio., specifically about it being the first archaeological investigations in the state of Ohio. Thoughts? Heiro 21:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Three-year rule?

Hello Nyttend.

Regarding this edit of yours, is there really a three-year rule to keep misspelled redirects, even if they are unused? What would be the point, and where can I read about the rule?

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

His comment didn't mean there was a 3 year rule, it was to point out that {{db-r3}} only applies to recently created redirect pages. On another note, redirects are cheap and it is rarely useful to delete them. Redirects are usually only deleted if they misinform readers in some way or are used to attack the subject. (I.e. you can't have a redirect from "Worst book ever" to a book or from bad singer to an artist). Ryan Vesey 03:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Old Meigs County Courthouse

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/WLM-US 2013 discussion

Would definitely be appreciated. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

User:Nicole Haddad/sandbox

Looking at this page's edit history, I guess I don't understand how a User can create a sandbox when they have no edits (which is what I looked at). Also, the person who created "User:Nicole Haddad/sandbox" has been blocked for 2 1/2 days for disruptive editing. I could be mistaken, but it does appear that this blocked editor could have been attempting to create some sort of sock account or create content while appearing to be someone else. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Red Dawn

If you have a moment, can you take a look at the recent edits here? I cannot seem to get through to this anon. that the talk page is not for idle conversation or ranting. Can you perhaps persuade him? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

RM of Prostitution in the Palestinian territories

There's an RM at Talk:Prostitution in the Palestinian territories. I'm telling you this because you were involved in a move of that page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Albuquerque, New Mexico (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to State

Middleport Public Library (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Quoin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception (OTD)

Thanks for adding the article, Nyttend. Is there a reason you didn't also correct the more important error, by replacing "born" with "conceived"? Just asking. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for the fixes, Nyttend. I appreciate your efforts. (I'll say a rosary for you this evening.) --108.45.72.196 (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Doncram on Indic communities. Thank you.  Ryan Vesey 23:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop.
Message added 14:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

again...

ok - as far as I can tell the new version is uploaded over the top of original - cache is driving me insane, though - see my note at GL/MAPS. We should check it "settles down" - I don't think messing with it any more now is achieving anything... Begoon ^talk 15:59, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Begoon's talk page.
Message added 00:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Problem hook

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

The Interior (Talk) 17:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

List of NRHP bridges in Pennsylvania

I think we just had an edit-conflict on the PA bridge list. In any case you removed 2 Montgomery County bridge pix I just added - assuming no reason for this - just an accident. There is one slight issue there - one of the bridges (+ one from Bucks County) is rather new (lots of recent bridge reconstruction in PA under stimulus act) and several were taken off lists nearer me. These are from User:Shuvaev - a WLM guy who completed Bucks and Montgomery Counties. I've got 1 more to get in Delaware County (were no-trespassing difficulties) and about 13 in Chester County (mixed bag) - which would fully illustrate all SE Pennsylvania counties (Philly + suburban). Let me know if there was a reason to remove the two pix. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's sister projects

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Template talk:Wikipedia's sister projects.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Quick code fix to infobox change

Hi Nyttend - thank you for making the edit protected requests at infobox soap character. The last parameter deleted still has half a line of code left and is showing a few characters (see example: Michael Corinthos. I believe at the bottom this line just needs to be deleted as well: "{{#if:{{{relatives}}}||}" If you don't mind would you be able to check it out? Thank you! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 23:23, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I included an extra set of "}" in what I typed above, which has to be put back, the box isn't ending now. Sorry for the pain!! Kelly Marie 0812 (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Collapsible option

Hi Nyttend,

• Regarding your edit request at {{((}}Collapsible option}}...

Thanks for your message. Yes, I should've left a version of what I was describing in the template's sandbox – apologies. I'm leaving this message here rather than a {{talkback}} to say that the version I've just left in the template's sandbox (here) has gone a step further than the description: it incorporates the omission or inclusion of "state=" in the template message itself rather than as an afterthought. If you think that's a step too far, I'll amend accordingly. It also includes the space before the "|(state=)..." mentioned in the description, plus a slightly larger and reworded heading ("How to manage this template's visibility" rather than "Note to editors on how to manage collapsibility:"). Again, if you think that's taking too many liberties, I'll amend accordingly. Thanks, CsDix (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

Necessary links?

Why in this edit is it "necessary" to link to United States (or United States), which are cardinal examples of WP:OVERLINK? Which of the links are necessary and per what policy? Alansohn (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A more complete quote from WP:OVERLINK states that "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, avoid linking: everyday English words that are expected to be understood in the general context; the names of major geographic features and locations [emphasis mine, and the United States would seem to meet this criteria], languages, religions, common professions, and pre and post nominals." In an article about New Jersey, it would be appropriate to link to the country, but every geographic feature in the U.S. doesn't need the link, certainly not at the level of a city within a county (linked to the county) within a state (linked to the state), with those articles having a link to the country for those who might want to read the article just two links away. Can you point to any support for your interpretation that United States should be linked in every article for every place in the nation? Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

"By your logic, we shouldn't link to the United States anywhere, because the country is just as relevant to the locality as it is to the state." Absolutely not what I said. The hierarchy here is city, county, state, country. I interpret policy as saying that one should always include a link to the country from the state article, as it is a direct sub-component, but as you work your way down the hierarchy it is no longer needed, so that for a city it should not be included. Are there people who don't know what the United States is or wouldn't know how to go about finding it? If I interpret your position correctly, should every place in the U.S. should have a link to United States? Where is the evidence of this community consensus that this is the case? Alansohn (talk) 04:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

BCE vs. BC etc.

Hello. I saw your response at AN concerning date formats and I have a question for you. To paraphrase you said that BC/AD should be used with Christian subjects and BCE/CE for non-Christian religious subjects. The thing is I do not see this specified in WP:ERA or any other MOS/guideline I've come across. Has this become common practice in articles and should the guideline be modified to reflect this? And then what about contexts that are both Jewish and Christian? Should it then just be whichever was used first? Also, I find this odd for another reason. I first learned about BCE/CE during a New Testament class at a college that was part of the Southern Baptist Convention. In fact we were required to use BCE/CE in all of our religious studies classes but in non-religious classes we could use either (dependent upon any personal preferences the profs had). I know that's only one point of anecdotal data but that's why your response struck me as odd. Fortunately I rarely come across those particular edit wars (with a notable exception of one that occurred on the Dead Sea Scrolls article). Anyway, just curious. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 07:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion request

Could you please delete File:Jack the Giant Slayer.jpg and all of its previous files so I may reupload the correct image as it is not displaying the current version? I tried to purge to no avail as suggested by the help desk. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I reuploaded the image but it still continues to display the previous image. I then tried uploading it under File:Jack the Giant Slayer poster.jpg and it worked there. Is there a way you can merge the two and get it to display properly under the correct file name?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for your help.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I see the same thing has occurred at File:Pacific Rim FilmPoster.jpeg so you could you please redirect to File:Pacific Rim poster.jpeg? Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Authority control on Doon

Well, I was the one to put authority control on Doon School's page but removed it later as I wasn't sure of its use. I didn't really understand the concept behind it and put it only after looking at other pages...hence the undoing of my not-so-confident edit.--Merlaysamuel :  Speechify  02:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

MMA Event Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Helmut Diez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Smithy, App and Stakeholder

London, Ohio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to State

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

More your street

I was notified re Talk:Dukes of Huéscar, but am not well informed. I mentioned your comments. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

CA Proposition 31 Page

You deleted California Proposition 31 today. I am at a wiki edit-a-thon and started that page without finishing it. I was waiting for a reply from the California Project whether they intentionally do not create pages for all ballot measures. I'll leave it deleted, since I'm not sure it should exist. You're very fast!--Jennywaggo (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

File:3-Deoxy-D-manno-oct-2-ulosonic acid.svg

The file uploaded on the Commons is here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:3-Deoxy-D-manno-oct-2-ulosonic_acid.svg. -- Dcirovic (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Canadian party colours and shortnames

Regarding the three meta/shortname templates you closed the speedy deletion of (here, here, and here), even though Template:Canadian party colour retains the word "colour" in its name, it can now duplicate all six types of party name and party colour templates in use (meta/color, meta/shortname, colhead, elections/party_colour/row-name, elections/party_colour/row, and elections/party_colour). —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand (but I didn't until reading this message; thanks for the explanation), but when the other template is substantially more capable, the old template isn't "a substantial duplication of the [other] template" or "a hardcoded instance of [the other] template". You might also have noticed that I declined another one (although I can't now remember which one it was) that had sat around in CAT:CSD for a good while because nobody wanted to delete it. Since they don't qualify for the literal wording of the criterion, and since the whole situation is rather ambiguous, I think it would be better if you sent them to WP:TFD. Or better yet, why don't you just redirect them to the current templates? The three that you linked are 4½ years old, so deleting them instead of redirecting them might well damage a lot of page histories. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that many of the templates in this series have much history to save. I found about 750 of them for Canada alone, and for the vast majority of them, they were created a few years ago with one word of text, used in three of four articles, and then never edited or linked to from talk pages, except by people trying to make lists of all of them. I've already had a few hundred of them deleted through CSD, but I can use TFD from now on if you think that's better. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. as far as I can tell, all of the hundreds of templates I've nominated were deleted within a couple hours after they reached the seven-day requirement (except for one that had the template removed and replaced), so I'm not sure what you meant by "no body wanting to delete" one of them. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I thought I'd responded to your comment of 00:41, but I can't find it; I'm sorry. {{Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador/meta/color}} turns out to be the one; although I'd forgotten the seven-day requirement, it was tagged from 06:16 on the 7th until 02:50 on the 16th — even subtracting the seven days, that's nearly two full days between when it started appearing in CAT:CSD and when I de-tagged it. Nyttend (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I’d like to contest your change to Doctor’s surgery.

The article is not the same as the original one written. I made a completely new article (the previous one was deleted). That’s why it was written in British English. It should be moved back, as such. I’m the first major contributor to the new article. When you revived the article, you did not add anything. It was merely a one sentence article with a list. I wrote all the present text, and I added references. Essentially, I wrote the article. The first major non-stub contributor’s variety is what is used, I’m fairly certain. Please move the page back, and fix the changes you made. RGloucester (talk) 17:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

No. The page was never deleted; there are no deleted revisions in the history, and neither doctor's office nor doctor's surgery has any entries in the deletion log. There was already more than just a stub present before you expanded it, and I don't see evidence of doctor's surgery existing as a blue link until more than two years after the page was created. Moreover, looking through the history will show you a WP:ENGVAR change from British to American (reverting an edit that someone else had just made on the same day): if that be the case, it's inappropriate to have the page back in British. Nyttend (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The page was made a redirect (and merged) here. You reestablished the article, with one substantive sentence and a list (many months later). I rewrote the whole thing, to the point where it has actual paragraphs, and information. It also has more references now. this is what you revived the page as. This is what I made the page into. There most definitely was not "more than a stub" prior to what I have written. The page was in fact the most perfect example of one. The article is now substantive, whereas, previously, it wasn't. The article should be moved back. RGloucester (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It existed before, and the title in particular existed with that title. It was unambiguously established under that title, and nobody (except an IP that thought it was making a spelling fix) challenged it for several years. Please stop wasting time and engendering controversy over this. Nyttend (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My suit is legitimate. Please reevaluate the facts. It existed before, but was redirected. I was the first "major" contributor, in that I wrote all the current substantive text. A legitimate suit is a legitimate suit. RGloucester (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You wrote most of the current substantive text (note the significant list that was there before; you didn't write everything) by removing everything that was there previously. I'm not objecting to removal, because I agree that it's good that you removed the previous text, but you weren't the first major contributor. The title of the page puts it squarely on the American English side; the person who creates a page of 1.6 KB with a region-specific title has made a major contribution. A legitimate suit doesn't make factually incorrect arguments such as "the previous one was deleted". I'd appreciate it if you'd avoid arguing that WP:ENGVAR supports the idea of moving a two-year-old page on a neutral topic away from the title that it's always had. Nyttend (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Just for the sake of it, I’d say that yes, it would allow that. Because the page wasn’t two-years old. It had functionally been deleted, and blanked. Having entirely rewritten the page in the English I know, I was the first non-stub contributor. Fine and good, but your argument is nonsense. If you’re going to leave it where it is, at least adequately fix the remaining British English in the text. RGloucester (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It was not deleted: it always remained a bluelink, and anyone can perform a redirect. Stop wasting my time with arguments that are blatantly incorrect. I do appreciate the pointer to the inconsistent use of UK English versus USA English; thank you. I've resoled that issue, as well as fixing some improper singulars. Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Re PC

Seems like a fine time to use it; once every other day isn't too much for the RCPers to keep up with. It's really only the articles like George W. Bush or Barack Obama, which would probably get hit several times an hour, that PC really doesn't work for; beyond that, it's pretty much administrator discretion. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

thanks

for letting me know about my recent mess-up at the Dr. B. discussion. I probably am the only "Einar aka ~" around. I have not been too with it recently, I had a mouse trap snap a mouse and not kill it (so now I . . .... what?), a surprise call from work that was not good and my dad died a couple of days ago. So thanks for looking out for me and I will try and be more careful. EInar aka Carptrash (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Have not tried stickies. Yet. The traps i use (and I use a lot, the mice here are more like lemmings when they get on the move) work pretty well, I just ran out and picked up a handful at a drug store yesterday on the way back from the airport. I'll find the kind I like and get the job done. The Indian at the hardware I usually get mine recently called me "Big Hunter", a nickname my wife has hung on to, because I use so many. Carptrash (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Each mouse gets to keep the trap that gets him/her. Sort of like a Viking funeral, but no boat. Or fire. Now the rat traps I do reuse. Carptrash (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a "graveyard" outback with perhaps a hundred traps with 100 skeletons attached. it has evolved based on how far I can toss the trap from as far as i can wander outside with no shoes on. Probably I should consider re-using them, but my buddhist background makes the whole process marginal at best. I invented the term "assisted reincarnation" for the process and am considering a wikipedia article of the same name, though am not finding a lot of references. I did just add a reference to the Reincarnation article, a byproduct of this discussion. Carptrash (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Marietta Earthworks

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

---

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

Mass Rm

There's a mass RM at Talk:Marriage in the Palestinian territories you might be interested in. I'm telling you this because you participated in the RM at Talk:Prostitution in Palestine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

meta:Special:GlobalGroupPermissions/steward

Hi Nyttend, I didn't keep up the thread we were dealing with but I'm quite sure you will find the link above to be quite interesting! See you! --Vituzzu (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

2012–13 NHL lockout

Hello Nyttend! Regarding the 2012–13 NHL lockout redirect, I understand what you were trying to do. But in this case I wanted it deleted (see my deletion rationale) so I could move 2012-13 NHL lockout to that title. See the difference in the title? I put in a hyphen instead of an endash. Could you please delete it so I can move the article to its proper spelling? Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 21:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see the difference, but it's not a spelling issue. Policy on endashes is always changing, impossible to keep up with, and thoroughly chaotic; combine that with the fact that they're untypable by most people and the fact that print publications typically use hyphens, and you get the result of a hyphen being much more helpful for our readers and much more in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Nyttend (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case I think it looks and feels better given that the main article, 2012–13 NHL season, uses an endash. And it looks kinda weird that the lockout article would use a hyphen instead. I wasn't trying to initiate a discussion about whether to use hyphens or endashes, and I thought the task was non-controversial. I don't know, maybe it's just my opinion :). HeyMid (contribs) 22:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, it would be amazingly helpful if all of our endash articles were moved to hyphens, but I'm not planning on igniting the firestorm that would result from that. Since we already have lots of inconsistencies from article to article, I don't particularly see this discrepancy as being a substantial problem. And don't think I'm unhappy or annoyed with you; I'm sorry if I came across that way. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Update version of Infobox protected area has a bug

Could you please copy the current content of Template:Infobox protected area/sandbox into Template:Infobox protected area. There was a typo in my edit to the current version when it was in the sandbox. I estimate that about 600 pages are broken. I'm apologize for the problem. I'll watch here and the template. I hope this is the best way to expedite this fix. –droll [chat] 03:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. –droll [chat] 06:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Illinois Central Railroad Freight Depot (Bloomington, Indiana) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Shingle and Clapboard

Samuel Smith House and Tannery (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Paint Creek

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Stop sabotaging the article I am working on

The page you incessantly keep sabotaging is a proper article with a proper name and proper capitalization Just because someone happened by the next day to delete what I had to put a totally different identity of the same name is no reason to keep on and on with your sabotage

JGVR (talk) 02:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC) That advice should be directed to the first saboteur you you follo in his footsteps even after I explaind it to (I think it was you) who noticed all the activity in the first place all I as is to have the article that I originally started with the original name that nobody was concerned about until I made a page with proper capsJGVR (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reported you abusive attitude and would appreciate you FIX your sabotage

JGVR (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Lewis Macleod (footballer)

Hi Nyttend, I should have followed this up in September but I forgot, you declined a G4 speedy deletion request I made here which you declined here with comment "Not at all the same as before". At the time I was pretty sure it was almost exactly the same, so we were along way apart in our assessment. The article was previously deleted via AfD with a slightly different capitalised title Lewis MacLeod (footballer) hence I linked that AfD when adding the speedy tag. At that time did you check the history of Lewis MacLeod (footballer) I think not & that you missed the fact I linked the previous AfD in the speedy request as the person who nominated it the first time confirmed it was the same here & another administrator said he would have deleted & the decline was wrong here. I'm not asking for you to delete it as it has been expanded since so its not the same (although it is at it's 3rd AfD which could have been avoided), what I'd like is a clarification of why you declined it at that time & why you declined it with the comment "Not at all the same as before" when confirmed by others it was. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 15:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok I'll take your word for it thanks for your response, Merry Christmas. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 08:21, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

2010 census

Thanks for you comment on my talk page, you'll probably be somewhat happy to know that Ohio is the next state that I will be updating. It will be a little while since I'm taking a short hiatus from new updates while waiting for my second bot task application to get sorted out, but after that gets sorted out I'll start in on Ohio.Jamo2008 (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

New RM of Prostitution in Palestine

There's a new RM of Prostitution in Palestine at Talk:Prostitution in Palestine#Requested move. I'm informing you because you participated in the last one. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

ho ho ho

The story of the 4th Wiseman

I do believe that this card explains
a lot of the hitherto misunderstood
and even ignored origins of a variety of Christmas stories.
I am considering writing an article about the theology involved
but am having a difficult time with sources.
Oh well,
have a good one, it does appear
that we have made it through the worst of 2012,
which is a great start to 2013
Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Happy Holidays and Merry Christmas 2012! Happy New Year and all the best in 2013! Thanks for all you do here, and best wishes for the year to come.
	Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Move!

Hi, i want to inform you that i wanted this page to be deleted not to move another redirect there but to move an article. In fact what has happened; after i started a discussion and added the template to delete British Mauritius so that article Dominion of Mauritius can be move there, another user move the article Dominion of Mauritius to British Mauritius (crown colony) (see [4]), and as indicated on the deletion template, you have thought that it is just a redirect which i wanted to move at British Mauritius. So now, it is British Mauritius (crown colony) which we should move at British Mauritius, however if you still think that its a controversial move, then i will have to start another discussion to reach a consensus.Kingroyos (talk) 08:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, the job has already been done by an administrator now.Kingroyos (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I'm sorry, I completely forgot to respond to you. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

New reply!

Here: Template:Did you know nominations/Indian Mound Reserve --Tito Dutta (talk) 08:26, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Horus Sa

Hello, I have responded to the issues you raised concerning the DYK nomination of Horus Sa. Please see {{Did you know nominations/Horus Sa}}. Thank you ! Iry-Hor (talk) 11:13, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit concerned that there is an article called "Horus Sa" at all. please read this. Horus Sa was a name that was "proposed" as a name for Horus Wneg, if anything the Horus sa article should be merged into the Horus Wneg article in my humble opinion. I find it a bit disconcerting that Horus Sa has it's own article seperate from Horus Wneg, when it really should only be a footnote. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 21:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Former buildings and structures of Chicago, Illinois: Revision history

You are a vet so I won't undo your edits at Category:Former buildings and structures of Chicago, Illinois, but you did not finish the nomination (Nothing at CFD).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

See Category:United States track and field athletes

And Category:Athletes by nationality. In 226 items only Canadian are "Track and field athletes" and not "athletes". --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

We try so then. ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you are gone from «FYI, I tend to agree with your reasoning» to «given Kasper a final warning». In any case, I did not know that, after emptying a category I had mast open a CFD procedure to delete it, I thought it could be done in the "speedy", in fact the first one your fellow administrator had performed it safely. So you do not think you ever gave me a warning, then, if anything, this would be the "first" not the "final". In any case, I understand now what you mean, do you, even if I do not agree (and as you said before, maybe, you too, think like me, but it does not matter). ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

In any case, the administrator error not mine. Why do you say that you did not understand my message? We tried again: You said at first That you agreed with what I proposed, then gave me a "warning" saying it was the last even though I had never Given one before (so if anything, was the first). I have a right to say that what surprised me? ;-) --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

You have mail!

Hello, Nyttend. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Regarding a nomination for a t-shirt :) Jalexander--WMF 21:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

track and field

Hi, since you undeleted Category: American track and field athletes, could you also undelete the talk page? Category talk: American track and field athletes and also Category talk: Canadian track and field athletes ? (and close my open requests related to these two things at WP:REFUND ) -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 01:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks -- 65.92.180.225 (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Sally Shlaer

Hi, you just removed the Sally Shlaer and it's talk page claiming it's a copyright violation of http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi?doc=abs/html/mags/so/1999/01/s1122.htm and http://www.bcs-spa.org/resources/BCSOOPSNL/Issue36Spring1999/Articles/SallyShlaer.html

Now you are refering to an article by Meilir Page-Jones who gave Wikipedia permission to use that article in any way we like. I have made a notification about this on the Sally Shlaer talk page .

Now you removed the article claiming: G12. Unambiguous copyright infringement: Text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving... It seems to me this is clearly not the case here. Or am I missing something? -- Mdd (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

For your information, Nov 30, 2012 I received the following email from meilir@comcast.net. -- Mdd (talk) 22:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Marcel.

I am Meilir Page-Jones, the original author of the Sally Shlaer obituary. I have since implicitly retained the copyright in this obituary at all times.

I hereby grant to Stephen J. Mellor Esq. and to Wikipedia the right to publish this obituary without charge and without term limit. I do not require an acknowledgement, but I must review and accept any (for example, editing) changes made to the content of the obituary before I shall allow publication.

Thank you for your attention.

Meilir Page-Jones

Ok, I just noticed you already gave the answer here. Now I could contact the copyright-owner Meilir Page-Jones, and tell him his permission is not acceptable around here.

If you take an other look at the article's history, you can see that your argument is not true: Someone completely rewrote the content by copying another webpage.... What I did was, I first rewrote the article using none of the copyright material (without quotation marks and source description). After I received permission, I again added the copyrighted material. You could have just undone that the last edit. -- Mdd (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Now my question: Could you restore the first versions of the rewriting of the article (without the copyrighted material inserted) and the talk page? Then I can contact Meilir Page-Jones again and ask him if he wants to give an other permission? -- Mdd (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for restoring and fixing the article. I realize now I initially have misinterpreted the permission granted. Sorry for the confusion. I will contact the Meilir Page-Jones, and will follow Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries to the letter. -- Mdd (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Darkwind's talk page.
Message added 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Darkwind (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Brazilian Companies

Hi Nyttend, I have nothing against Brazilian companies, but some users are spamming Wikipedia to promote all of these companies. The are all inter-linked by the same users. When you google these companies, they come up first on the search and then the article takes you to the company website. This is a very common for of spam that websites have to fight all the time.--I am One of Many (talk) 06:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Carlston Annis Shell Mound (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Deposition

East Second Street Historic District (Xenia, Ohio) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Transom

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

your tweak to sockpuppet policy

Hi, I am writing about your edit to our sockpuppet policy. I have three questions. If you wish to move this thread to the policy talk page, please do.

First, I have never encountered the anchor template you used in the edit summary, and did not understand the help page for that template. What is the purpose of the anchor template?

Second, I did not understand the overall point you were trying to convey in the edit summary.

My third question is What problem were you trying to fix by inserting "typically" in the policy?

Thanks for your interest NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I copied some of our Q&A to the WP:SOCK talk page, and the thread is generating some replies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Carlston Annis Shell Mound

(X! · talk)  · @269  ·  12:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Queue

Looks fine to me! Best wishes to you, now and in the new year. --Orlady (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Two lil' things

Hi. Ummmm... I dunno how to put this green ok-sign at the DYK-talk-page. Could you do, please? And here I wrote an article about the official, who might have served Sa. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile I created a new hook. ;) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I wrote a further new hook at the DYK-template. ;) Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Samuel N. Patterson House

Mifter (talk) 12:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

I'm a bit concerned you lost a bit of objectivity in your deletion of the redirects at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 29. It's clearly common practice to have redirects like that and we all know redirects are cheap. They should probably be added to Category:Redirects with possibilities. Ryan Vesey 22:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

;-)

DEAR NYTTEND!!! RIGHT THIS MOMENT GERMANY WELCOMES 2013!!!! HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!!--Nephiliskos (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)