User talk:Nyttend/Archive 52

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)

Real Bills Doctrine

Hi. You recently deleted the whole article on the real bill doctrine. I am pretty new to wikipedia, but it was one of the few things I was working on whenever I found time. Don't you think you went a bit over board by deleting the whole article? I wrote a complete section by myself, so at least in that section there could not have been any copy right issues. Is it possible to restore the article? I am happy to work on the sections which you claim have been copied from elsewhere. Thanks. Marc.1337 (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

True, but then I worked over the section a second time and I wrote every single bit myself. Again, if you have a back up of the article, that might be very helpful. thanks. Marc.1337 (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

???

???, Anyway, long time no see.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Dlohcierekim, just go to WP:IPA and see what happens :-) Nyttend (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Beckham David listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Beckham David. Since you had some involvement with the Beckham David redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — the Man in Question (in question) 21:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic bias

I'm sorry. I was trying to make a general statement and simultaneously to draw you to comment because of your connection to part of the discussion. There was no intention to paint you in a bad light any more than anyone else. I do think unconscious/systemic bias may exist on Wikipedia but I have no reason to highlight you when I might just as well point to myself and everyone else. I am sorry I expressed that so poorly.

Anyway I have reworded the comment which you were unhappy about. See here. Let me know if that improves things, and again I'm sorry you felt attacked there. -Thibbs (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all the images, and especially the extensive categories for each, i.e., 'Brick Churches in xxxx County'. It makes it easy for me to add images and then group the same buildings into a single category with links to the appropriate additional categories. Thanks. I run across your images in most of the Midwestern USA places I take pictures. Chris Light (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for contents of a deleted page

Hello. I asked at the Help Desk. I was directed to you, in that you are one of the admin's who provide copies of the contents of deleted articles. How do I go about requesting such? The article in question is: List of Best Picture milestones. See here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Best Picture milestones. Please advise. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. Are you available for more help? Please see my Talk Page. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Book category

Should a "category" be associated with a REDIRECT article? I feel the "Category:Electronics books" should not exist in this redirect article. The target article "The Art of Electronics" has the same category, which is correct. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Cross-wiki abuse

Hi Nyttend and Doug Weller

I would like to bring to your attention the work on the English wiki of an editor from the Portuguese wiki, which I believe is being done in bad faith. Said editor is presently blocked and under a number of restrictions for chronic WP:POINT, WP:POV, WP:DISRUPT editing despite numerous warnings and an impressive collection of blocks going back a decade.

This editor has been waging a long-running battle in the Portuguese Wikipedia over spellings, terminology and other elements that she favours. However, in the past few years, from time to time she drags her WP:EDITWAR to the enwiki to promote her point of view, either by adding (more) sources defending the form she prefers, changing the spelling or just plain provoking. Extending to the enwiki her tilting at windmills in the ptwiki is confirmed in her own words here, where she is very clear about what she is doing. To glean faster through the text, just word-search the term “prove”. Interestingly, on this occasion, she presented an image of a book cover to prove the existence of the term “ward”. She equally used the name of a person called “Ward” as evidence (Joe H. Ward of Ward's method). Another of her favourite battle fields is the name of categories of country subdivisions. I am including a number of examples for your perusal.

• 1. Examples in which she is reinforcing evidence of a specific spelling to further her argument include:
  • Mahi people here

Corresponds to cross-wiki POV dispute in ptwiki here

• Oko here, part of an on-going campaign the editor wages in violation of the ptwiki equivalent of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) [policy.

I do not have an immediate example of this in the enwiki, but have seen edits in which the editor has changed words of Yoruba origin to the Yoruba spelling or added diacritics to the English equivalents.

• 2. Examples in which she wants to reinforce evidence of the use of certain words include:
  • Township here and here and here

Corresponds to cross-wiki POV dispute in ptwiki here

• Ward, various examples, as follows

Corresponds to cross-wiki POV dispute in ptwiki here

• • List of wards of Zimbabwe here
  • Category: Wards here; which I just was you personally removed
• 3. Example of category of country subdivisions:
  • Subdivisions of Gran Colombia here; reverted in the next edit.
• 4. Examples of just plain provocation include:
  • Cuanza Norte Cuanza Norte Province here,

Corresponds to cross-wiki POV dispute in ptwiki here

Thanks for your time. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

The editor has been notified Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Theses and dissertations

Hi Nyttend. Your edit ("Undergraduate theses aren't reliable sources") was incredibly useful. I have looked for in the relevannt sections on sources and reliable sources in both the enwiki and ptwiki and could never find anything on it. Can you point me to the relevant place? I had two sources, did not want to crowd it with sources, so I included only one. The other one is a post-grad. Is that acceptable? Here is also a sample of googlebooks Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend. Thanks for taking the time to not only provide such an extensive reply, but to analyse each of the sources in question. The ptwiki is currently busy with a project on providing sources for articles that have lingered without any for years, some going as far bac as 2009. Also in a lot articles there is suh a muddle of directly assigned in-text sources; bibliography, external links, further reading, notes, etc. Of these, only the first one can be verified (it either says what the text says or it does not) and to make it worse, many of these are blogs, and sites that are not mentioned anywhere in terms of reliability, such as Statoids.com. I joined the sources project a few days ago and am taking this up there. Again, thanks for your valuable input. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I have since seen that Statoids.com is used as bona fide. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources et al

Hi Nyttend, drawing on your experience, what would be your immediate recommendation here, with "notes", where normally these would be "references", followed by "sources", "further reading", "external links". The last three look basically the same, with "sources" and "further reading" referring to physical publications and "external links" referring to online publications (I have checked, in guidelines, "external links" appears to be correct. Still on external links, Here it alerts a number of times to the importance of balance/ neutrality and adds that "many good articles, and more than half of all featured articles, omit it. This section is present in fewer than 3 per cent of Wikipedia's articles". There are also plroblems with style, as most do not comply with guidelines. Not urgent, whenever you find the time and the mood strikes you. Regards. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for Blocking the Vandalism users and Stop the Edit War on Frederika Alexis Cull

Hello. Can I asked you for Help? I know that you are one of the admin's who provide blocking of checking contents of articles. But do you mind to help me? since in this article Frederika Alexis Cull, I see a lot of vandalism users like User:Migsmigss, User:112.203.243.134, User:CLCStudent and many other vandalism users did, after I check and tracking their IP address they came from the same country which is the Philippines and the other one is based on USA. They did also provoke edit war and changing information from Puteri Indonesia Organization sources at Frederika Alexis Cull article. Please kind of help and block them, since they're too annoying for the readers cause sometimes the article changed and came out with the updated hoax information and vandalism by them. Thanks before, hope you can check this article and help me to make clear all of this. Regards from Jerome Giuseppe Lam, the executive team of Puteri Indonesia Org. 15:57 Jakarta Time, 01 August 2019.

Sorry If I'm not agree with what happen, but just now User:Migsmigss, User:112.203.243.134, User:CLCStudent and many other vandalism users changed so many information that actually does not even represent the current sources that was already used in that article before, they changed the right information based on current sources with hoax information that does not even related with the current sources. And the way they create the fake news is really overdue, just like some words that I take from the newest updated article right now, "an Indonesian mother, Yuliati (now "Yulia Peers" by virtue of her second relationship — a domestic partnership" which is not a right information and very disrespectful to our Organization plus our Puteri Indonesia 2019 (Miss Universe Indonesia 2019)! Frederika Alexis Cull mother was not in a relationship with domestic partnership like what they said, it's very disrespectful. Then if you check the real source is not even related with this fake news, and now we feel that this Article is became so toxic and not reliable with the source right now. The last updated article by our organization and last check by another Wikipedia team admin that we felt is right and based on the actual current sources is this one below. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frederika_Alexis_Cull&diff=903382003&oldid=903372588 Please finish this harassment article right now! I do hope for the best of this article came out on public eye, and hoping that this article just need to be locked so no-one cannot changing with hoax information. Thank you.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome Giuseppe Lam (talk • contribs) 16:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

USPLACE

I would note that I closed this discussion as not moved even though I thought it arguably was a good idea. I'd note that although it might be common to specify the county when referring to a place in England it would never be thought of as being part of the name and one would usually say "Kenton in Suffolk" not "Kenton Suffolk". And sometimes "in" (or similar) is added to the name of the place (presumably often to distinguish) such as Kirkby-in-Ashfield although sometimes the church dedication is used as with Holton St Mary/Holton. If you look at Category:Villages in Essex, Category:Secondary schools in Liverpool, Category:Rivers of Suffolk and Category:Islands of the Inner Hebrides you can see that commas are only used when needed. See for example this comment (due to the dispute over if "Isle of" was part of the name) and this (because I hadn't remembered that Argyll and Bute has an exception). Indeed this is a good example of how WP:UKPLACE can work. I would also note that after you're comment here I made this RM. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Help me change the name of an article

@Nyttend: Hi Sir respectfully that . We are find our radio name article available on Wikipedia. But it’s not right name . Can you help for change this article name . this is only one first online Radio also broadcast media in iran Slogan Persian radio Best Persian Music 24/7. Please change Faryad Radio (iran) to RadioFaryad or Radio Faryad (Iran). Please I hope you, as the administrator, will solve this problem. Thanks

Thirteen years of editing

Hey, Nyttend. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fresno, California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page State (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Southport on Lake Washington

Hi Nyttend,

Hope you are doing well!

I noticed that page Southport on Lake Washington got deleted. I carefully created the content with reliable references and mirrored what I see for Spring District, University Village, Seattle and Issaquah Highlands. I wrote from a neutral point of view, and no external links at all. I'm not sure what else I can do to improve it, do you mind sharing some advice? Thank you for your time and help in advance!

SEAsheke (talk) 19:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend,

Thank you so much for the detailed explanation, now I can understand why. Also thank you for the kind offer, it would be great to have your expertise on this. What kind of information do you need from me? Is the talk page a good place for future communications? Thank you! SEAsheke (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend,

Thank you for taking time to help me! Got it, I will work on the governmental sources and get back to you ASAP.

Have a great weekend!SEAsheke (talk) 01:19, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend,

It's been a while, hope you are doing well!

I'm making progress on the governmental sources, just need a bit more time. This is the link to some articles of the project I think may be useful - https://www.dropbox.com/sh/u4xdipesn7td8r7/AAD1zD3AIDBNhSrAuhfK26STa?dl=0&lst=

Thank you! SEAsheke (talk) 20:09, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Protecting Frederika Alexis Cull Page

Hi, I'm not quite yet versed with protecting pages, and I hope you could help me protect the Frederika Alexis Cull page again. It has been subject to multiple mis-edits again, after the protection limit you initiated has expired. I would also appreciate it if you could help me learn how to protect pages, especially from external contributors editing with misinformation/inaccurate details.

Thanks so much. Would appreciate your assistance. :) Migsmigss (talk) 10:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Emanuel Gandolfo

This was deleted by you in 2016 as a G11, but there was a regular article that had existed since 2009 that had been rewritten into an advert the same day you deleted it. I have restored that version since it definitely doesn't meet any speedy criteria. —Xezbeth (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Beans, Beans, the Musical Fruit

Re this there are some other things, I'm not going to post them all though. Notably, a blocked admin can only block the person that blocked them back; and notably blocked admins (or others with viewdelete) can still view deleted content. In general, things that change page content are all blocked when editing is blocked. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Question

Hello. I was seeking the name of an administrator. I looked through a list here on Wikipedia and I saw -- and recognized -- your name. I am sure that you have helped me with various questions over the years on the Help Desks, Reference Desks, etc. Thanks. I am trying to find a Wikipedia administrator who can help me with an issue / problem. Do you think that you might be able to help me? Or can you "recommend" someone who can? Please let me know. I will check back on your Talk Page, periodically. Surprisingly, it's somewhat difficult to find / contact an administrator here on Wikipedia. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I can try, but please tell what it's about, or I won't be able to do anything :-) Nyttend (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Thanks. When you have a free moment, please see this page here: (User:Joseph A. Spadaro/Sandbox/Page98). I laid it all out on that page, which is in my "sand box". I thought that that would be easier than cluttering up my Talk Page and/or your Talk Page. Please help me. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

apology

my response must have seemed a bit odd - Australian usages are rarely understood outside local usage, and despite the attempts at standardising some things, we end up with non australian english in the oddest of places... Shire/Council weirdness as Hack said is inconsistent. We have regular mis-spellings and mis-uses of things - the opposition party in our federal politics insists on being 'labor', while general usage is closer to Brit - with 'labour' generally used. Thanks for asking at AWNB - hopefully you get better answer than mine, when asking similar questions. JarrahTree 13:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hello Nyttend,

There is no button on my page to object to it's "Speedy Deletion"

My page is an alphabetical list of cocktails, something that has been SORELY LACKING on wikipedia.

The list it duplicates is a list by ingredient. Not everyone knows or agrees on ingredients.

For example, a martini. Vodka or Gin? It's a question of personal preference.

Real bartenders need an ALPHABETICAL list of cocktails.

Alex Miller xandermiller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandermiller (talk • contribs) 20:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award

I would like to revive this category:

• Category:Recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award

I note these previous discussions:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_20#Category:Silver_Buffalo_awardees
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_28

Please refer to this list: List of recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award

I think this is a useful and well populated category. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 19:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, I have started populating the category. --evrik ^(talk) 14:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Oldest zoo in the world" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Oldest zoo in the world. Since you had some involvement with the Oldest zoo in the world redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Oiho" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Oiho. Since you had some involvement with the Oiho redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"EPnnsylvania" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect EPnnsylvania. Since you had some involvement with the EPnnsylvania redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Battle of south guangxi

Re: this discussion... I could understand a "keep" outcome at the close of the discussion, but a "speedy keep" just after it was relisted, when two of five participants support deletion, and two of those in favor of keeping are just pointing to a policy, has me scratching my head. I ask you to reconsider, or point out if I am missing something obvious. Also, since you brought it up, what are the other ways, besides the search bar, that people search? Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of the different ways that people reach pages (e.g. clicking an internal link or a link from an external website, etc.) but I do not think of those as methods of searching. Semantics aside, I do not think a hypothetical argument that may be valid in general (e.g., the risk of link rot) should necessarily trump case-specific considerations. In this case, I saw that the redirect receives ~25 views per year and thought this was an immaterial number. One could certainly dispute that, and perhaps consensus and precedent are against me, but the nomination was not unreasoned. Moreover, I was not suggesting the outcome be based on raw votes but merely pointing out that it did not merit a "speedy keep", at least not the usage to which I am accustomed (I do not spend much time at RfD, and perhaps the practice there is different). In any case, I trust your characterization of the applicable precedent and will no longer pursue deletion of this redirect or similar ones. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:14, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• I was also puzzled by your close of that discussion. Closing it as "keep" is fair, but not closing it as "speedy keep". The additional commentary you gave is better off as a !keep vote, not as a closing statement. It's not a neutral summary of the discussion that was had, and comes off as biased. I think you should back out of your close and leave your statement as a normal keep !vote if you wish, and let someone close it neutrally. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Someone whose nomination is so grossly wrong as to deserve a speedy keep should have it explained, lest the inappropriate behavior persist. We have nearly two decades of precedent for such redirects, and categories and templates for them, so unless you wish to start a discussion seeking project-wide deprecation of all 400000+ alternate-capitalisation redirects, this matter is not subject to discussion. Nyttend (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• And that is your opinion—which is not in line with the consensus of the discussion so far. The redirect being discussed is one single redirect, not 400,000 others, so your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument is irrelevant. I agree with you that these kind of redirects are normally kept, but the proper way to prove that is through a discussion that gets overwhelming "keeps", not a gung-ho, questionable "speedy keep" close. Further, you should have expressed that opinion as a !vote so this discussion could have been conducted at the proper location, which would be the RfD itself. Are you going to revert your closure? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

• Your response demonstrates that you misunderstand my meaning completely. Once you understand it, I will be happy to continue the discussion, or if you can't understand it, I'll be happy to provide clarification, but only if you avoid making threats. Nyttend (talk) 23:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)