User talk:Nyttend: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:08, 16 August 2012

"You have new messages" was designed for a purpose: letting people know you have replied to them. I do not watch your talk page and I will likely IGNORE your reply if it is not copied to my page, as I will not be aware that you replied! Thank you.

Authority control integration

Thanks very much for your comments on the proposal on the Village Pump. We've refined it and worked out some more details after the discussion, and there is now a community Request for Comment to approve it being implemented. Any feedback gratefully received! Andrew Gray (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Lawrence Album Page

I am not sure what I need to do after receiving your notification of deletion of a page I cannot find on Wikipedia. Thank you for your assistance to this newbie to the Wikipedia protocol. Idaho50 (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 27.
Message added 20:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Qwertyus and Ohio politicians

With you being a resident of Ohio and knowledgable of Ohio politics, wouldn't you like to see these things improved upon? They are prominent to your society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.52.242 (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ole Wich

Hello, Nyttend. I just returned after a 15-month wikibreak and discovered that an article Ole Wich that I started some years ago has been PRODded and deleted. I wondered whether, in your capacity as administrator, you'd be kind enough to userify the article for me so that I can assess for myself whether the article is worth improving or whether it really deserved to be deleted. Best regards, Euchiasmus (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It hadn't progressed beyond the original one sentence and gallery of Commons images that you started it with. But proposed deletion can be restored in place (by Nyttend or via Project:Requests for undeletion) if challenged after the fact. Uncle G (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Restored per your request; see User:Euchiasmus/Ole Wich. Nyttend (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I'll see if I can find any more information and references that could establish notability. Regards, Euchiasmus (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin999

Did you read the first section discussing that? Your assertion that discussion supports restoration of talk page access doesn't seem to match the discussion at all. Please comment on that back at Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy ‎ Toddst1 (talk) 20:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Charles Taylor

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities.
Message added 21:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Lewis and Clark County Hospital Historic District

I'm finding little info on this. Can you find the NRHP nom form? I'm having trouble. Draft is here: User:PumpkinSky/Lewis and Clark County Hospital Historic District. Feel free to edit. Thanks.PumpkinSky talk 22:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got one from the Montana office and the NRHP says they'll send me one. Thanks!PumpkinSky talk 16:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slide show on Commons?

Hoping you might know how to do this.

I'm doing a 20 minute presentation at Wikimania on "Working with WP:NRHP" and using a Powerpoint presentation on Saturday the 14th. Twenty minutes is not a lot of time and I want to be sure that the slide show is easily accessible. There are 6 slides plus a title page. Is there any way to put it on Commons in a format that keeps the weblinks?

I'd also like folks at WP:NRHP to be able to comment, so I can make changes if needed. Smallbones (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the best solution so far [1] Smallbones (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Do you get a better pic of the Yellow River footbridge? It was high water when I was there and couldn't get anything from the side. Smallbones (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest

The more y'all attempt to explain yourselves, the more you do one, more, or all of the following:

1. Imply that Wikipedia editors know everything and therefore there is no need for our contributions (informational, financial, or otherwise).

2. Suggest that Wikipedia editors ALWAYS know more than the subject matter experts on how best to present/organize the information on a specific subject.

3. Attempting to contribute to Wikipedia is a waste of time.

4. You didn’t actually read (or at lease understand) our comments before auto responding.

5. You haven’t read the material sufficiently and/or are knowledgeable enough about the subject to understand why it is presented/organized in the way suggested.

6. Other “things” that are often felt, but are both inappropriate and counter productive to include in this forum.

Your explanation fits YOUR example perfectly. Entity A is still entity A (but by a shorter name) when part B and then later part C is removed.

However, that does not work in this case. Entity A became entity B (hence article B) and then entities C, D, E, & F combined to make entity G (hence article G). Entities H, I, & J combined to become entity K (hence article K). Much later entity G & K combined to make entity M (hence article M). Then entity M combined with entity B to make entity N, but only after entity L is split off from entity B (thereby creating a need for article N--otherwise, which article do you modify?).

In a little more simple terms if entity X merges with entity Y to become entity Z, which article should be modified, article X or article Y? The most reasonable approach is to create article Z, with references to both article X and article Y. Entities splitting or dividing (as in the case of your example) are a much different case.

We DID begin substantial modifications of a previous article, but quickly realized that doing so created more confusion than clarification. Therefore we undid our modifications and created [or attempted to create] a new article.

When it was declined, we were told to update the existing article–however, the “existing” article named IS the one that was declined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.119.83.174 (talk) 18:52, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Appparently we have confirmed by our further treatment 1, 2, and mostly 3 above! 161.119.83.174 (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC) 161.119.83.174 (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment on the case page, I presume the comment from a sock that you mention is this one. Should that be the case then the connection is that the same sock left such a comment on Trev's talk page and a similar dispute with Mathsci arose.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at The Devil's Advocate's talk page.[reply]

Ensure you read my newest response on Devil's page.PumpkinSky talk 02:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barns that are round

Argh! That list you pointed me to looks to me like a rough draft that ought to be moved directly to its creator's user space, or possibly to NRHP wikiproject space, until he develops it into something that merits inclusion in article space. I seem to recall that one or more of the noticeboard discussions last year concluded with support for that sort of action if he persisted in creating rough drafts in article space, but I don't remember exactly what happened -- and I am not inclined right at the moment to figure out what actually resulted from those discussions.

The individual articles that I sampled are a mixed bag. I haven't yet found any of the most egregious speculative (e.g., "is or was" or "either/or") statements, blank spaces to be filled in later, or paragraph-length quotations of prosaic information, but several of the ones I checked were pre-existing articles written by someone else. --Orlady (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that history merge. I believe that one of my edit summaries indicated it was needed, but I didn't have time to do it. Thanks also for move-protecting the page; I thought about salting the article-space page, but we can hope that the move protection will be sufficient.

That new page-moving interface is seriously confusing when dealing with subpages in user space! --Orlady (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently I'm still not permitted to attempt to communicate on the actual user's user talk page. [2] --Orlady (talk) 15:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marking resolves copyright problems

Hi, I gather from User:Moonriddengirl's advice to another editor working at Copyright problems [3], we mark articles as resolved but don't remove them from the listing page. That way we can keep track of the articles that were worked on and when. I took the liberty of fixing this for you at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2012 May 29. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks for the note and the work. I must admit that I'm uncertain about the context — MRG's comment sounds to me to be addressing the removal of items from CCIs, since they consist of potential mass infringement by the same person, but CP seems to me also to include instances of isolated potential infringment without patterns that need to be tracked. If "they are only listed at CP when they need to be handled at CP", why would we still need to list an article at CP if I've resolved the issue and thus the article doesn't need any more handling from people at CP? Nyttend (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can look confusing because she was responding to two questions from the editor. The first part was about whether to remove an article from the original day listing if it's been relisted on another day. The answer was to leave it but mark it as relisted. The Clerks and admins who close a whole day's page look to see that each article listed there has been dealt with, and if they all have (which includes relisting), that day's page is untranscluded from the main CP page, but kept as a record. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your Indiana/Michigan/Ohio Tri-point photo

Hey, I've been informed that the tri-point you have a picture of (File:Indiana-Michigan-Ohio tripoint marker.jpg) is the true boundary of where IN/MI/OH meet. I thought that the survey disc located nearby in the road under the face plate was the actual point, but supposedly a newer marker contradicts that. Do you have any information on that newer marker since your photo is from May of 2012? Thanks! Frank12 (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. I wanted to visit the spot soon and that's why I was researching the location. I found a geocaching page talking about it [4] and in there people have tagged photos of both the granite benchmark (BM1841) [5] from the 1915 Michigan-Ohio joint survey and of the disc located in the road near the marker [6] . Someone also tagged the description of the benchmark [7], giving its location and where in 1960 it read: A 10-INCH SQUARE GRANITE POST, PROJECTING 1.3 FEET ABOVE GROUND, HAS INCISED THERON THE FOLLOWING LEGENDS, ON THE TOP, STATE LINE, MICHIGAN ON THE N FACE, OHIO ON THE S FACE, AND INDIANA LINE 20 FEET WEST IS ON THE W FACE. NOTHING IS INCISED ABOVE GROUND ON THE E FACE. I thought from all of the pictures I had seen of that broken marker I could read "DIANA ) FEET". I also referenced the Williams County, Ohio Engineer's office for Northwest Township [8] , and they have that road included on their map as a loosely paved road, which I thought I had seen in another picture labeled as "Williams County Road 1".

I'm not trying to come across as a know-it-all or anything of that sort, it's just that I had arrived at my conclusion from what I had looked at and was confused when I was told the granite marker and not the disc was the point. I didn't understand the purpose of the disc and its location in the road if that wasn't the point. Anyway, thank you again for getting back to me and for the photos you've contributed. I'm very interested in things related to boundaries and since this one was the closest tri-point to where I grew up, it sparked my interest, and I wanted to know what to look for. Frank12 (talk) 18:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

J.H. Manchester Round Barn / Round Barn (New Hampshire, Ohio)

Hi. I see that new stub article Round Barn (New Hampshire, Ohio) is about the "Round Barn" NRHP listed within National Register of Historic Places listings in Auglaize County, Ohio that is pipelinked to red-link J.H. Manchester Round Barn, which I think is your preferred title for the article. Do you want to move the started article to that preferred name? Or wait and start the red-linked title as a new article later, if/when you are ready to do a DYK for it? If the latter then the stub could be redirected to that, unless that is cheating in DYK terms. Actually, a developed article would meet 5X criteria for DYK, even without it being a new article. I am bit rusty about all this. Anyhow, please feel free to move the article, and it would be nice if you share whatever else you have there, too. Thanks, --do ncr am 17:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have replied elsewhere, but I don't recall what the upshot is. Is it okay if I make the move of article to your preferred name, so that the NRHP list-article links to the article that now exists for the site? I'd be happy to see you make the move. I'll watch here. --do ncr am 04:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead if you want, or leave it alone if you want; it will need to be moved eventually, but I'm not going to tell you that you have to do it right now. Most of my wikiwork in upcoming days will be photos; on a weekend trip I visited all remaining sites in Indiana's Delaware, Grant, Huntington, Madison, Marion, and Wabash counties (plus one in Hancock County), so I have a good deal of uploading to do. Indiana is now well past 75% illustrated; I've gotten every single site southwest of Indianapolis and most in the southeast and north central, and what I've not gotten in the far north is often illustrated by Chris Light. Nyttend (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma Digital Maps Collection

Thank you for getting back with me about my external link question from June 11th. However, I could not find your response. I am hoping with your experience with this issue you might be able to lead me in the right direction. As a fellow library/graduate student I appreciate the help. I really would like to know if an external link for this map collection can be added to the pages I've identified or not. Thanks! Athiker99 (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trees of Eternity

Nyttend, could you take another look--are the musicians actually independently notable; does the band meet WP:MUSIC--I am too ignorant to be able to tell, but there seems to be a set of inter-related pages depending on each other DGG ( talk ) 20:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Josette Manin - President of the General Council of Martinique

Thankyou for responding to my query regarding the French article relating to Josette Manin. But I believe I have misled you in my request. My desire was to see the French article for Josette Manin translated and posted on the English Wikipedia. I cannot translate French into English. I was curious if there was a procedure whereby administrators or contributors in Wikipedia could translate the article and post it. It just annoyed me that the English version did not have access to the bio info on this person that was available in the French version. I apologise if I gave you the wrong impression that I wanted to translate the article myself. Yameogo (talk) 10:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frasier Crane.jpg

I have uploaded prior image, File:Jaleel White Steve Urkel.jpg, which also appears in Getty Images, and I must say that I tried keeping it. However, prior publications do not lessen risk of deletion, even if it belongs to the networks. I've done other photos before, and they appear at Getty. Therefore, you can ask Stefan2 about it. --George Ho (talk) 17:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I previously assumed that an image of a mere actor in character can be adequate. However, I realize that a non-free image must indicate an overall visual characteristics. Also, even when originally published by network, the licensing to Getty is still... how do you explain it? Anyway, if we can't settle this, then we can go to WP:MCQ then. --George Ho (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Jack Sparrow thing, that... could be used for commercial purposes, but we don't know yet. Back to the Urkel thing, Hullaballoo has a point: evidence to prove that any photo was released by a network as a promo is required. Even a network can use a photo of Urkel for profits. --George Ho (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here are my big shots at this: File:Jaleel White Steve Urkel.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). One user assumes that Getty license has no effect at all. However, The other user, Stefan2, presumes or assumes that commercial use triumphs any other use, regardless of original intent and publication. Just in case, the photo of Cheers cast was deleted because of its higher commercial value. --George Ho (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard anything from you yet since I last replied to you two days ago. What gives? --George Ho (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, do you want to challenge the deletion of either Cheers cast photo or Steve Urkel photo? --George Ho (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This matter in general is discussed in WP:VPP#Images of fictional characters and/or shows in Getty Images. --George Ho (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another update: Stefan2 has nominated this article for deletion. --George Ho (talk) 21:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This image is gone... FOREVER! ... Unless you have evidence that the decision was inadequate to summarize arguments. WP:DRV; you know that, right? --George Ho (talk) 00:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.N.A.College of Engineering and Technology

I tagged it for CSD per Talk:PSNA_College_of_Engineering_and_Technology#Merger_proposal. Did you decline because the page has been around for a year and a half (thus apparently exempt for R3), or because the title isn't a typo? benzband (talk) 20:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I won't bother nominating it. benzband (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 23:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

WilliamH (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cedar Falls Iowa Edit

This is rather late of me to notice, but on July 2 you deleted the info I put into the Cedar Falls Iowa Demographics section. You put the 2000 census data back in which I usually delete since its no longer up to date, and that's fine I have no problems with you putting it back in. It's the other thing you did I find rather odd. You replaced my three paragraphs of 2010 census data which had about twice as much statistical info with the old paragraphs that were there before I edited the page, is there any reason for this? Jamo2008 (talk) 03:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your contributions, I've just realised that you're running an unapproved bot on this account. Stop now. Any further bot editing without a request for approval is in violation of our bot policy and will result in a temporary block. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted the request for approval so can you now at least answer my original question?Jamo2008 (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see that now on the Cedar Falls page but you might as well undo that one too like your reverting all of my other perfectly legitmate edits just because they were automated doesn't mean the data isn't correct and legitimate you could at least wait for the yah or nah from the bot page before undoing all of my work. Jamo2008 (talk) 17:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Nebraska communities

I notice that you've reverted a number of recent changes in which User:Jamo2008 added a percent sign to the demographics section of articles on Nebraska communites (for example, this diff). Any reason for this? The percent sign seemed quite appropriate to me; and your reversion has removed a space, producing "0.1Pacific Islander".

On some other reversions of Jamo2008's edits, you've restored the old phrasing for the third paragraph of the "Demographics" section, including the rather awful "In the village the population was spread out..." phrasing. For what it's worth, Jamo2008 and I mooted a change to this phrasing at WikiProject Cities; we got disappointingly little response, but the single not-us person who responded to us favored the change. Is there a good Wikireason for keeping the old phrasing, or another reason why you reverted Jamo2008's edits?

Finally, I note that you added a "minor edit" tag to these reversions, even when they involved striking >200 characters and reverting to the old boilerplate. Is this appropriate? I ask not to score a point, but in ignorance: I'd always thought that the minor-edit tag was reserved for uncontroversial edits, e.g. corrections of indisputable spelling and grammar errors. —Ammodramus (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply; I hadn't known that there'd been discussion on this. Do you happen to recall where it took place? If possible, I'd still like to push for a change in the boilerplate—that "spread out" really sticks in my craw. Ammodramus (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also interested in a diff or link to the aforementioned consensus. Since a serious amount of work has been undone (bot issues aside), it is reasonable to ask you to find the consensus. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also tried to instigate discussion of changing the census boilerplate, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States/Archive_7#Census boilerplate . . . That discussion got a lot farther than the one at the Cities wikiproject (there were some excellent suggestions on the standard language), but there were relatively few participants (in spite of the alleged large participation in that Wikiproject) -- and it apparently included no one who was involved with telling bots to update this information. We need to find all of the parties and all of the bits and pieces of discussion to get all of the census data updated in a sensible fashion. --Orlady (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stringer Stone House

Some time ago, you asked me to look up this place the next time I was in Jefferson County. I finally made it, and I think I am too late. I found a house on Warren Street with number 224 on the side, and took some photos, but it seems it was just a weird coincidence since it doesn't look like the one described here [9]. I looked on street view on google maps a few minutes ago, near the dairy queen described in the Jefferson county genealogical website, and saw a vacant lot near the creek. I probably will be down there again sometime, and will give it a closer look. By the way, the Dairy Queen is several hundred yards west of the location listed in Stringer Stone House.
Roseohioresident (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page stalker) It appears to have burned down. Also here and here. Sigh. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porceln

Hello Nyttend! I am new on Wikipedia and I find it a bit confusal... You deleted my article because of copyright issues, but how can I bring it back to edit it? I don`t want to restart it from a blank sheet, can you help me? Thankas, (Porceln (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry, you misunderstood me, I understand now, that I have to write it on my own, I just wanted to have the previous text as an example. I hope that`s permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Porceln (talk • contribs) 10:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic (Columbus)

I suppose I agree with half your edit here. I had put this newspaper in "Media in Indianapolis" becuase Columbus (Bartholomew County, to be precise), though it's not in the usual nine-county definition of Indy metro, is in the Indianapolis television market. I'm never sure under what circumstances suburban/exurban newspapers belong in the "Media in ..." categories -- never? Only if their coverage area touches on the main city? Only if they're in the Census-defined metro? And is that MSA or CMSA? Or, for sake of consistency with the radio and television entries in the category, do we use the TV market boundaries, which usually would encompass the largest area? If you know of any consensus on this point I would be glad to read it.

As for the deletion of Category:Bartholomew County, Indiana I assume that your thinking was that Category:Columbus, Indiana is a subcategory of the Bartholomew Co. category. It is, but it's three generations removed (via Category:Populated places in Bartholomew County, Indiana and Category:Geography of Bartholomew County, Indiana, hardly an intuitive path for someone looking for a news outlet with countywide reach). I included the city category because The Republic is a company based in Columbus, but the county category becuase it's a media organization covering the entire county. I think it ought to be categorized in both locations. _``` t b w i l l i e _` $1.25 _` 20:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AN3 template

It's {{AN3|p|semi=yes|3 days}}. T. Canens (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article about Radha Thomas

I am currently working on the Wiki page for Ms Radha Thomas. She is an Indian jazz singer and songwriter. In fact, she is known as a diva in the Indian jazz scene. She previously was with the band Human Bondage and has sung and performed globally. The article is still under development. I haven't completed it or submitted it for review yet. You can have a look at it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Radha_Thomas. I will be requesting your help and advice (as usual) in making it conform to all Wiki standards. If you do a Google Search for Radha (https://www.google.co.in/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=Radha+Thomas&oq=Radha+Thomas&gs_l=hp.3..0l2j0i30l2.1190.3159.0.3385.12.12.0.0.0.0.282.1949.0j11j1.12.0...0.0...1c.dYmnNUlMsQM&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=f6ee012440c72a74&biw=1024&bih=509) you will find dozens of articles and links to her work. As of now, the article is still under development and I will come bug you for help soon! Varunr (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dyk query

Hi; spotted your query; if your hook includes two dark blue links then I think it also needs two qpq reviews; thanks, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 07:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Stoner Site

Hello! Your submission of Stoner Site at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that 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! LauraHale (talk) 13:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Safetray

Hi Nyttend. I mentioned you at Template:Did you know nominations/Safetray. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well Done!

You have been awarded the Manliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Stoner Site at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Safety Regulations Governing the Transport of Radioactive Material

Dear Sir, Could you please tell me where this copyright infringement is? I have supplied links to back the statements up. I was not aware they fall into the category of copyright if you use the links as a reference. Any feedback gratefully received. Regards. Articles for creation/Safety Regulations Governing the Transport of Radioactive Material.

Arata Fujiwara

Hi, you once (back in 2009) deleted the page Arata Fujiwara as a blatant hoax, it was part of a mass nomination of similar articles. There's now an Olympic athlete by that name so if you can still view the deleted material I'd just like to check that there was nothing relevant on it that could be used now. Thanks - Basement12 (T.C) 23:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely nothing useful, unfortunately. The deleted content was simply a citation to this book and a statement that Arata is a Japanese prince, the son of Prince So-and-so, and the grandson of Prince Such-and-such. Reading the discussion tells you pretty much all that there is to know about this article's content and probably equally much about all of the other articles. Nyttend (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, worth a try. Thanks for looking - Basement12 (T.C) 02:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment at Arbitration

Forgive me if i am wrong, but isn't your comment intended here in the India-Pakistan section, and not at Clarification request: Annotation of case pages for sanctioned users who have changed username? Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 02:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC) (please ignore if i have made a mistake)[reply]

Seems like you already noticed that. :) Regards, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 02:42, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New messages

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Sfan00 IMG's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your impartiality has been questioned (not by me), and you deserve to know

See Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Navigators USA. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Historic District

I ran the query on this and it says there are 15 buildings. I know you probably told me how before, but how can I get an accurate listing? The query tool didn't tell me nor give a link to the PDF. This is Helena, Montana, not one of the other Helenas. PumpkinSky talk 19:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The names of the 15 places would help a lot. Addresses even better. I'll write that guy in MT for the nom form. Anywhere else I can get this info?PumpkinSky talk 01:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Republic

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

tb

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

architecture categories

Hi Nyttend -- I note with some alarm your edits to Brookfield Center Historic District (Brookfield, Connecticut) and some other NRHP historic district articles, in which you remove architecture categories with an edit summary to the extent that architecture categores aren't valid unless every building displays that style. That is a new view, and I think not reasonable. For someone interested in Greek Revival style, which I happen to like a lot, one wants to be able to find historic districts that are noted for including that type. There are many hundreds, possibly thousands of HD articles having architecture categories.

The edits I notice include:

Druid Hills Historic District (Atlanta, Georgia) ‎ (Architectural style categories aren't appropriate for HDs unless all the buildings have the same style) (top)
02:28, 24 July 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-354)‎ . . Buena Vista Park Historic District ‎ (Architectural style categories aren't appropriate for HDs unless all the buildings have the same style; cleanup styles in text) (top)
02:27, 24 July 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-174)‎ . . Brookfield Center Historic District (Brookfield, Connecticut) ‎ (Architectural style categories aren't appropriate for HDs unless all the buildings have the same style)
02:26, 24 July 2012 (diff | hist) . . (-115)‎ . . Adams Street Historic District

It seems these edits eradicate useful info and I am reverting these four. Can I please suggest that you not make changes like these, without some general discussion?

Sincerely, --do ncr am 03:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Got your note back. I'll watch here. I am uncomfortable in getting into a thing with you, I don't want a thing going on. I asked editor Vegaswikian, who has removed date categories from many NRHP hd articles, to comment. I have not opposed V's edits, because the date categories involved phrasing that was probably not correct (and is likely not correct in many regular NRHP non-hd articles. For a simple Category:Greek Revival architecture tag, it is I think clear that the style is represented in the hd or non-d. If it was represented saliently or widely enough to be included in the NRIS fields for these, then usually I would think that such categories are very good for the articles. And I and others have done a lot of work to put them there. I agree with your sentiment that these should not be considered too lightly; I would not be happy to see them lightly removed. --do ncr am 04:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, for just one state, Connecticut, there are about 43 hds among 66 articles having Category:Greek Revival architecture in Connecticut, including Coventry Glass Factory Historic District for one more example. The article states that Greek Revival and Federal architecture is represented in the district, and there are corresponding categories, appropriate in my view. Removing the 43 hd articles' categories would undermine use of the category by readers to find their way to Greek Revival architecture in the state, imho. --do ncr am 04:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted my restoration of architectural categories, plus a bit more wikilinking done by me in the same edit, at Brookfield Center Historic District (Brookfield, Connecticut), plus reverted at least one of the other 3. I don't know where we are in BRD; I would think your removal of arch categories is the bold, unexpected step, which i reverted and began discussion here. I'll leave them be for now, hope for some others' comments. --do ncr am 04:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Districts do not generally represent something that happens in one year, and there are exceptions. So if you have a district in a date related category, that is probably incorrect unless everything in the district happened on the specified date. The same would apply for architecture styles. If everything is in a given style, then it would be acceptable to have the district in that category. In all of these cases, redirects to handle the buildings, correctly categorizing them in a style and date category is acceptable after the building has a mention in the district article (this allows for sourcing). It would be nice if the generator would actually create more specific categories since the NRHP articles always seem to appear in less then optimal categories. As a general rule, unless everything in a category should be eligible for the parent categories. For articles, this is less well defined with redirects being the best solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on Adams Street Historic District, the article states It includes Bungalow/Craftsman architecture and Folk Victorian architecture. Based on that, I don't think that merits including those style categories on the district article. My recommendation would be to list the contributing properties in the district article as a table. That could include the date built, the style of the building, architect, and other pertinent information. Once this is established, then redirects could be created correctly categorizing each of the buildings if anyone feels the need. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vegaswikian, I am surprised at your view on the architecture categories, which seems extreme to me. I can't find one of the old examples now, but on the date categories what had been in many HD and non-HD articles was something like Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1896, which was not really acceptable as an extrapolation from 1896 being a year listed in NRIS having some association with a property (without knowledge of it being a date of anything built, perhaps it was an event of significance, and without reference to second part of a date range, e.g. built during 1896-1908, where the 2nd date in a range is not made available in the article. It seems acceptable/good to me that you removed those category-type assertions from many NRHP HD articles.

About a category like Category:Greek Revival architecture for an HD, however, there is no misleading or likely-to-be-incorrect assertion made. The presence of Greek Revival architecture is of reader interest. I first sort of disliked Greek Revival architecture, by the way, but came to like it when I learned more about it, how it represented both an American superficial google-news-browsing-like interest in democratic revolution going on in Greece (note the architectural style does not look much like anything in Greece; it is a pure American concoction) and a first American rejection of English styles such as Adamesque in favor of anything not-English. --do ncr am 06:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with districts is that you don't know when is was constructed from the infobox. As you said, those dates in the infobox don't state what they are for. Thankfully some of the articles are written in a way that we know what the date is. When an article says that the district contains 20 building built in 1873, we know when it was built. So clearly in a case like that we know a lot more. When the article states that the district includes properties in 4 neighborhoods built over 10 years, then clearly the district was not built in a single year, no matter what the infobox implies. One interesting thing about districts, these are collections of buildings that have been tied together in a group, for some historical reason. If the district did not exist a century ago, can we assert that it did? Also, I think that the properties in districts can change over time. So including districts in certain very specific categories is probably not advised. The notability and the defining characteristics are for the listed properties and not the district. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Without commenting on the specifics of the district article vs specific properties, I am interested in the feeling that "something has to be 100% in order to be in a category or it shouldnt apply". The Metropolitan Museum of Art is in Category:Museums of Ancient Rome and Category:Museums of American art. Even though the museum is dedicated exclusively to neither, it's collections are larger than almost any special purpose museum dedicated to either. But thats appropriate because it's a world class museum of art. What I'm saying is that I'd expect to see proportionality play more of a role. If 90% of the houses are Greek Revival and the other 10% are mixed, then why not mark it greek revival? If something is only 10% Colonial, why highlight it? It could be I'm missing something obvious or key differences between museums and historical buildings. dm (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the minds of every person who uses Wikipedia categories, but it seems to me that readers would expect to find some content that is clearly relevant to the style or type. Accordingly, the architectural style categories should be reserved for articles that are focused on a work of a particular style or have some content with strong relevance to a specific style. Many U.S. historic districts have lists of styles because a variety of styles (generally "revivals' of older styles) were used. For example, the Hincheyville Historic District (in the same city as the Adams St. district) has 70 buildings (almost all single-family houses) and a source lists 10 architectural styles as being represented -- in that kind of context, the list of architectural styles is merely trivia and not a defining characteristic suitable for categorization. Under my notion, the determination of whether an article belongs in an architecture category admittedly requires some subjective judgment, but I hope that people will exercise judgment and not list historic districts in these categories unless the sources indicate a strong association. The NRIS database does not seem to be a particularly solid source for this purpose -- it often appears to me that the lists in the database are truncated; for example, for that Hincheyville district it lists just three styles. --Orlady (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orlady, I think we're saying exactly the same thing. I would expect to find substantive content associated with a topic that had a related category assigned. I would expect good judgment from the editor who assigned it, probably erring on the side of not adding a category if it was borderline. dm (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our RfD discussion

I had said "let me think on it further" in reply to you at one point. Just letting you know that I've finished thinking about it. Of the file redirects listed on that day, I voiced my support for deletion on three of them which I believe to be too vague to keep. As for the others, I do not intend to speak against any keep argument they receive. As I mentioned in my one response at Pieratsunset.JPG, I'm open to further discussion beyond the scope of specific redirects if you want to pursue it, but I'm just as comfortable leaving what I've said to stand for itself so it's up to you. (Feel free to reply here or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Redirect. I have them both on watchlist.) BigNate37_(T) 23:04, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Court House, Arlington, Virginia

Hello Nyttend,

I actually copied the Court House, Arlington, Virginia article that you deleted from another article on this site that was titled Courthouse, Arlington, Virginia. The official name of the neighborhood is "Court House" so I changed the article title and set up a re-direct from the original article. I do not know about the Meet Up page. It might have been copied by the original author of the article or maybe the Meet Up person copied it from Wikipedia. Can you please put my page back up? I do not know how to message you or use the Talk Back code. Is this the right place to message you?

Thank you! tdp1980 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdp1980 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

20120813. Thank you for letting me know about the MOVE link. I have now moved the original article. tdp1980

Please close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ftrosanna

Thanks for speedying User:Ftrosanna. Would you mind closing the MfD too? Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ftrosanna. Thanks. --Surturz (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:ClavenCliff.jpg

Still, there must be another criteria, like {{db-g6}}. --George Ho (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any other file can use this name, but a redirect? Why? Just because it's cheap? What are policies to have file names as redirects to another file? --George Ho (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of keeping it as a redirect? --George Ho (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That link doesn't apply to this situation, and even this doesn't have any relevant or useful link, like mainspace or talkspace. Why can't you allow anybody to use this name for another file? I don't get how harmful deleting this useless redirect is, even when prior revisions show it. --George Ho (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This proves that the renaming situation is already fixed. Anything else? --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's already fixed by someone else. --George Ho (talk) 06:06, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about National Register of Historic Places listings in Eagle County, Colorado

Nyttend: On the page for the National Register of Historic Places listings in Eagle County, Colorado, the listing for the Wolcott Bridge occurrs twice, once in the main section (Listings County-Wide) and once in the Former Listings section. Can it be removed from the main list? Kind regards, Jeffrey Beall (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 15:12, 26 July 2012 (UTC) .[reply]

Re: Luís Capela

Thank you for acknowledging me about it. Once I decided to check broken redirects everyday, but quickly recognized that an administrator will always check for Broken redirects each day. Vanischenum^Talk 10:02, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Writing an article

Help me on writing a tremendous article on the topic "Role of youth in nation's development". It is neither my homework nor a Wikipedia article, I have to give a huge stage performance. 106.212.40.209 (talk) 16:13, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out

User:PumpkinSky/Helena Historic District (Montana). There were 4 submissions so the db generated 4 of these. Will have to sort out. This one will be a pain and there are many buildings.

C1 empty categories

Looking at upcoming C1 speedy deletions, I see that you tagged several empty categories. How do you find them? It seems that most multi-tagging is done by people who empty them inappropriately, but your contributions show me that you're doing everything rightly. Nyttend (talk) 01:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The database report at Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories is updated regularly to identify categories that are empty. Some, of course, may have been emptied out of process, but I'm sure there are many different reasons how a category becomes empty. May task, when I go through the list in this report, is solely for maintenance. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Relations Department

Hi Nyttend. I noticed you just axed INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS DEPARTMENT - you may also want to grab International Relations Department, made by the same editor - which I initially marked for cleanup, but now realising it is copyvio, I've G12'd it. Thanks :) BarkingFish 14:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Closure

Hi Nyttend! You might like to close the deletion discussion of the "Indo-Pakistani War of 1971-Inside Secret", you recently deleted. --SMS ^Talk 15:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkness Shines (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frasiercast.jpg

I would hope that you are interested. However, even your "keep" argument may not triumph deletion, as I must warn you. --George Ho (talk) 05:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queen of Clubs / Queen of clubs / queen of clubs ?

I can't see any reason for using caps for this, but the usage is inconsistent. See the articles linked from {{Playing cards}} such as King of clubs - all of these use lower case for the suit. Usage in the article Playing cards is mixed, though often uses caps. I've asked at Talk:Playing_card#Queen_of_Clubs_.2F_Queen_of_clubs_.2F_queen_of_clubs_.3F, and have added a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Board_and_table_games#Queen_of_Clubs_.2F_Queen_of_clubs_.2F_queen_of_clubs_.3F. PamD 20:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abismo de pasión

Article might need semi-protection one day. Machine translated synopsis was recently removed by me and it was added by him again. Platinum Star (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Index to isotope pages orphaned redirects

Hi Nyttend, I notice you left quite a few orphaned links on deletion of Index to isotope pages. Could you still clean those up? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The index (or template) itself was moved to template:Index to isotope pages. With the redirect gone, it can't be found. Would you prefer it back in article space, or do you think it's better where it is now? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I didn't notice it was back in main. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, why did you delete the redirect? ~~That was disruptive behaviour, using a speedy to create a mess. What were you thinking?~~ -DePiep (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you rewarded the R2 speedy while it is not applicable, and why you did not take care of the redlinks it created? -DePiep (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re your reply [10]. So this happened. After I moved the page (from main to template space) on July 24, [11], there was no such redirect to userspace and all was fine. Clearly Martin Hoekstra moved the page to (his) userspace [12], invoking R2 situation. Afterwards Martin Hoekstra was evasive in his aims, responsibility and actions [13]. The end was that mainspace had redlinks, after which some user un-did my original move. All in all: MH moved it for unspecified reasons or intentions, so the R2 situation was created, you deleted by being mislead, and now the original move was undone. This is not a correct situation. I suggest you recreate the situation as it was before the MH move to userspace (on August 1) and subsequent log actions. Desired end situation: page code now in mainspace Index to isotope pages moved to Template:Index to isotope pages (by periodic table), with a redirect in the old moved page (straight workings). -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re your[14]. In short: the move to userspace by Martin Hoekstra (MH), and possibly other MH actions, triggered a bad sequence. Of course after that R2 was to the point. I can not see who put the R2 on it, or when (I am not an admin). At some an R3 tag was present [15]. In all this, MH was very unhelpful in clarifying motives and actions, especially his own (he did point to you though). The move to MH userspace could be called disruptive. So all this made my confusion, and now it looks like your isolated action was not wrong (I struck). The problem with the current situation is that the page now is back in mainspace, while it should be in template space (through speedy, i.e. no talk). I get it that you have no opinion on that, but that is the answer. Since you say that you don't see reason to revert your action (seen in isolation), you'll not mind me taking the whole to ANI. -DePiep (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I read your new stuff. (Was the 03:00, 2 August 2012 Matthewrbowker edit the curious R3 maybe?) -DePiep (talk) 15:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the logs overview. Your reply to me [16] I read: a. current situation is OK, becasue no red links, and b. my R2 deletion in itself was correct. Both are right. So in this detail, I have no argument against it (your edits). But seen the whole of it, I want to have the content in Template space (as I moved August 24), and I'll have to challenge MH's move to Userspace, which started the cascade. Hence my thought of ANI. I cannot even move it (because the target is occupied), anyway I wish to have this resolved via talkings. After (my wished) reversion (code in template space), a correct Move discussion could be started -- that is the right way. -DePiep (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question. Now that you've researched all this, and have the overview, do you feel comfortable in moving the content code form Article to Template (as I I'd like/request)? Saves me writing the ANI. But hey, only if you like it. -DePiep (talk) 16:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't press you, I asked. And earlier on you said the actual place (space) of the content didn't matter to you. -DePiep (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All fine then. -DePiep (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mohammad Hassan Mohebbi.jpg

Dear Nyttend; according to WP:PD guideline (section "Copyright restorations") images like File:Mohammad Hassan Mohebbi.jpg may be used in en.wikipedia under a "public domain" claim only if the copyright in the country of origin has expired. This image is currently copyrighted in Iran. Raamin (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kianoush Rostami.jpg and File:Ali Mazaheri.jpg

Dear Nyttend; File:Kianoush Rostami.jpg and File:Ali Mazaheri.jpg are just variations of image 1 and image 2. This watermarekd images that you see are previews; original image sizes are 4149x2460 px and 3000x2010 px, and for sale! The links I provided are for informations about the original copyright holders; both images are created by non-Iranian entities (image 1 by Bertrand Guay, image 2 by Ryan Pierse) and are copyrighted in the US. Raamin (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reply: As I said before, original size for these 2 images are 4149x2460 px and 3000x2010 px (large files), and you should buy the originals, If you want them! I didn't buy these; other customers, such as newspapers, magazines etc. buy these images from AFP, Getty images and the like and use them. It is very unlikely to find the original images in the web for free. But for copyright purposes: Getty images provides detailed informations about these images in question; you can see the name of photographers and the cration date and sources. These two images are not created in Iran, not created by Iranian entities and thus copyrighted in the US. Raamin (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atmel AVR attiny comparison chart

I agree that the tag was wrong, but I think it's a copyvio as the format is the same as the tables at the Atmel site. I got interrupted and had to go out before I could find it, but I'm sure it's in there. I left a note in the hope that someone else would do some digging. Peridon (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read the diffs - there was no context when I added the tag. [17] Osarius - Want a chat? 19:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...and there was/is no link back to the page that this table came from originally. I believe my tag was correct. Osarius - Want a chat? 19:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough for me - I didn't look at timings. I was more concerned about copyvio and left your tag in place until I (or someone) could find the source (a jam pot to catch a wasp). Not one of my best comparisons, but you know what I mean. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mnap25 (talk · contribs)

Remember him? I believe it was you who gave him a final warning for continued failure to update the date when updating the stats. He's at it again. AutomaticStrikeout 03:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the efficiency. Hopefully the lesson will be learned. AutomaticStrikeout 03:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend. I recently reverted your revert to the Jeff Karstens article. He does have 38 losses. If you check the article's history you'll see I made a mistake when updating his record on 8/2(I took his losses from 37 to "378"); I made a mistake. AutomaticStrikeout had a good eye and fixed it. Eventually the birthplace was also messed up so I just fixed that as well in a separate (and later) edit. Mnap25 was correct in setting the loss to no. 38. Also, I didn't see any summary in your revert, Nyttend, but I assume your revert of Mnap25's edit was in good faith. I have noticed issues with Mnap25 in the past, as well, but I think he's in the right on this one. Zepppep (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link Rot??

Hi! I'm puzzled by your declining a set of my requests for deletions of talk pages that had been left as orphans as a result of page moves. The group of requests that I made all had a similar history.

See Talk:Louis Lengendre (historian) for example. The history here is that the article was created with the title "Louis Legendre (historian)". Another editor moved the article to "Louis Legendre" commenting that there was no need for disambiguation in the title. Unfortunately a bot (Yobot) then ran off an out of date list of articles and created the talk page Talk:Louis Lengendre (historian) even though there the article Louis Lengendre (historian) now existed only as a redirect. I moved this talk page to Talk:Louis Lengendre, having first checked that there were no links to it. Finally I proposed the deletion of Talk:Louis Lengendre (historian) to complete the tidy up.

Hence my puzzlement about your concern that deleting the page could cause link rot. Could you clarify?

--Quiet Editor (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Building a case for a RfC/U

Hello! I am currently in the process of putting together a Request for Comment/User conduct regarding the potentially disruptive editing by user Tim Zukas. It is pertaining to this user's continued refusal to cite sources properly, including on some articles with GA status. As you can see on his talk page here, this has been going on for quite some time now. I am asking for your input due to the fact that you have commented on this user's talk page about these problems.

If you would be so kind, please pop over and take a look at the draft I have created for the RfC/U and add your comments. If you would like to be a part of this, let me know and I will keep you posted once it is ready to be submitted.

Thanks! nf utvol (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, feel free to make any more changes you think would be helpful. I'll let you know when I put this up for the RfC. nf utvol (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got it... I just made a few changes. I think the real issue here is that he just goes on the offensive whenever someone politely asks that he provide a more thorough citation. The sheer volume of his edits that are ambiguously cited, including in articles that have gone through the GA wringer, is just starting to become disruptive. I'm not stuck on the text of the RFC by any means, so like I said, feel free to make any changes if you think they'll address the heart of the problem more effectively. nf utvol (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:JRR Tolkien signature - from Commons.svg

I was just going to remove the speedy tag there when you inserted the PD license. I'm still a bit worried though about the fact that this signature may still be copyrighted in the UK (see the discussions at Commons). And please feel free to weigh in at Talk:J. R. R. Tolkien where the upload bot has left a note. De728631 (talk) 14:15, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have {{PD-signature}} for a reason too, and it says that "Note that this tag cannot be used on all signatures, as not all signatures are copyright-free." Typefaces and letters are just mechanically reproduced writings but signing one's name by hand may be seen as a creative act in some jurisdictions. De728631 (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now nominated the file for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 August 4. Can't find a reason to keep it under a FUR. De728631 (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good job

So I used the wrong CSD tag, but if you were actually good at being an administrator you would have seen the blatant copyright breach. I've replaced the tag, let's hope you can get it right this time. Iamthemuffinman (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: File:02 Calma Pueblo.ogg

See my reply at the technical village pump. What you did was fine ... it was my computer that was the problem! Graham87 15:42, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite absurd

[18] What's the problem? It's spam and needs to go. It's his only "contribution". Wikipedia isn't free hosting for personal web pages but supposedly an encyclopedia. Palosirkka (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

F10

Okay I got it. Thank you for warn to me.--Reality 15:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baraka mutabaruka

Hello. I'm sure you know more than I do about speedy deletion criteria, so if this page doesn't meet the ones I chose, please could you suggest what should be done about a page that's a copy-paste of a genuine article about a real living person with the infobox details changed (to the name of a third person, whether a random name or that of the article's creator I cannot tell)? I'd have thought that such a creation didn't belong in mainspace? thanks for your time, Struway2 (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation: I'll try and make myself clearer another time. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Takes America

If you want to do something for Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America, I think User:Bob the Wikipedian and User:LoriLee might be able to help. I'm not sure who else is in your area, but think there might be additional folks. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 12:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in, so long as I don't have prior commitments. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair. Is there a list somewhere of the cities in between that you have quite a bit to do in yet? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Perhaps a hike through a state park would work. Turkey Run State Park and Shades State Park are near one another and have excellent formations for hiking and no-gear-needed climbing that have not been photographed yet for Wikipedia, including the Devil's Punchbowl, Turkey Backbone, and Devil's Backbone (which is a thrill in itself to climb). Shades and Turkey Run are two of my favorite places to hike. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh...yeah, that's a bit further north than I remembered it being. I'll keep thinking about it and let you know if I think of something. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to encourage you to try out our handy-dandy Wikipedia:Wikipedia Takes America#Event page wizard! Also, keep in mind a place with a few NRHP sites would be good.--Pharos (talk) 14:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edward Tyrer

Thank you for your comment. The article is based on its Chinese version in the Chinese Wikipedia, which was also written by me. Since I am not a native English speaker, you are welcome to rework parts that you find awkward or you can point out the problems to see whether I can correct them one by one.--Clithering (talk) 11:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The biographical note was translated by me in a rush and it looks much better now after your help. Thank you so much!--Clithering (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gasparovic dispute

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.173.110.130 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/1993 Madrid bombings

Hi Nyttend, regarding your change and purely out of curiousity why is the relative pronoun which "wrong" in that case? Valenciano (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice Isotopes

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:ANI/Incidents#Index to isotope pages, moves and a deletion ended incorrect.The discussion is about the topic Index to isotope pages. Thank you. -DePiep (talk) 11:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend, I used your name in a joke (at ANI). Should be idle, but could cause issues. Not my intention to harm/introduce you. -DePiep (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wrong way to get attention, DP. Calling someone's actions stupid doesn't help the situation either. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)After I read your comment on my Talk page: it was a joke. Six months block? That was just to trigger ANI-admins. I'm sorry I disturbed you, I did not even think you'd not get it. Meanwhile, the issue at ANI was not solved but archived. -DePiep (talk) 02:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DePiep, bots or users prematurely close and/or archive information on occasion. It happens. When it happens, instead of disruptively trying to seek attention, contact someone; maybe the bot owner or the closing admin, and discuss it with them. If it was a bot, you could even be bold and restore it. Asking for insane blocks for good admins like Nyttend, even as a joke, cause extreme disruption, as you have seen. It's seriously like taking that big, beautiful edit count of yours and throwing it in the trash. It's what grudge trolls do. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stop bothering Nyttend at home, you Penguin. -DePiep (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not bothering Nyttend. Rather, I am defending him against your disruptive edits. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke, you stupid trolling penguin. A 6 month thing for Nyttend and you don't even get the beginning of a light? Sorry again, Nyttend. Even 12 months would not float the joke with penguins. Won't happen again. -DePiep (talk) 03:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if it was real or if it was a joke. It was unfounded either way. The fact that it is a joke makes it worse. That kind of thing should not be taken as a joke, especially not on ANI. You should really know better. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SL_Benfica_Handball_roster

Hi, can you please delete this one too-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:SL_Benfica_Handball_roster. I created another one by mistake when the previous one didn' load.--Threeohsix (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox speedy deletion

hiya,

i was the one that created teh sandbox and it was for testing porpuses to try gaina consensus on the main article whilst it was in full protection, full protection is no logner need nither is the sandbox i thought test page was the right choice rather than owner one--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i am dyslexic so convey things isn't easy for me i will try again. ok the main Rangers F.C. was on full protection for about 2 months due to content dispute. At the end of last month i created the sandbox as testing ground for updated article whilst it was on full protection so giving users a way to resolve the content dispute in way that satisfy everyone, but now the main article rangers f.c. is no longer fully protected as it no longer needed and the sandbox was created as testing place to replace the main one, i thought testing was better as that what i created it for. hopefully that makes more sense--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks/trolling made against you

On WP: ANI, an editor ranted about archiving, as well as requesting that you be blocked for 6 months (here). I reverted the post as trolling, and the editor continued to edit war, finally stopping when User:Bbb23 reverted him (here). I just thought that you should know, being the subject of his rants. BTW, a couple of editors have tried to gang up on me, waving seniority and edit counts in my face. I really hope this doesn't escalate, i'm getting a headache from all this ANI stuff. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope this doesn't escalate says the editor who did not solve a single point. -DePiep (talk) 02:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to ignore the one point I am trying to make you understand. You disrupted Wikipedia in trying to get bad attention by posting a fake block request. Not a good way to try and get attention. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 02:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I think you start getting the idea what Wikipedia is. If only you could disconfuse your names. -DePiep (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have all my names right. Lets continue this discussion on my page, instead of (as you said) bothering Nyttend. Robby The Penguin (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of Thread. -DePiep (talk) 03:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AC3 images

Nyttend, I noticed your terse edit summary, and frankly it struck me as conceited. On checking both images, I interpreted CSD F1 as permitting the flagging of a non-free image where another with identical properties justifies deletion. In the context, the images display (i) Connor Kenway's hand inside the Redcoat's jacket, rather than around the neck, (ii) identical post-processing, (iii) identical file format, and I was indeed cognisant of the Wii U banners and logos. If F1 simply incorporates files identical in every aspect, save file size, then I'm mistaken and I stand corrected. Yet the edit summary is exactly the tone that infuriates and riles others; if I'm mistaken, the courteous thing is simply to notify me and elaborate on the error. Anyway, I reduced the Wii U version to an appropriate size for infobox images, roughly 300x400 and uploaded it: File:Assassin's Creed III Game Cover.jpg for Assassin's Creed III. If that's also in error, feel free to revert... Mephistophelian (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

DYK for Stoner Site

On 12 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stoner Site, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Stoner archaeological site in Illinois is unusual for its lack of evidence of substantial occupation by any people other than the Allison-Lamotte culture? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Stoner Site. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Allison-Lamotte culture

On 12 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Allison-Lamotte culture, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Stoner archaeological site in Illinois is unusual for its lack of evidence of substantial occupation by any people other than the Allison-Lamotte culture? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hi there, i'm afraid you marked my edit here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prince_Hussein_Bin_Abdullah_II%27s_Academy_Of_Civil_Protection&action=edit&redlink=1 for speed deletion and it has been deleted, i want to let you know that i have permission to use the information that i imported from that website, i know the webmasters there personally and they have allowed me to create the wikipedia page, can you please undo the deletion? thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bewinxed (talk • contribs) 14:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SkyFireOS

Are you sure the WT pages for AfD discussions are appropriate? They contribute to discussions' fragmentation and add some work for participants and closing admins with no benefit. What if nobody noticed it at all? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with having a talk page for an AFD; just copy the content into the AFD and leave the page in existence.
— Nyttend (at user talk:czarkoff#SkyFireOS) 15:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see discussion fragmentation is of no concern to you. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, you're free to copy the content over there. Deletion of the page will not resolve the fragmentation; it will only make it worse, because nobody will be able to go to the talk page to see the original comment that you copied.
— Nyttend (at user talk:czarkoff#SkyFireOS) 15:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I copied the comment, I'm not particularly sure that there is any additional value in keeping the source. Still, if the page is there, someone may post their comments there under false impression that the deletion discussions are supposed to work this way. To me, having such pages somehow goes aginst WP:BITE. P.S. could you please answer here? It is unreasonably difficult to follow the discussion when it is spread across several pages. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you hadn't redirected it, I would have added a comment saying "Please don't add votes to this page", but redirecting is a better idea than mine. Nyttend (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Liancourt Rocks Discussion.

SPA sockpuppet hidden

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I would advise you to read [19]and to begin heeding it, because you're falling into [20] territory. This is advice that you should surely take into consideration while you're accusing me of bad faith and disruption without viable reason.
I can't comprehend how you drew the conclusion that I was attacking you just because we were in disagreement.(The talk pages are for editors to discuss possible changes. Why discuss changes if you're not willing to hear responses from other users?) I don't understand your logic in wanting to make a change to an article only to say it doesn't change anything.(so why bother?) This action is completely without reason which doesn't really make sense to me.

This is going nowhere, with people assuming bad faith and making attacks on proposed changes that don't change anything.

This doesn't really make sense.Keviexw (talk) 20:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say you are unfamiliar with the situation, but you stated earlier that you were just exposed to it thus not being partial to the "dispute", so in essence, you are very much aware of the dispute, (this makes you aware of the situation). You, unknowingly leaked this information out yourself. Also, please do not twist my words. I never said you were "disrupting things and not being truthful by changing the order of the names" I made it clear when I said that "it only begs the question of your true motives and your claim to being impartial by wanting the names switched around". You never gave a reason why you wanted them switched around, so yes; it begs the question. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and the opportunity to justify it but instead you decided to play victim thinking someone was attacking you; which wasn't the case and was definitely not my intentions.Keviexw (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was paying attention, which is the reason why I told you, your proposed revision didn't make sense. Listen, I don't plan on going back and fourth with you on this for time indefinite; we both have better things to do other than linger on this. Have a good day sir.Keviexw (talk) 17:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see

Please see the discussion at Template talk:NRHP row#Edit war

Smallbones (talk) 22:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To gift

Hi Nyttend, regarding your comment that the verb form of "gift" is "give", I would like to point out that there in fact is a verb to gift which fits perfectly in the context. There is a slight difference in meaning between to give and to gift, with the latter explicitly referring to something changing hands for free. Just for your information. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, have seen "gift" used as a verb, but this is one of those usages that is rejected by a majority of the survey respondents when surveys are done of English-language mavens. Some have given up and accepted it as an inevitability, though: [21] [22] --Orlady (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion you started on the Village Pump.

Wikipedia:Image placeholders is not a guideline or anything of the sort. I believe you'll find the evidence of that compelling, so I've suggested that you withdraw the RfC. Thanks in advance. Smallbones (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Thank you.--Santos30 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Hello. I would like to draw your attention to an edit war being undertaking here. Reverts are too frequent to count now and I have reported it on the relevant notice board. What happens now? I am trying to edit something different on that page but it is impossible to do. Thank you. Spc 21 (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santos 30

Hi there!. Few days ago I asked a checkuser at Meta about this user, you can read my reasons there. After discussing this request on the mailing list, steward Marco Aurelio answered me that I should go to each project and ask for a CU. Meanwhile the same request was made at Spanish Wikipedia, the result was positive. After that, Domenico/Santos30 was blocked for the third time: six months.
Note 1: In Spanish Wikipedia the retired template means nothing, in fact some editors use it to get attention or to slam their editions when they are angry about a situation. Later on they back again.
Note 2: If you review his contributions you will notice that Santos30 was a sleeping acount that began editing after Domenico's withdraw at Spanish Wikipedia.
I would like to report this incident on the board in order to evaluate this behavior. As you can read my reasons in Meta, there are several articles that have been affected, especially for the renaming of some files in Commons which has affected other Wikipedias too. Should I ask CU here? (User:83.34.153.98/Domenico/Santos30), what do you recommend? Jaontiveros (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Confused Wikipedian - you deleted a page from my sandbox?

Hi. I'm Jillian. You came to my sandbox, deleted a page in progress, and gave the reason that it had been publicly deleted in the past? Advice I received from the Wiki Editor community at that time was to create a page in my own private user sandbox to develop a better more wiki-approved article, then present it to be peer-edited and then published to wiki after that level of approval. Please tell me why you came to my private user sandbox, as my understanding is that it is out of line to patrol a user's private sandbox space?? Jilliance (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Divineabraham, more info here!

Hello, I'm another account or a sock account of Divine Abraham, this account was active since 21:49, 13 January 2012. I know that I will get blocked for saying that I'm a sock puppet, but I want to say that I want Divineabraham to be unblocked, please. I can continue like this without being caught but I don't want that because I want Divineabraham back. If you still think I don't deserve an unblock then block this account as well. Thanks for understanding!

My User Page:My Talk Page:My Contributions

17:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

@@ Line 567: / Line 567: @@
 == [[User:Divineabraham|Divineabraham]], [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive238#Divineabraham|more info here!]] ==
-Hello, I'm another account or a ''sock account of Divine Abraham'', '''this account was active since 21:49, 13 January 2012'''. I know that I will get blocked for saying that I'm a sock puppet, but I want to say that I want [[User:Divineabraham|Divineabraham]] to be unblocked, please. I can continue like this without being caught but I don't want that because I want [[User:Divineabraham|Divineabraham]] back. If you still think I don't deserve an unblock then block this account as well. Thanks for understanding!
+Hello, I'm another account or a ''sock account of Divine Abraham'', '''this account was active since 21:49, 13 January 2012'''. I know that I will get blocked for saying that I'm a sock puppet, but I want to say that I want [[User:Divineabraham|Divineabraham]] to be unblocked, please. I can continue like this without being caught but I don't want that because I want [[User:Divineabraham|Divineabraham]] back. If you still think I don't deserve an unblock then block this account as well. Thanks for understanding! <div style="background-color:#C96; width:310px; height:35px;">
+:[[User:Aviyal|My User Page]]:[[User talk:Aviyal|My Talk Page]]:[[Special:Contributions/Aviyal|My Contributions]]</div> 17:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)