User talk:Nyttend/Archive 41

Archive 35

←

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

→

Archive 45

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)

Murder of Brianna Lopez

Hi there. You deleted Murder of Brianna Lopez for non-notability. Would you mind reconsidering?

There appears to be more than enough coverage to find notability: Google News.

Thanks!

19:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.22.1.13 (talk)

This is an exceptional situation. In virtually every case that I've checked into, Google News sources are unuseful for notability, since notability demands secondary sources, and news reports are primary sources for the events in question. However, the news reports you found are providing retrospective coverage of Lopez' death, so they're secondary sources, and they demonstrate the subject's notability. Problem The deleted content is a mess, and I don't believe that it belongs in an article: much of it is profoundly unencyclopedic, it's written in an essay-like format, it's nowhere close to maintaining a neutral point of view, most of the content is uncited, much of the cited content depends on a blog, etc. To have a decent article about this subject, we'd have to trash everything and start all over. Therefore, although the rules say that a challenged PROD should be undeleted, I'm going to ignore the rules and ask that you start over. As I noted, one of the article's four sources was a blog, but here are the other sources, which will be useful if you want to start over:

Extended content

{{Cite news |title=Memorial to celebrate Baby Brianna's 14th birthday |newspaper=[[Las Cruces Sun-News]] |date=February 16, 2016 |url=http://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/crime/2016/02/13/memorial-celebrate-baby-briannas-14th-birthday/80317622/ |accessdate=August 3, 2016}} {{Cite web |url=http://www.koat.com/news/60000-sign-petition-to-revoke-parole-in-baby-brianna-case/37847024 |title=60,000 sign petition to revoke parole in Baby Brianna case |publisher=[[KOAT-TV]] |date=February 6, 2016 |accessdate=August 3, 2016}} {{Cite web |url=http://krqe.com/2014/01/31/bill-would-expand-baby-brianna-law/ |title=Bill would expand Baby Brianna Law |publisher=[[KRQE]] |date=January 31, 2014 |accessdate=August 3, 2016}}

Let me know if you want help with getting this article restarted. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I hope you'll understand if it's hard for me to agree with your assessment of how useful the original article would be in creating a decent article, given the information asymmetry in play and the elevation of your personal judgment over consensus-driven assessments of how to evaluate and treat substandard material.

Assuming that there is in fact problematic material, the explanation above makes it hard to understand why those problems are so extraordinary that they can not be resolved through the standard WP:BRD process. I think it makes more sense to simply restore the material, tag the problems, and give potential editors some material to work with, rather than kneecapping them because you "don't believe it belongs in an article." Doing so would be more efficient, more in keeping with WP protocol, and more likely to result in an article actually resulting.

I hope you'll reconsider.

Thanks!

129.22.1.13 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The content is problematic enough that adding it into an article would warrant warnings, and blocks if the adding editor should persist; I will not restore content if restoring it would make me deserve to get into trouble. When content may not be added to an article, it doesn't deserve to be tagged: it needs to be excised. Moreover, content that must be rewritten is a net negative, and a redlink is better than a trash bluelink; even if it didn't include repeated policy violations, I wouldn't be collaborating in an action that actively damages the quality of the encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2015 Tianjin explosions page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Nyttend. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 06:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 06:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Materia Magica

Hi there. You deleted Materia Magica for lack of meaningful or substantial content of the page.

Well Materia Magica is a rather popular MUD with very unique gameplay elements never seen anywhere else, as well as a dedicated player base of over 400 players total. I've been wanting to write a proper Wikipedia page for it, but haven't had the time, so please don't delete it next time? Thanks a lot.

It also has a very well-designed webpage at www.materiamagica.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurdock (talk • contribs) 03:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The entire page consisted of nothing except an infobox: a page needs to have either prose content or list content, depending on its scope, and a page with neither one qualifies for speedy deletion. Nyttend (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Dubravko Klarić

Hey there. Any sysop has the ability to import it but, seeing as they've never done that, I don't think they'd be willing to start now. You could manually copy over the page without anything specific to the English Wikipedia (like a template or something like that), and add a link to the initial version in the summary. However, I wouldn't move it over because I don't think it would stay on there for long. It reads like an autobiography, the author seems to reference three of Mr. Klarić's own books, and there's also a slew of his "booklets, comments, interviews, reviews, presentations", and other irrelevant stuff. And even if you were to cut all those bits out, I still think he wouldn't be notable. – Srdjan m (talk) 09:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Nyttend, Just wanted to say thanks for kindly fixing the template I added, I never realized I'd done it incorrectly so just wanted to say thanks for that :), Have a great day. –Davey2010^Talk 14:27, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!

Here's a tomato for you.

Thanks for fixing the protection level on the tomato article! Margalob (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Old staff accounts

The names of WMF staff accounts aren't quite standardized, so you'd have to search every variant to be sure: MGodwin, Mgodwin, Mikegodwin, etc. However, the idea of having accounts include either "(WMF)" or "-WMF" is relatively recent (it wasn't until 2014 that it became the standard rule), so I'd be surprised if people who started working at the WMF around 2005 kept separate accounts. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Please be a bit more careful

In [1], you added "console peasants" to the article while fulfilling a blocked edit. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 05:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You blocked the wrong person

When you tried to block the person impersonating me, you accidentally blocked the wrong person. The impersonator is an IP hopper that impersonated me at 65.126.152.254's Talk Page, not 65.126.152.254 themself. As far as I'm aware, 65.126.152.254 never impersonated me. DarkKnight2149 03:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Sigma Sigma Rho

Nyttend, Vanamonde93, Catfish Jim and the soapdish In regards to the AFD for Sigma Sigma Rho, I'd like to propose http://www.browngirlmagazine.com/2014/09/eep/ as a secondary source (I'm having problems scrolling past the first page of the article, so show source on your browswer)should give all of it), to be supplemented as necessary by the primary source at the sorority and the school websites.(I'm a fairly experienced wikipedia editor in regards to fraternities and sororities and the fact that this the only member of the National APIA Panhellenic Association without a page is a little annoying, not a reason to have the page, just a reason that I want to work on it. :) )Naraht (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice website. It might scrape through on WP:RS but the article still falls short of meeting WP:GNG. Looking at the wikipedia articles for the other members of this group of organisations, it's clear that many (most?) of them also fail to meet the standard required of wikipedia articles. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleting needless redirection

Hi,

So what should we do with a redirection with no links to redirect from? I guess this page is not needed any more, so it's still technical reason for me: Lover, Beloved: Songs From an Evening With Carson McCullers --kocio (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Wood County, Texas

A tag has been placed on Template:Wood County, Texas requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an unambiguous misrepresentation of established policy.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. John from Idegon (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

For sure it's part of a set; see Category:Texas county navigational boxes and the other subcategories of Category:United States county templates. Nyttend (talk) 04:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Tribeca Shortlist Page

Hi, thanks for your response. I have rewritten the page and used the appropriate citations. Everything should be good now! Pyrasical (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

"legal" issue

Having a little issue on my talk page regarding a edit I made to File:American Freeway Patrol logo.jpg as part of a workshop request. Do you know where I should direct this user to try to iron out their complaint? Offnfopt^(talk) 21:49, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Just wanted to make note of the recent contributions from this different IP address. Offnfopt^(talk) 11:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Please help

Winklvi again and again harasses the page Ilias Psinakis insisting that only his version is true.., but actually deleting the confirmed facts and links, the previous version was edited by several editors, but he discarded it.LS 14:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanaSimba (talk • contribs)

Nyttend , the background to this (and I do not agree with LanaSimba's characteristion) is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#I request the page protection. There is also an ongoing discussion at Talk:Ilias Psinakis#Stability and readability. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I already saw that AN thread. The complaint that Winklvi just gave me is a reason I've not yet addressed this issue and probably won't at all. Nyttend (talk) 19:30, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Nyttend.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Zachistka (disambiguation)

Hi, Nyttend. In this edit, you declined my {{db-g8}} request for Zachistka (disambiguation). I was requesting deletion because there is no longer a dab page for it to redirect to. With "(disambiguation)" in the title, it should redirect to a disambiguation page, ideally one of the same title, or if that's not possible, a title that is a plural or other closely related term. In this case, Zachistka is now an article and not a disambiguation page, and there's no other similar term to point Zachistka (disambiguation) to. Will you reconsider the deletion, please? — Gorthian (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Username for Admin attention

Sorry, I linked the wrong page, the username of a new user Jen Paterson is close to Jennifer Paterson. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make a note of that. :) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Excel

Just curious if this helped you. VLOOKUPs can be inefficient in long lists, but are probably still quicker than learning a new language. :-) Matt Deres (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

CfD discussion

This discussion is one you may be interested in. I hope my rationale that the userbox template being sufficient is enough to change your view on the issue. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nyttend. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nyttend. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Gobi Desert screenshots.pdf listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gobi Desert screenshots.pdf, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 12:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Virginia listings...

Morning, since you posted that you're going through the Virginia listing page, I'm wondering if you'd investigate a listing/delisting for me. Listing #75002019 Kingsland in Chesterfield County is not in the county list, but is in the delisted section (under Richmond View, same address). The latest Access database I have still notes it as "listed". The nomination form has notation at the top that it was moved and reconstructed in 1994. So the 2 questions that arise are 1) is it listed or delisted? and 2) where is it now? Thanks. 25or6to4 (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hillsborough disaster

RE this edit, it could be correct in Br.Eng if it means that the injured were taken to a number of hospitals. If they were all taken to one hospital then it would not be correct. That said, "arrived at hospital" is just as good. Mjroots (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Western Nigeria

I don't understand why you protected the page Western Nigeria, from creation, but I think it should redirect to Western State (Nigeria). It's weird having a red link for "Western Nigeria".--Jamie Tubers (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't protect the page; I deleted it, and HJ Mitchell protected it. Basically, someone created an article at "Western Nigeria" claiming that it was an independent country, separate from Nigeria (thus the deletion), and I'm not clear on the reason for the protection, since it was protected several months after the only time that it was deleted. I'll ask HJ Mitchell to come here and either unprotect it or explain why he thinks it should remain protected. Nyttend (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• I moved the thread here, for continuity. Sorry, I didn't realize it wasn't you who protected the page. Okay, I'll wait for HJ Mitchell's explanation for the protection.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• I can't remember this and I have absolutely no opinion on it. Since you have a legitimate use for the title, Jamie, I've unprotected it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks guys for the response! Regards :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

NFL Past params

FYI those three categories weren't properly being populated. It wasn't a unilateral removal... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Spanish peseta

I see you recently moved peseta back to Spanish peseta, due to project naming conventions, a move I support. Would you be so bold as to do the same for Pound sterling? —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 04:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Permissions

Hi Nyttend. Thank you for assisting at WP:PERM. When according user rights, please use the helper script. To do this, just click the 'assign permissions' link and follow the one-step instruction. This will automatically trigger several important steps including notifying the user, populating other lists and categories, and marking the request as 'done'. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

On a related note, thanks for taking care of mine. APK whisper in my ear 02:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Shoulda Been There, Pt. 1

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoulda Been There, Pt. 1 you said, "Let me know if reconversion into an article is performed, and I'll protect it." FYI it has been created as a new article. —teb728 t c 20:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your recent closure.

In the MFd closure the quote you cite, "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated" is meant for "Policies, guidelines and process pages", i.e. pages that have been accepted as part of the WP by consensus, not essays such as this. MFD does not explicitly mention essays, as far as I can tell. The Essay guideline though says

Essays may be moved into userspace as user essays (see below), or even deleted, if they are found to be problematic. According to Wikipedia policy, "Essays that the author does not want others to edit, or that are found to contradict widespread consensus, belong in the user namespace."

, something best resolved at MfD.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hi Nyttend. I am here to ask you to withdraw your close. You cited MfD as the reason; I have no idea what the status of MfD but per WP:DELETION, which is policy, the deletion discussion is valid and there is no other way to actually TNT this essay. In my view the essay is the product of a project that became a walled garden, and that wall needs to come down; deleting this essay is an essential first step. Please let me know if you will withdraw the close. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

copying reply here, that was left on my talk page in this dif, to keep discussion in one place Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No. MFD is not a place to get rid of established pages of any type, unless the content itself is problematic, and the nomination provided no evidence of that. Are you saying that the content on that page needs to be made unavailable to everyone except administrators? If so, you need to demonstrate that the page itself is getting in the way and needs to be deleted for technical reasons, or that the text itself is actively harmful, and you need to provide very solid evidence, because this would be a very unusual request. If not, you're asking for something in direct contravention of what we do at XFD. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't see how what you are saying fits with community practice - WikiProjects that became walled gardens have been deleted via MfD, right? Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

unless the content itself is problematic, and the nomination provided no evidence of that - Respectfully, that the nomination text did not articulate specific content objections, others did. My understanding of the XfD processes is that when a nomination is framed poorly, the discussion is still valid if other users contribute valid objections, no? I've not participated in a whole lot of these, but it seems like while tagging it as failed can easily be accomplished through talk page discussion, userfication (since it's clear some don't think it reflects consensus policies/guidelines sufficiently to exist in projectspace) is something that more often comes out of MfD (or otherwise requires some other formal process). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No, we don't delete wikiprojects unless they never got going in the first place. And what problems existed that needed to be excised? With projectspace pages, this is extremely limited: defamatory content, copyright infringements, and other things actively prohibited by the Foundation. Unless I've overlooked it, nobody presented any examples of content that needs to be removed entirely. Everything that I saw from the delete voters was nonsense: "userfy" (we don't do this except with single-author pages), "delete because people are using it wrongly" (this has never been an appropriate reason to delete a project page), "delete because the essay disagrees with policy" (we do not, and never have, deleted essays because they disagree with policy), and the like. Once again, MFD is not a place to go to affect the contents or the standing of a project page, and as basically the whole point of the MFD was to prevent people from citing it as guideline/policy, this was disruptive to the point that sanctions will be needed if it's renominated on the same grounds. I'm not pretending to say that it can't be renominated, but you'll have to find policy-compliant grounds for renominating. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza and some of the stronger arguments made by admins at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism (neither of which were speedy closed, btw) . I hear it that you are not going to reverse your decision, so i will consider going to AN. Thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

and what you write about "we do not, and never have, deleted essays because they disagree with policy" is not correct, in my experience. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest ducks Jytdog (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

we see things really differently here in WP don't we? i think this is the 2nd time i have disagreed with a close you made and i almost never challenge closes. weird. Jytdog (talk) 08:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I was unaware of the ducks MFD, but you will note that the deletion rationale was different: it was actively creating strife, according to the close, and that's a policy-compliant basis for deletion that didn't come to mind when I wrote earlier. It was not deleted merely because it advocated positions contrary to current policies. Meanwhile, Esperanza was not deleted — it was closed and marked historical. Conservatism, likewise, was kept. No more response because I'm busy; please don't take this short response as curtness. Nyttend (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. NJournals has been creating strife from Jimbo's talk page to some AfDs (e.g. this one), to user talk pages (e,g here) to ANI here to FRINGEN to NJournals, etc. The MfDs to which I linked, were allowed to unfold and were closed regularly - I was asking you to undo your speedy close and allow this one to unfold. Am still considering whether to go to AN. Will not reply further; thanks for talking. Jytdog (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

• AN filed: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_review:_Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion.2FWikipedia:Notability_.28academic_journals.29 Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Essay vs. guideline

It seems my changes to Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) got caught up in your "[reversion of] the net results of disruption". The page is tagged as a {{notability essay}}. Any objection to me restoring the clarification? If there is, I'll bring it up on the talk page of Notability (academic journals). I just thought that there was enough going on there at the moment, and if your reversion wasn't necessarily an objection to the change, it would be better handled here. Best Regards,— Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 21:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Godsy, I'd prefer you not, but I can't stop you, and I'm not going to complain or revert if you do: so basically this is a polite "please avoid it, if you don't mind". I thought it best to go back to the version of 19:52, 8 October 2016, the last edit before all this dispute started, and since there weren't any blatantly obvious changes to make (e.g. spelling fixes), I just reverted everything; after all, it's common to do this with edit wars before protecting the page, and there were enough reversions that I thought I'd treat it likewise. I'll happily discuss if you want to, but I don't feel like offering unsolicited opinions, so you'll hear nothing from me unless you feel like continuing the discussion. Nyttend (talk) 22:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

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

Sent this earlier in the day, but forgot to place the template! TonyBallioni (talk) 01:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

About Olivier Berruyer

Hello, I am suprised that you have deleted the article. Olivier Berruyer is on the french Wikipedia. And for the same reasons (one of the most important Francophone blogs in the economics section, repeated interviews and multiple sources, etc.), he is eligible to figure in en.wikipedia.org.

Kind regards. --Iste ridiculum vitam est (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Here's the entire content of the article, minus things like references and category links:

Extended content

Olivier Berruyer (born October 26, 1975 in Bron, France) is a French blogger, whose profession is actuary. He has been administering the les-crises.fr site since 2011, a blog focused on economics and geopolitics, ranked among the 100,000 most read sites in the world and regularly ranked the first French blog in the economy category. He is interested in propaganda of all forms and works to denounce them on his blog. [Nyttend's note] There are two web references, [2] and [3], and no references to print materials.

Hello,

He did an interview on "La Tribune" (http://www.latribune.fr/opinions/tribunes/20121218trib000737994/le-projet-de-loi-bancaire-est-une-reforme-canada-dry.-renforcons-plutot-nos-banques-.html), and several newspaper articles relate to him or mention it : http://www.arretsurimages.net/breves/2015-01-11/Charlie-Berruyer-n-ira-pas-manifester-id18399 ; http://www.lenouveleconomiste.fr/la-grande-illusion-17901/ ; http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/zemmour-respecte-les-terroristes-prets-a-mourir-une-apologie-du-terrorisme_1838171.html ; http://www.conspiracywatch.info/Journalisme-d-investigation-et-theorie-du-complot-attention-aux-sources-_a1564.html ; http://www.arretsurimages.net/emissions/2014-05-09/Ukraine-En-occident-la-propagande-russe-l-a-emporte-id6757

I recall he's very listened because of the strong influence of his blog, the first in economy in the French web.--Iste ridiculum vitam est (talk) 12:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I forgot to finish my initial response; sorry. My point is that you need solid secondary sources; do you have documentation of him in books, in academic journals, in other secondary sources with significant professional reputations for reliability and source-documentation such as governmental websites? Several of the sources you gave me are news sources: news reporting is a primary source, because it documents what's going on right now, and a secondary source by definition is written later, relying on those primary sources. Reliable sources, moreover, won't be contacted with a simple gmail address, like conspiracywatch: this is clearly not an encyclopedic source. Nyttend (talk) 14:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Olivier Berruyer wrote two books: "Les faits sont têtus" (The facts are silent), see here: http://livre.fnac.com/a4770897/Olivier-Berruyer-Les-faits-sont-tetus; and "Stop ! Tirons les leçons de la crise" (Stop! Let us learn from the crisis), see here: http://www.souffledor.fr/boutique/produits_stop-tirons-les-lecons-de-la-crise__3366.html

His work is included in books: for example https://books.google.fr/books?id=eaG5AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT112&dq=olivier+berruyer&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjBpua7-_3QAhVD5xoKHeCBAdYQ6AEITDAJ#v=onepage&q=olivier%20berruyer&f=false; and he works with Michel Rocard on the separation of banks: https://books.google.fr/books?id=DqWjXDao8XEC&pg=PR51&dq=rocard+berruyer&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbp-WP7_bQAhUCbhQKHTsoDXMQ6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=rocard%20berruyer&f=false; https://books.google.fr/books?id=DqWjXDao8XEC&pg=PR51&dq=rocard+berruyer&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbp-WP7_bQAhUCbhQKHTsoDXMQ6AEILzAC#v=onepage&q=%20berruyer&f=false

So, his blog is one of the most read, he is a columnist in a TV show + 2 books + interviews in the national press (causeur, arrêt sur omages). If he is not admissible, we could also ask for the suppression of people like Étienne Chouard, Asselineau, for example, or even small political parties that never go into the mainstream media.

Is this sufficient? Kind regards. --Iste ridiculum vitam est (talk) 14:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

You need to demonstrate coverage in solid sources, regardless of what he's done; we grant automatic notability to people who have done a few things (e.g. membership in national or sovereign subnational legislatures, WP:POLITICIAN, as well as professional sportsmen, WP:ATHLETE), but none of the things you mention automatically qualifies him for notability. Google won't let me open the links you provide (you're in France, so Google sees your French IP address and gives you specifically French results, and when it sees my American IP address, it rejects my attempt to view the pages with those URLs), but let me give you one example — La gauche n’a plus droit à l’erreur is written by two politicians (at least Michel Rocard was a politician, and I'm expecting that est un économiste et homme politique français, ancien conseiller régional d'Île-de-France from fr:Pierre Larrouturou means "is an economist and French politician, a former regional councillor in Île-de-France"), so naturally they don't get treated as neutral academics because it's quite likely that they'd have political reasons for writing, and Groupe Flammarion appears to be a popular publisher, not something solid like a university press or an arm of the national government. Something by agenda-likely authors from a university press would be treated as reliable (we can expect the press to reject an unreliable book or to require major revisions before publishing it), and something from a top scholarly author in the field would be trusted even if it were self-published, but since we might have problems with both author and publisher, this publication can't be treated as reliable. And finally, mainstream media isn't the key: it's whether they get secondary coverage. Years after they're formed, do these political parties get covered in significant histories of politics for their region or country? If so, who cares whether they got into the media; if not, and if there's nothing else from reliable secondary sources, it needs to be trashed even if it got media coverage. Nyttend (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Tree shaping

Any objections if I un-semiprotect Tree shaping? It's been semiprotected for nearly six years, and presumably most or all the hubbub around the Arbcom case has died out. Nyttend (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

It does look stable and very quiet. A few reverts last year, but nothing this year - indeed, hardly any attention at all. Go for it. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Taft Southwest

I was going to update the population for Taft Southwest CDP in San Patricio county, Texas, but you and another person say it is a former CDP. I'm sending this message to you because you put the cite on the page. Your cite says that the CDP was annexed into Taft city. The Texas State Library and Archives lists separate 2010 population counts for the city and the CDP. The Texas 2010 Population and Housing Unit Counts on page 32 shows San Patricio county changes. It states "Taft Southwest CDP gained area detached from Taft city." It seems we have conflicting data. Any thoughts on which data is correct? I didn't want to change anything without trying to figure out the true status on this CDP/former CDP?.Jdtrue63 (talk) 10:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I was hoping you'd say that. I've been relying heavily on that report to update the community sections of the Texas counties.

References

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Nyttend! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 19:02, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

United Stated listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect United Stated. Since you had some involvement with the United Stated redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

This thing

Hi NYTtend - the above referenced edit is not intended as a joke - I just find it exasperating when fellow editors, (including of your seniority), go directly to discussion when dealing with no more than a smudge. I've come back to Wikipedia quite recently, reapplied for New Page Reviewer Status, and since then have sought to make a constructive difference. My contribs speak for themselves, and I'm delighted with the advancements since I went quiet but, now I'm back, I would love to have an editor of your standing explain to me why a symbol in another language can constitute sufficient of an article as to warrant Afd. Are we not sufficiently busy on Eng.wiki with articles in, (or approximating), the English language to elect to disregard entries that amount to no more than a few symbols? Please understand here, (and check my contribs) - I have recently rebuilt articles from schoolkids in northeast Pakistan because I considered them encyclopedic, but how can I, or anyone, be expected to have a view about some Chinese symbols? So no - I wasn't joking - delete anything that fails to make any effort to communicate in the language that is EngLISH. I will be grateful for your input. Mark^Dask 02:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Help

Nyttend, I need help. I uploaded a version of an photo I took in error. Can you do me the favor of deleating the first image found at File:2009-2014_Honda_Ridgeline_RTL-In-Bed_Trunk.jpg? Thank you, in advance for your help. --McChizzle (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --McChizzle (talk) 21:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Khalid Waleed AlKhudair

Hello, You have recently deleted Khalid Waleed AlKhudair would you please reconsider? If you need more details we are more than happy to provide you with. The article was in two languages, Arabic and English.

Looking forward for your cooperation.

Thank You! --Randarwish (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy holidays!

Hello Nyttend: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Doug Weller talk 15:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

	Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and all the best in 2017! Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:26, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your belligerent, aggressive statement

Here, you allow your own petty prejudices to inform an admin action, against WP:ADMIN, in the issuing of a general threat. All pages are "covered" by the MOS, insofar as it functions as a guideline, and you need to avoid pushing any personal crusade you might have against that. That is not what we as a community expect or want from admins.

It's disreputable behaviour. Tony (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

OK

You may call it disruption. I call it a serious matter that you need to self-reflect on. Tony (talk) 02:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Have to concur with Tony1; that close was unbelievably inappropriate. It is never wrong to have a discussion on WP, and proposing moves that comply with guidelines is a normal discussion. So is figuring out, through discussion, where consensus leans in application of a guideline to something that some view as a grey area, which was the case here. I hope you realize that this is the only time since the revision of MOS:JR (by WP:VPPOL RfC) in February that an RM has closed to not removed the comma in a questionable case (and the commas was, of course removed or prevented from being added in all the non-questionable cases). You did not review the rationales of the commenters in this RM, you just did a vote head-count, and then threatened everyone who disagreed that you would use administrative power to sanction them, in an area you are clearly way beyond WP:INVOLVED in but on a clear course of WP:SOAPBOXing. I'm not sure whether to take this to WP:MR or WP:AN, frankly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

As I've never heard of this subject before, and as I learnt about this specific issue through a neutral request for closure at WP:AN, I can't be less involved. Opinions that fly in the face of consensus are routinely disregarded, and this is no different: WP:JR being part of the manual of style for biographies, and this not being a biography, it is no more relevant than is a page on the manual of style for asteriods or chemical elements. Given the firm opposition by many people on the grounds of "this isn't applicable to non-biographies", there's obviously not IAR consensus in favor of applying JR in this situation (thus rejecting what courts call persuasive precedent), and the discussion can hardly be closed in any other manner. Given the obvious fact that this is not a biography, attempts to enforce a biography standard on it or other non-biography pages must fall on the spectrum between bad faith and gross incompetence in interpreting standards, and editing on that spectrum warrants reminders/warnings at the start and enforcement by blocks if it persists. Finally, as persistently incompetent editors tend to be shown the door rather quickly, and as several of the individuals seeking to impose this standard on a non-biography have longstanding tenure here, I find the idea of incompetence to be thoroughly unlikely. Nyttend (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

PS, I apologise for confusing you about my meaning. I wasn't referring to the idea of a discussion to extend WP:JR beyond biographies, or to the idea of "We have WP:JR for biographies, and here's why doing the same thing with this non-biography would be good", but to using it in its current biography-only status in non-biography contexts, and particularly using it to crush opposition with deceptive claims of support from policy. Nyttend (talk) 03:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, glad to see your response. Would be much relieved if RM closures—especially those that might be a little contentious—were as po-faced as possible. Thanks and my best for the new year to you. Tony (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Tony1, but either you made a typo or you used a term I've never used before. I'd appreciate it if you helped me understand what you were meaning when you typed "as po-faced as possible". Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Ngya, I looked it up: British. Sorry. And actually not defined quite as I'd intended ("humourless"). Let's say my brain mixed it up with "poker-faced" (i.e. impassive, hiding one's true feelings, with a spin-off meaning in that valued admin quality of disengaged even-handedness). Tony (talk) 05:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

LOL, re: "As I've never heard of this subject before, and as I learnt about this specific issue through a neutral request for closure at WP:AN, I can't be less involved." You were pointedly involved in the RfC about it [4], and the closer (who also WP:SUPERVOTEd) even mentioned you by name. MOS:JR has no "current biography-only status"; about ten months now of RMs have consistently applied it in general, except to titles of published works that are consistently presented with the comma (which is not the case in the RM at issue). Finally, "using it to crush opposition with deceptive claims" is unnecessarily WP:BATTLEGROUNDing language, and implies bad faith; as an admin, shouldn't you be avoiding such an approach? Whether you considered yourself involved or not, you clearly have a strong and aggressive opinion against style rule centralization (which is what MOS, AT and the NC guidelines exist for), and should not be taking administrative actions (or making threats of them) on style matters like this. You didn't even disguise the fact that your views are heated on the matter. Being an regular editor with a strong opinion on that, and working as an admin on things you can approach more neutrally, is surely the way to go.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Yup, mentioned by name in the funny close at [5]. Dicklyon (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Undo it?

Nyttend, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requested Move: Steamboat Bill, your close is under discussion, and you have been invited to retract it since you were too involved. Otherwise we'll need to do a Move Review, which is never fun for anyone. Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend, the post above seems worded as a threat. I and several other editors at the discussion agree with you entirely. I, and I imagine the others, will be at any Move Review to support the close that, rightly, prevents Wikipedia from deliberately falsifying a movie title for specious and arbitrary reasons. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

A threat? I've already opened the review, since he declined to retract the bad close. What else can one do at this point? Dicklyon (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

How about link to the review discussion, for starters. And respecting the actual title of the movie, for another. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The link to the Move Review is immediately below, in the section with "Move Review" in its title. Dicklyon (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Move review for Steamboat Bill, Jr.

An editor has asked for a Move review of Steamboat Bill, Jr.. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review.

TicketSource Ltd wikipedia page

Hi there!

I've created a new version of the TicketSource page, now we're being nominated for awards and covered by national papers I thought you might be happier with the content that our previous review:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Liam_at_TicketSource/sandbox/TicketSource

With our custom built offices being completed in March, we'll be announcing the creation of many new tech jobs in Cardiff - If you feel the article still isn't significant enough I'm happy to keep this in the back until there's more if you still find it lacking. We'll have ties to a famous developer (Simon Baston) and will be pushing for more support from the Welsh government. The National Library of Wales have come out as an official backer of TicketSource in the controversy with Tocyn.cymru funding that'll be covered soon as well. Let me know where you think the tipping point will be and I'll work to make sure it's all added to the article in the next year.

We've grown rapidly since become a national interest so I've no doubt it's a matter of time. Any assistance you can provide while we work on citations would be great! Liam at TicketSource (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)