User talk:Anarchyte/Archive 5

Strong oppose candidate cannot spell adequate. Nah, just messing with you - that sounds absolutely fine. Wait to see if you get some feedback from others, then I'd recommend filing a poll on ORCP Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I also misspelled response, probably because I'm about to fall asleep, I'll read the other editor's opinions in the morning. Anarchyte (work | talk) 14:56, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

While there are situations where there are right and wrong answers, the way we've constructed policy on Wikipedia is to allow for judgement calls to be made, so in general any answer is fine if you can explain it with reference to policy or precedent or common sense, and you've done that. There are, though, things that those who write RfA questions will have in mind when constructing a question. One of the things I had in mind you picked up on - the supervote. It has happened to me. I got challenged where I introduced something into a close, that though policy based, had not been brought up in the discussion. While we have IAR, most Wikipedians prefer admins not to go down that route, and to follow reasonable procedure. So where you have found new evidence, it is, as you say, better to mention it rather than to act on it.

It is always tricky dealing with hypothetical questions, and admin candidates can tie themselves up in knots making assumptions. Always better to deal with the situation as it is offered. One of the common failings of new admins is to do as they are asked rather than what is in the best interest. Just because you have been asked to close a discussion or AfD, or to block someone for edit warring, or to tell an IP editor that they can't keep inserting that sentence, doesn't mean you have to. You don't have to take sides with the person who has approached you for help in a dispute. You look at the situation from your own independent perspective, and if you feel it not right to close the AfD, then don't close it. Add a comment or relist it, or even decline. That's fine, as long as you explain your actions. Closing a copyvio article as delete under WP:G12 is permissible if certain criteria are met. What folks like to see in a RfA is clear mention of those circumstances if you are proposing to delete something that would ordinary be closed as a default keep under No consensus. If there is viable history with no copyvio, then deleting the entire article would not be appropriate. Also, looking at the history is of value as these days we have so many Wikipedia mirrors that the source might be younger than the Wikipedia article.

You've done well with your answers, and it's unlikely that anyone would take serious issue with you, though in vague hypothetical situations like these it is generally best to explain more rather than less, and to stick with what is on offer without making additional assumptions. The phrase I used for the sources was "the three reliable sources used to establish notability" - sources are used in an article for various things, not all of them applying to notability, and I did say that the sources were reliable, so making an assumption that they were the only sources, and that they weren't good, is drifting away from the question, and introducing unnecessary variables which may detract you from the main point of the question. Us question setters sometimes ask tricky questions - not because we're mean, but because in the real world of being an admin malicious users can and will attempt to trick or mislead you, so read questions carefully, and try not to make assumptions. Keep your options open, and say: If it is X, I'd do this, if it is Y I'd do that, and if it is Z I'd do the other. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:30, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm pinged here. I'd say that I wouldn't have a tenure-based objection to a second go at RfA at this point. Two years is enough time to learn the ropes and the block log is clean. I haven't delved the actual editing, so I'll leave it right there for now. best, —tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller, Ritchie333, SilkTork, and Carrite: Cheers for all the advice, should I make an ORCP soon? Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• In my opposition, I mentioned my concerns about the quality of Schauenburg Castle (Oberkirch) and I notice that there has been very little change in that article since then. If you are nominated again, I am willing to take a close look with an open mind at your work in the past year. Although I did not mention Gamergate, one thing I would be concerned about is whether there have been any similar problematic involvements. I wish you well. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:18, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

  @Cullen328: Yeah, I sort of hit a wall on the Castle article because I can't speak German and therefore couldn't find that many sources, so instead of trying to do something I knew I couldn't, I moved on to writing other articles. As for the GamerGate stuff, I haven't been involved with anything related to that, and my only edits to ArbCom sanctioned articles have been small copyedits. Thanks for the advice. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

SoWhy may be able to help with the German sources for Schauenburgkirche Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'd say go for it, Anarchyte. You have a greater deal of experience now as opposed to last time, and not only that but it seems you have the backing of more people. I really feel like I shouldn't have opposed last time, but it's understandable that others opposed in light of account age etc. I don't see any issues—I'll support. JAGUAR  20:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I've created an ORCP, let's see how it goes. Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please explain this comment from your last RfA. That was one of my major issues. What were you trying to communicate then and what are your feelings about that bit of editing now? Chris Troutman (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

@

JamesBWatson only showed that even more. In that comment I tried to somewhat explain that because I found the blog post via that source, it was okay to just source that page, instead of where I actually got in the information from, which was (obviously) the wrong idea. Looking back, I can completely understand why people would've opposed because of that, and to be honest I might have as well (if it wasn't my RFA). Since then I've gotten a lot better at sourcing the content I add, adding all of the parameters that apply, and making sure that I source where I get the info from directly, instead of a half-related page. Hope that answers your question, feel free to follow up if you wish. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk

) 22:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

There are several other thoughts I have on this which I could mention, but I find surprisingly many of them have already been mentioned above, particularly by

talk

) 13:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:3RR

page, users don't always need to hit the full 3 reverts to warrant action (though from taking a look at the 3RR notice board, it seems users rarely get blocked for anything lower than 4):

"Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

and per the warning users are given:

"...you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly."

I would need to contact the blocking administrator to see if there were other factors involved, and to get their opinion on the matter. You technically need four reverts to violate 3RR, so the way I see it, instead of blocking it would have been a better idea to guide them towards having a look at

WP:DRN

to see if they could solve the issue civilly. There is obviously a content dispute if the user has continued to revert it, and per the 2nd quote, even if they don't revert three times, they can still get blocked for indicating that they may intend to. The user should've been warned before being blocked and I'm fairly sure that if the other warnings were two months old then they would be stale (though please correct me if I'm wrong). If I were to unblock them I'd need reassurance that they would stop their somewhat-disruptive behaviour and try to talk to the user/s that they had a dispute with, though, without the barrier set by the question, I'd probably just ask the blocking admin to take a look.

I hope that answers the question adequately, if not please tell me where I went wrong. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC). Note: I've expanded/edited my answer as of 12:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC). Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That answer shows a much better understanding of both the edit-warring policy and blocking issues than is grasped by a good many editors. Certainly if in doubt "contact the blocking administrator to see if there were other factors involved" is the right thing to do, and of course you are right about edit-warring blocks not needing 3RR infringement, which is something which is not understood by an amazing number of editors, even ones who have repeatedly had it pointed out to them. My experience from reviewing unblock requests is that very often editors are blocked for edit-warring without breaching the 3 revert rule and then appeal on the basis that they haven't broken that "rule". (Your observation "from taking a look at the 3RR notice board, it seems users rarely get blocked for anything lower than 4" may be because the minority of cases that go via the edit warring notice board may not be entirely typical, or maybe because disproportionately many of the non-3RR ones lead to unblock requests, or both.) One of the things I was after was whether you would pick up on that, and you did.

I had hoped you might pick up on "I took care never to breach 3RR", which indicates that the editor was knowingly edit warring and trying to game the system by avoiding crossing the 3RR line. You didn't explicitly mention that, but your quoting "should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly" indicates that you are aware that evidence of intention is relevant, so I will settle for that.

Time and time again I have come across editors with a very extensive history of edit warring who take the attitude "it's perfectly all right to edit war until I get a warning about it and then stop so that I don't get blocked". That is gaming the system, and totally unjustified. In my view, if an editor knows about the edit warring policy because he or she has been warned about it, then he or she does not need warning again and again every time he or she edit wars. Naturally, I would not apply that principle mechanically without considering the particular circumstances, and various factors might encourage me to give a friendly warning rather than a block, such as being a good editor with little history of edit warring, only warned once and that was years ago, etc etc. However, in this case the editor has been warned more than once, "over two months ago", so presumably not over 3 months ago or I would have said that. Of course in real life there might be circumstances that would lead me to make a different decision, but as far as one can tell from what I said, this is an editor with a history of edit warring and being warned about it, who has been disruptively reverting to his or her preferred version over a long period, and has been warned about edit warring not much longer ago than the length of the current edit-war, and it is likely to be time for a block. You suggest "instead of blocking it would have been a better idea to guide them towards having a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution or WP:DRN", and of course in real life one would have to take account of the particular circumstances, but the facts that the editor has repeatedly been warned about the EW policy, that he or she is clearly deliberately trying to stop short of a block, and that the reverting has been going on for a long time, suggest that we may be past the stage of guiding them in that way. The question was to some extent prompted by my observation over the years that some editors get away with very long-term slow edit wars (sometimes literally for years) without ever being blocked because of an attitude that warnings have to be recent and reverts have to be close together in time. Both of those factors should be taken into consideration, but treating them as absolutes supported neither by policy nor, in my opinion, by common sense.

Another point I deliberately included in my story to see if you would pick it up is the fact that the blocking administrator specifically gave the 3 revert rule as the reason for the block, but that reason was clearly invalid. A administrator reviewing a block is not like an appeal court judge reviewing another court's decision, and it is neither necessary nor desirable to consider the block rigidly in terms of what the blocking administrator said: it should be reviewed in relation to all the relevant facts, and if a block is justified it isn't invalidated because the blocking administrator was not careful enough in stating the block reason. (That doesn't, of course, mean that I don't think administrators should be careful and try to avoid such mistakes.) You didn't explicitly pick up on the inaccurate block log reason, but evidently the fact that you didn't mention it and went ahead with considering other issues shows that you didn't think that one error invalidated the block, so I'm happy with that.

OK, so the conclusion of all this is that your answer to my question was on the whole good, but, as you will by now realise, I disagreed with some of what you said. However, different administrators do disagree without it meaning that one of them must be unsuitable as an admin. Also, the nature of the disagreement was one I am not too unhappy about, because you were more inclined to consider unblocking than I was. I am firmly of the opinion that far too many administrators are far too reluctant to unblock editors, so I am much happier with one who I see as erring in the other direction. So my one-sentence summary of all the above is "I don't agree with everything you said, but no two people always agree, and the kind of disagreement is not one that I see as a reason why you should not be an administrator". The editor who uses the pseudonym "

talk

) 16:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

First of all, thank you for your participation in my Optional RfA candidate poll. Maybe you are mostly right. About my CSD logs, admins can see the rest, since i just did not keep it until now. about my AfD votes yeah, although some are just not shown yet. Anyways thank you, I will bear all this in mind — Preceding

https://www.google.ca/search?num=100&newwindow=1&site=&source=hp&q=%22play+magnus%22&oq=%22play+magnus%22&gs_l=hp.12..0l10.2882.5425.0.7973.14.14.0.0.0.0.100.1094.13j1.14.0....0...1c.1.64.hp..0.12.971.0..0i131k1.PGM3nCjrEBM — Preceding unsigned comment added by IQ125 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@IQ125: Tagging is allowed and this is a valid tag. Either address the tag yourself, or leave it alone. You need to stop reverting all tags on sight and accusing everyone of tag spamming. It's disruptive. -- ferret (talk) 14:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello @

competence is required to understand that. Your actions indicate that you think that you own the article, which is starting to become disruptive. The kerfuffle at the recent AfD for the article also didn't help, and I left a short message there for you, which I don't think you read (if you're interested, here's the link). Anarchyte (work | talk

) 14:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Go find some more verifications then, you are the one that wants them!! IQ125 (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

@IQ125: That's not the point. You need to read what we've all told you multiple times. Until you understand how tags work and are willing to have a conversation, I see no point to respond to your messages. Anarchyte (work | talk) 02:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, bringing the conversation here rather than bog down the ORCP. I had a read through the other day and I don't think it's far off FA standards. Where articles tend to fall down is on the prose. Professional, engaging, prose is harder than most people think and FAC can be quite daunting until you've been through it a few times. I reviewed Resident Evil 5 at FAC the other day and that's just been promoted. It might be a good idea to compare Far Harbor to that and to look over the FAC to see if any of the comments made there are relevant to Far Harbor and thus head off any potential objections. Then it's just a case of biting the bullet and nominating it again. Let me know when you're ready to do that and I'll give it a thorough read through and leave some comments on the FAC. I'll watchlist the FAC and if there's anything you're not sure about or you want a second opinion on, just ask me and I'll have a look. By the way, I highly recommend Tony's guide, which details a lot of common prose flaws and how to fix them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I've re-read through the article again and fixed some obvious mistakes, though I probably missed some as it's 2AM right now. I'll have another look sometime tomorrow (or should I say later today?) and then close off the PR and start an FAC. If you've got any time to spare, comments on the PR before I close it and launch the FAC would be appreciated. Anarchyte (work | talk) 16:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm unlikely to get to it today. I wanted to get some writing done this weekend and I haven't done any yet. But you never know. It'll more likely be tomorrow by the time I can give it the time a proper review needs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: All good. There's no rush. Anarchyte (work | talk) 16:13, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Alright, I've made a few more edits to it. Do you know of anyone who might also be able to give it a quick run-through prior to its nomination? Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, I got some writing done in the end yesterday so I'll try and get some reading done today! I feel like I've accomplished something with the long weekend now. I'd suggest nominating it and asking the reviewers from last time to revisit. I'll give it a thorough going over, probably in the next few hours. You could ask

Freikorp, who wrote Resident Evil 5 which which I reviewed the other day. The best way to get reviewers is to review other people's articles, so if there's another nomination that interests you, don't be scared to offer a few comments. Nominators are usually grateful for any constructive feedback. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

15:11, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm working through now. Since the PR is still open, that seems as good a place as any to leave comments. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And done. You'll want to go through these and make sure I haven't made a mess. I think you'd be safe nominating it now. Other people might raise various things (of course everyone has particular things they look for) but I'm not seeing anything that couldn't be addressed during an FAC. As long as you keep on top of replying to reviewers' comments quickly you should be fine. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I'll launch the FAC after you take a look at the replies I left you on the PR page. I'd like to keep all the discussion for those points on that page for consistencies sake. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Replied there briefly. Feel free to shut it down and launch the FAC if you're happy with things. Don't feel you have to keep it open just for me. And be aware that I keep very strange hours—I'm UTC+1 but I work nights Sunday to Thursday, so my replies might come at slightly random times.

My reading of this is that I can sort of "sponsor" you a FAC and act as a "mentor" . I'm not sure exactly what's expected beyond thoroughly going over it before the nomination, which I've just done, but I'll watch the FAC closely and I can certainly write something endorsing the nomination. Beyond that, we just have to see what reviewers come up with. By the way I'm watching you now so no need to ping me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I've created the page. I'll try to contact some people in a bit. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you know you need to transclude that onto

WP:FAC itself, don't you? ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?

10:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Knew I would forget something. Cheers! Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

i wrote a real article about jen jenatos early life movies made challenges and freedom through charity work now and the moderate said they removed it because it wasn't constructive i have copy right permission by the actress what is the problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pornfreak1 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@

neutral point of view. As for the other edits of yours that I've reversed, I left the reason why on your talk page. You tried to add sources to an article by adding "((national geographic))". That isn't how you add sources and I've linked you a guide on how to properly cite materials. Please read over it. If you've got any more questions, feel free to follow up. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk

) 08:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Hey, I meant to say this a week ago, but I still wanted to thank you for your post at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play Magnus. When I saw IQ125's post I felt I should say something and was trying to come up with something that wouldn't likely just make things worse, only to look down a couple posts and see you'd already posted something much better than anything I would have come up with. Having editors like you around makes Wikipedia a much less stressful place. Again, thanks.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Martin IIIa: No problems! Thanks for the kind words . Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Dmurphy235 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)No. I do not have a COI

@Dmurphy235: Alright, I suggest you reply on User talk:Kudpung though, to keep the conversation in one place. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:53, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I DONT KNOW WHY IM BEING ACCUSED OF EDITING SOMEONES BIO JEAN? NO THAT WAS NOT ME, I SOLETY UPLOADED MY BIOGRAPHY FROM FANS REQUEST IF I EDITED MY OWN PAGE WRONG PLS TEACH ME BUT YOU ARE CONFUSING ME WITH A USER FROM 2007 I JUST JOINED 2 WEEKS AGO? WOW — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pornfreak1 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I NEVER COMMENTED ON A FAUT ARTICLE PLEASE STOP HARRASING AND CONFUSING ME WITH SOMEONE ELSES IP THIS IS THE 5TH TIME IM JEN JENATO AN AUTHOR MODEL ACTRESS PLEASE STOP! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pornfreak1 (talk • contribs) 15:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:COI. Anarchyte (work | talk

) 02:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Uanfala: Alright, cheers for the pointers. I haven't been too active at RfD until recently, so I'm still learning the ropes there! Thanks, Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

(

talk

) 14:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@

GeoffreyT2000: Ah, alright. Thanks! Anarchyte (work | talk

) 14:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Anarchyte, if you have the time would you mind leaving some comments at the Wipeout 2048 FAC? In return I'll gladly do a review of Far Harbor which you currently have up at FAC. Wipeout 2048 should be nearing promotion now—all it needs is a couple more reviews. Don't worry if you can't do it. Thanks! JAGUAR  22:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jaguar: I'll be able to look at it in about 5 hours, if that's fine. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding this revision of yours, is linking to

Now you removed the word “multiplayer” itself. What’s the reason for that?
―PapíDimmi (talk | contribs) 12:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@PapiDimmi: Eh, I believe it is. Multiplayer is already linked to that article in the infobox. Linking "video game" is definitely over linking. I might leave my 2c on that page later. I've readded the word "multiplayer". I removed it because I was looking at a few of the other articles to base this one off, but then it struck me that the ones I was looking at also feature single-player campaigns. Apologies for the misunderstandings. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

@

Wp:OLINK I showed you was more about the linking of video game). I hope this clears up any confusion or disagreements we've had on this article. Have a great day, Anarchyte (work | talk

) 22:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wana Decrypt0r screenshot.png, 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. Codename Lisa (talk) 08:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

I don't agree with your edit summary here: to me, the lead is the first sentence which says "Topic is/was a ..." and explains why it's notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. (Unlike those irritating biogs which start "Person was born to Jemima and Fred Thingummy in a quiet village in Borsetshire"). Even a stub should have such a lead sentence. I've left a note on the creating editor's user talk page on the subject. PamD 09:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And rather than remove the piece of text sourced to Wikipedia I think a {{

cn}} tag is more productive! But between us we've improved a newbie's first attempt enormously. Thanks. PamD

09:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dweller, first off, I'm sorry to hear about the real life issues, I hope everything ends well. Real life is always more important than Wikipedia .

As for the RfA, I do not have plans to run for another month or two, simply because I want to make sure I'm 100% ready and not rushing into things. I guess that answers part b of your message. As for part a, Ritchie333 has expressed interest in nominating me in late June, and I would happily accept a nom/co-nom from both or either of you (I look up to both of you onwiki), but so you may need to chat with him about his plans (I believe he wants to nominate a few people at the same time, or something along those lines). Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am poised to file an RfA when the election's over and Anarchyte has got 2 years' service. In the meantime, Dweller, Yash! has re-appeared so you could ask him about RfA #2? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Please could one of you ping me with a month or so to go. --

Hello Anarchyte,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 811 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again

HERE

.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read

THIS PAGE

.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Wana Decrypt0r screenshot.png, 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. Flow 234 (Nina) talk 10:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk

The article

The article Fighters Uncaged you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fighters Uncaged for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cognissonance -- Cognissonance (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Fighters Uncaged

On 21 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fighters Uncaged, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some of the text on the back of the Fighters Uncaged box resulted in a lawsuit from Zuffa? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fighters Uncaged. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Fighters Uncaged), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverted edit

Hello, Anarchyte! This is Lutontownfc. I made a page on the Rocky character Union Cane that you reverted for no given reason. Can you please explain why you reverted all my hard work, and attempts to make a good page. Thanks!

-Lutontownfc

@

Lutontownfc: Lutontownfc, Anarchyte left this edit note when he reverted: Unreliable sources, reinstated redirect. please have a look at wp:rs. -- ferret (talk

) 13:55, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks for letting me know! I'll try to find more reliable sources this time!

-Lutontownfc

@

notability, which is required for articles to stick around. -- ferret (talk

) 13:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I get it now. Thank You!

-Lutontownfc

(

noticeboard if you're not sure of the reliability of certain websites. Hope this helps, cheers. Anarchyte (work | talk

) 14:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join

WikiProject Organized crime

	Hello, Anarchyte. You are invited to join WikiProject Organized crime, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Organized crime topics. Please check out the project, and if interested feel free to join by adding your name to the member list. North America1000 21:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Nominating

SM City

for Deletion

Hi I would like help in nominating

SM Prime Holdings under a different name. I would like to see other user's thoughts on the article by placing an AFD on it. BugMenn (talk

) 17:01, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello

the Philippines WikiProject. I don't know enough about the company or its notability to give an educated opinion. Anarchyte (work | talk

) 07:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

RfA

It's been a year since the last one and I can't see anything that will make it tank, so what say you? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:08, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

+1 to that! --

to explain

) 14:56, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, let me ping Dweller and see what he thinks. I want to go back through the first RfA and just confirm for my own sanity that the key oppose votes have all been dealt with, before I go any further. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:51, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I'm fine with that. SoWhy, if you have time, can you take another look over my CSD/AFD stuff to make sure there are no remaining issues? Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Might take a day or two though. Regards SoWhy 06:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Spot-check looks good, can't see any problems. I would offer my services as a nominator but I see you have enough of those already? Regards SoWhy 12:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who wants to co-nom (I think HJ Mitchell was keen too), pop your name onto Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anarchyte 2 while we wait for Anarchyte to answer the standard 3 questions ("What is your name?", "What is your quest?" "What is your favourite colour?"). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Just adding co-noms without the candidate asking me to? Nah, Anarchyte should learn how hard it will be as an admin, so he should be forced to choose who may co-nom him Regarsd SoWhy 07:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Haha, I don't mind. I'd love to have you as a co-nom, you've really helped me over the last few months. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, we'll see how you like it when the "Oppose, co-nominated by SoWhy" !votes start Joking aside, I added a few lines that are hopefully extremely convincing™. Regards SoWhy 09:10, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I've sent you an email . Anarchyte (work | talk) 22:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

So you did, it ended up in my spam folder. :-/ - I'll have a read through it and get back to you soon. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:10, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Hmm, how strange. Got any idea why it ended up there? I'll be somewhat busy today so my reply to the email may take a few hours. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I have sent back some comments on that lot via email. If you can address that, we'll probably be good to go after the next iteration. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Splendid. I've emailed back. Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Ha ha, great minds think alike. I came here just about to ask the same question at the same time . I think you're more than ready now - your continued work on RMs and other adminy things, as well as the GAs you've written since last year are all fantastic.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:27, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Eagerly awaiting to support. -- ferret (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd love to co nom if I haven't missed the boat by the time I get home. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: You should be fine, the questions etc haven't been finalised yet. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• I've added a co-nom. Proudly. --
  old fashioned!
  08:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

old fashioned!

08:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC) ...and I didn't mean to exclude

old fashioned!

09:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think your other three(!) co-noms have said just about everything that needs to be said, but having seen you in action at FAC I wanted to add a little so I've added a fourth(!) statement. That I'm queuing up to nominate you behind people who certainly know what they're talking about is a very good sign! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the RfA is ready for your answers. --

old fashioned!

09:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: I agree. I've sent Ritchie a revised copy, just waiting on a response. Also, I saw your edit summary on the RfA page, I sincerely hope everything turns out okay. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, you have at least four supporters (most likely ) Regards SoWhy 10:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm happy with the answers to the questions, so I have IAR dropped them into the RfA - all you need to do is accept the nomination and we are off. I would recommend somebody else does the actual transclusion as it doesn't matter so much if they balls it up. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: I've fixed up a few issues with the questions and I've sent you one more email before we finally pull the trigger. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, Dweller, SoWhy, and HJ Mitchell:. I've accepted the nomination. Thank you all for the kind words! Wish me luck . Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:46, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• And it's 'Good luck' from me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

• Ditto, wishing you the very best of luck at your RFA. I've posted a question there, it is completely optional for you to answer, but might help any that have lingering doubts (I highly doubt it, and I am not one of them). Again, best of luck!
  Steven Crossin
  11:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Userpage font

Could you possibly change the font on your userpage and such to be something that doesn't have insane stroke modulation (and especially not that stroke modulation with a sans-serif typeface)? You don't have to (it is your userpage, after all), but the current font is kinda hard to read and hurts my eyes a bit. Thanks! RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 16:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@RileyBugz: Hah, first time that's been requested. I've removed the font from the bulk of the page. Hope that helps. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:02, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Not surprised about that, ha. If you want a nice humanist font to use, Syntax looks pretty good. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 14:22, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Your talk ) 05:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Your RFA

admin guide to read up on any tools you are unfamiliar with.

Congratulations! It is my great pleasure to inform you that closed successfully and you are now an administrator ! Useful Links: Administrator's Noticeboard for edit warring • IRC admin channel (#wikipedia-en-admins connect ) Your admin logs: blocks • deletions • moves • protects • uploads

Welcome to the admin corps. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:00, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Whoa. Thank you very much Xaosflux. I'll try not to break anything :). Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

welcome to the mop corps

Congratulations on your successful RFA! In a self-imposed RFA tradition I'm sure many people wish I would stop, allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from the puppy after my RFA passed – ten long, sordid, why-didn't-I-find-a-better-hobby years ago:

Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable.) Remember you must always follow the ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.) Remember to troll . (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.) Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for? Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in rouge anyway. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able. Katietalk 13:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. All rights released under GFDL.

A beer for you!

A toast to your successful RfA, and welcome to the admin corps! You may regard this as alcoholic beer, or any other product, as you prefer. All the best!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Congrats on your RfA! The kitten can aid in catching rats.

L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Congratulations on your successful RFA! Welcome to the mop corps, soldier! I, Corporal Kay-Six-Kay-Ay, am pleased to welcome you to this proud organization of volunteer users. Remember that, as a janitor, you'll be doing a lot of dirty work, so don't be afraid of getting covered in vandal vomit! Admin work is also tiresome too, so take your Wikibreaks, don't neglect real life, and drink coffee. Lots of it! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 16:54, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Precious

video games and cleanup

Thank you for quality articles such as Fallout 4: Far Harbor, Monaco: What's Yours Is Mine and Fighters Uncaged, for patrolling new contribs, for your willingness to perform cleanup jobs as an admin, - make your green box bigger: you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you very much. I'll be sure to put it in the green box :) Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:33, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	The mop was obviously well-deserved. One day after a successful RfA and you're knocking out RFPP requests within 5 minutes! Thanks! Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 12:35, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Thank you! Means a lot. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Request

Can you semi-protect

long-term abuse of Wikidesctruction. 123.136.111.15 (talk

) 13:10, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Good evening. I'm not entirely sure on what to do in these situations, so I'll ping some people who might. @Ritchie333, Oshwah, and KrakatoaKatie:. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I looked at your recent RFPP responses and they were great. Evaluate these the same way and lock them for sockpuppetry if necessary, using escalating lengths. Alternatively, you can block the IP, though protection usually works better for LTA. Katie^talk 13:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. As I said to you on my talk page, your responses to RFPP requests have been well done. Keep it up, but don't hesitate to reach out to any one of us if you need help or aren't sure about a situation :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not going to semi-protect that many articles in one hit as it would shut out far too many good faith edits; indeed, some of the disruption was reverted by other IPs from checking the history. Each needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis, and I would recommend filing individual reports at

Requests for page protection (which is the correct location for this). I think some of the disruptive IPs have already been blocked, which would make protection superfluous. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

13:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

(

WP:RFPP requests instead of throwing a big list of articles at you here. I'd let him know this. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)}

13:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Mehrunisa V Lub U AfD

Your closure of

talk

) 02:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@

closeAFD script to close it. Anyway, thanks again and have a good day. Anarchyte (work | talk

) 02:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Dance Gavin Dance protection

Thank you for protecting this page. But, if the vandalism continues after the week is up will we extend the protection? There was a lot of vandalism on this page and to be honest I'm not sure if I reverted it all yet. The anonymous users really screwed up the band members section but I think I have that section fixed. Thanks. Bowling is life (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bowling is life: Hi, if the vandalism does continue after the week is up, then yeah, it'd probably need a longer protection period (another week or two, I'd say). Anarchyte (work | talk) 04:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Sweets for you

	Wishing you a Happy adminship
	Congratulations for your successful Rfa. Wishing you a happy adminship. Please savor the moment with this traditional Bengali sweet FORCE RADICAL (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2017

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 10, No. 1 — 2nd Quarter, 2017
Previous issue | Index | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2

2017

, the project has:

211 Featured Articles 70 Featured Lists 11 Featured Topics 1 Featured Portals

28 Featured Pictures 1,172 Good Articles 23 Good Topics

---

Content

Changes to Featured and Good content News items and announcements

Feature: Shiny Wikipedians - A Featured Content Leaderboard Feature: Final Fantasy VII postmortem

---

Project Navigation

• VG Project Main pages

  • Main project – talk
  • Project category – talk
  • Portal – talk

  VG Project Departments

  • talk
  • Cleanup – talk
  • Peer review – talk

   

  • Reference library – talk
  • Newsletter – talk
  • talk

To opt-out or sign up to receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to update the distribution list.
(Delivered 14:33, 9 July 2017 (UTC))