User talk:Nyttend/Archive 38

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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)

I'd like to know why this page along side 2015 Kuwait Champions Challenge was deleted since it's a tournament organized by Kuwait Football Association if it was non-notable why are there many other friendly tournament articles still out there please return these 2 pages, there sre friendly tournaments based in america which have a semilar meaning to thr article with there own article and have not been deleted, thsee 2 pages have refrences and all other necessary things.

(talk) 03:49, 1 January 2016

Thank you for removing the Relationship section. I was about to propose its removal on the talk page when I saw your change. —teb728 t c 07:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes please request to return the 2 pages of Kuwait Champions Challenge and 2015 Kuwait Champions Challenge thank you for you help. —khalid sadeq talk page

--Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Just wanted to add similar Happy New Year wishes, Nyttend, and will take this opportunity to add that you have been an excellent WP teacher and inspiration for me (inadvertently) in so many ways you are not even aware. A most sincere THANK YOU. Atsme^📞📧 21:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

--Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Great Scott! Now I'm sure I'm losing the plot. I thought I kept pretty good tabs on our prime ministers' private lives and foibles, but that morbid detail of his demise had completely escaped my notice. Naturally, I assumed it was vandalism, but I checked it out and it's legit. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

The worst part about this revelation is that I wasn't aware of it but some anonymous jerk on the internet was you were. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

PS. I just realised why that one passed me by. From mid-February I was out of town for a while, celebrating the birth of my first grandchild with her parents.

I really must get my priorities sorted out once and for all.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

The word biomedical also means health. It is not broadening the meaning. So what does that say about others who clamed it was broadening the meaning. Do you think there are were only good faith editors or were there bias and bad faith editors commenting in the RfC. There is another RfC. It is obvious what is going on here. Decisions for policy and guidelines should only allow neutral and good faith editors commenting. QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend. I wrote an essay called Why MEDRS? that explains why MEDRS is so important for content about health. I cannot tell you how many times we have relied on it to keep bad information about various quack remedies or other health claims with very weak or no scientific support out of WP. It functions kind of like the FDA does for the US - the FDA's job is to prevent people from selling snake oil. Would you please reconsider? A possible way out here would simply be to say "no consensus" since as you noted the !votes were pretty evenly split. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

A no consensus finding will have the same result. Because the edit that caused the RFC can be found here [1] with CFCF inserting "and health" and other places in subsequent edits, where it had not been before looking back as far as 2011. Per

WP:NOCONSENSUS the edit would be removed. AlbinoFerret

17:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Reply

You claimed "Your position was rejected by many participants; when one side interprets an idea one way, and the other another way, the closer can't just assume that one interpretation is right and the other wrong."[2] The closer must find out who is right or wrong. Does MEDRS cover health-related information? Yes or no? QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

According to your comment, you can't decide who is right or wrong. Then the way a RfC is closed is wrong and broken. QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I tweaked your closure here, no change to the substance, just the location of the text. I think I got it right, but who knows. Just letting you know. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend. As recently saw there is a user called The Banner that was a couple of months blocked by you , apparently the user continues to edit in a way continued battleground mentality and frivolous I would like to inform me about it because I do not consider their editions something good or pleasant to Wikipedia, even removing pages with relevant information according to this user considers should not be on wikipedia especially towards beauty pageants and other issues. Thank you.Evanex (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you think the indefinite full protection on Azerbaijan could be lifted now? The edit warring was all on a single day, and it's now been several weeks since then. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I hate to be that guy... But I'm not sure how better to respond. The user Perfect Orange Sphere seems to think that what you said at the AN/I thread doesn't apply. He continues to insist upon reverting my edits here and here, he has explicitly asked me to stop editing the page and participating in the discussion, and he continues to insist upon some very Dunning-Kruger-esque points to defend his interpretation, such as implying that presumption is the same thing as absolute certainty and insisting that published papers by environmentalists, computer scientists and science educators have more weight than academic definitions of the term. I'm not asking for you to ban him, just to help however you can. I would really appreciate it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know that this means anything nefarious is going on, but Interestobserver (talk · contribs) was apparently created just a few hours ago. The only edit from the account was an unexplained revert of one of my edits to the article. It might be one of the IP editors from the dispute creating an account (the other was Perfect Orange Sphere not logged in), but as best I could tell Perfect Orange Sphere was the only one hitting the undo button. Feel free to tell me to get lost if I'm getting on your nerves by coming to you, it's just that (as I suspect you can see), there doesn't seem to be any way to get through to them myself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I hope I didn't imply that you should block him, that's not what I intended. I only wanted to bring it to your attention, in case it becomes an issue in the future. I will let you know if that happens. I intend to take your advice, and leave a politely worded message on the user's talk page. Also, I understand what you are saying about the talk page and agree completely. I'm quite happy to discuss the article with anyone, whether they agree with me or not. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick note to let you know I have posted the reasons here for reverting your change in Haiti's article. Reverting your change does not mean I do not appreciate your work and contribution. I welcome your thoughts. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 12:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, my web site F1almanah.mk is now upgraded from racing portal to complete sport portal named Derbi.mk and that is why the archive is missing. I have uploaded many files from Formula 1 as that was prime focus of my work and to tell that most of you have no way to offices of famous people is correct, but you should read that this picture was taken in Skopje on Nov.22 during his visit to Macedonia where this interview happened. You can see my credentials on Linked in (Aleksandar Tabakovski). https://www.linkedin.com/in/tabakovski

You can reach me by email on any of mentioned domains, just put my last name before @ sign.

Hello. Having noticed you have edited it in the past, could you take a look at

) 14:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The only maps I have handy are the Rand McNally atlas and Google Maps, but Mexico, Wyandot County, Ohio is a dot on the map even in print, so it would not appear to be a genuine ghost town. Do you think we should allow both Mexicos to remain? I didn't want to add Template:Disputed to Mexico, Crawford County when that article probably gets very few visitors and its talk page even fewer.– Gilliam (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I created an article about singer Carina Jaarnek today. She died yesterday. If you want to, take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm currently working up a non-NRHP article (1990 gubernatorial election in Nebraska), and would like to include a few maps: which candidates won which counties in the four-way Democratic primary, and how the two candidates compared in the two-way Republican primary and the general election. As I recall, you had some suggestions as to how the NRHP progress maps could be made maximally legible for color-blind readers. Could you make some similar suggestions for my case? I assume that for the two-candidate maps, shades of red and blue like those used on the NRHP maps would work. However, for the four-candidate map, I'd like to use four distinct colors, since using two shades of red and two of blue might imply some kind of political alignment. One of the colors can be white; but I don't want to use, say, blue, red, green, and white if two of the colors are identical to the color-blind eye. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you leave me a note with suggestions, or point me to a good four-color map that I can use as an example? Thanks. — Ammodramus (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm going to try to produce these from an existing Commons map using Inkscape, so I'll come up with SVG files. Right now, I'm trying to find a good Nebraska-counties map that I can modify with minimal effort. Not sure if I'll find this; might have to spend some time outlining all 93 counties. Happily, most of them are rectangular, or pretty close.

You suggested white, yellow, bright green, and "deep red". Is the last R-255/G-0/B-0, or is it more like R-128/G-0/B-0? You mention that for some people, red/green is a problem, so I don't know if R-0/G-255/B-0 and R-255/G-0/B-0 would work for them. — Ammodramus (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I've only used Inkscape once before, to produce a map for Battery White in May 2014. Unfortunately, I've completely forgotten it since then. As I recall, though, it wasn't terribly hard to learn. The advantage of using it is that SVG maps scale nicely, so can be blown up for readers with poor vision, or those who want to check out a fine detail.

I was playing with a cousin of the Buffalo-County-highlighted map that you suggested. I'll have to study it in more detail, but it looks as though the creator started with a map of Nebraska with all the counties, then imposed a red box on the county they wanted to highlight. I was really hoping for something where each county was defined as a separate box, so that I could click a county, tweak its color fill, then move on to the next. — Ammodramus (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't know if you've been watching my talk page, but I put in a quick note thanking you and DMFB for your suggestions. The map that he recommended looked like it was just what I needed to work with.

I've been playing with the color scheme a bit, and am now disinclined to use white as one of my colors. I don't like the way that white states on the border look when there's a white background. I'm thinking, instead, of using a light gray: either 239-239-239 or 247-247-247. Do you think that would that work, or would either or both of those be too similar in brightness to yellow (0-255-255)? — Ammodramus (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an aesthetic thing on my part. I'm using white for the area outside the state boundaries, and when one of the border counties is also white, it looks as though the state has a bite taken out of it. I've been trying to make the state's border a little heavier, which might remedy the problem, but my lack of skill with Inkscape is hindering me there; and it's possible that I can't change the state border alone, but would have to do the internal county boundaries as well, which might look nasty.

I'm going to see if I can use dots or diagonal hash-marks on white counties. That'd distinguish them from other-state space. However, chapter 1 of the Netscape tutorial hasn't covered that yet... Ammodramus (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your latest. 239-239-239 works OK for me: it's enough different from 255-255-255 to separate in-state from out-of-state space. Ammodramus (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Got the maps done last night, and launched the article this morning. For the four-color map, I threw a touch of red into the light gray; I also lightened up the deep red, since (128-0-0) tended to obscure the county lines. Could you let me know how it works for you? If it's problematic, I can try to fix it and upload a new version; if it's OK, but less than ideal, I'll try to do better should I find myself map-making in the future. Thanks; and thanks again for all the advice leading up to this. — Ammodramus (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Glad that the map works well: I'll keep it as a template should I need to generate maps in the future. Of course, by then I'll have forgotten all the things I've learned about Inkscape in the past 48 hours, and will have to start over again...

Regarding the tie, the Sandhills are not only sparsely populated, but what population there is is overwhelmingly Republican. In 1990, Grant County had 106 registered Democrats and 389 Republicans. 67 of the D's voted in the primary, but 9 apparently didn't vote for a gubernatorial candidate. Of the 58 who voted, 19 each voted for Boyle and Nelson, 12 chose Harris, 7 went for Hoppner, and 1 for Nimic (the pauper theologian-philosopher).

Thanks for your comments on the article. Good to have a critique from someone who's new to the subject: I've been close to it for so long that I miss omissions and misimpressions like those that you noted. I'll try to fix them soon. — Ammodramus (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Think the two issues are fixed now. Thanks, especially, for pointing out the support-oppose thing on LB1059: when I re-read it, I could see how a reader could easily become confused. I made the phrasing more explicit, and also standardized "support" and "oppose" in the paragraph.

Incidentally, there was confusion back in 1990, too. The measure was placed on the ballot by a pro-repeal petition; but a "For" vote meant "Keep 1059", while an "Against" vote meant "Repeal it". The World-Herald, in an editorial on the subject, called attention to this and warned readers to make sure that they were voting the way they thought they were voting. It looks like we'll have a similar situation in November, when a referendum is held on the Legislature's decision to end capital punishment in Nebraska: a vote for "Retain" will retain the Legislature's measure, and eliminate capital punishment; a vote for "Repeal" will repeal the measure and keep the death penalty.([3]) I look forward to lots of confusion and anger in the letters columns in the paper... Ammodramus (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

In the 2012 description for file:Union County Public Library in Liberty.jpg, you say it is in both the Liberty Residential Historic District, and the local Liberty Downtown Courthouse Historic District. Based on Residential and Courthouse maps, it now seems clear that it is only in the courthouse district. I'll make the necessary changes. Generic1139 (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

The only real problem was that the image was in the courthouse NR HD category, and the library isn't there, it is only in the residential NR district. I've (re)adjusted everything. Generic1139 (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edits, such as on Butler Institute of American Art are losing needed information to properly work on NRHP articles. All such articles are supposed to be categorized in at least two ways. By NRHP location and by NRHP type of place. You are just leaving them categorized by county location, leaving no hooks for editors to notice the article has not yet been categorized by 'type of place'. And the rule in categorization is that if a category does not exist at one level, then what would be the parent category is used--not deleted. This is used in WP throughout the category system and NRHP is not an exception to that. In this case, there is no NRHP category at the Ohio level for museums of any kind so Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places in Ohio must be used. Then we go up to the national level. In Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places, there also does not seem to be a museum subcategory so that Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places should be added to this article. Why there is no NRHP museum subcategory at either this state or the national level is a mystery, but no one will even notice that the category is missing if the article is not first placed in the categories I mention here for all to see and consider. This is a matter of good editing and helping everyone along in this process. Thanks Hmains (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir,Could you consider deleting this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arvind_Lyer&action=info There is no article named Arvind Lyer and it is being redirected to Arvind Iyer.Thank You (Rama2015 (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)).

Thank You for explaining.Well Taken.(Rama2015 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)).

Perhaps you would be willing to trim this edit, and reprimand the editor? Debresser (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw this note when you left it, went off to finish what I was working on, and completely forgot to respond; I'm sorry. Because two responses have been left to this edit, redacting "notorious edit-warrior" it would make it look like you and the IP were complaining about the question itself. Has this comment been part of a pattern from Pablo? If not, the two responses should suffice; if so, let me know (with diffs) and I'll respond. Nyttend (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

No, luckily this is not part of larger pattern. I vaguely remember we had a disagreement quite some while ago, and apparently he never grew over it. Thanks for the offer. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Pablo behaves like a real ass,[4] but nothing I can do about it. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

One thing springs to mind; address the concern that I have with the chosen text that you have edit/revert-warred to restore to the article. The "D" in "BRD" does not stand for "dismiss". pablo 20:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have addressed it, if you haven't noticed. But your unacceptable comments were there from the start. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

She continues, even after the block. In this edit she again removes the same content that is clearly in the source. Debresser (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you restore my article for

) 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, the article was well done I will add the new ref's when its restored (sources that she won [1], ^[2]), this is probably the only article i've made without saving it on my computer, so i need to make it from the beganing and I will basicly made just the same article again, so i'm asking you for help, restoring it will save me like some hours in searching for every song she sign ect. Thank you. Chris Calvin (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please have a look at Newville, Ohio. I'd like to know your opinion whether such an article is an appropriate use of public-domain material. I find a 100-year-old and overly-detailed description of a place to do more harm than good. Even if it's technically allowed to copy and paste from old books, I have tried to summarize only the most interesting and relevant parts to our readers. How can I go about removing passages like "Major Hogan was a scholar and a gentleman, more devoted to his books then to his business interests." or "It was a sound of music - of men’s and women’s voices mingling harmoniously together in sacred song." As you know I have included references in all of my history sections, but I dread that someone will later fill in my "stubs" by copying long-winded, out-of-context material they can conveniently glean using the link in the References section. – Gilliam (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on

, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

) 14:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Manually-generated tagging

Hi, I've seen your message at Check Wikipedia. Sorry if I answer here but I'm not confident enough about the regexes I've found. Unfortunately, a search like this is too broad, since it includes 2,000 external links hiding in fake footnotes, some math formulas, and also many hand-made footnotes, like the <sup>[19]</sup> in Intraventricular hemorrhage (coupled with a <small> in the References section). Other searches like these:

• insource:/\<sup>\[[Cc]itation (needed|required)\]\<\/sup>/
• insource:/\<sup>\[[']*[Ww]h(o|en)['\?]*\]\<\/sup>/

are too narrow, sorry. Good find anyway. --CX42 (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are photos I took and uploaded per your request:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bon_Air_Flats_in_Cincinnati1.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bon_Air_Flats_in_Cincinnati2.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bon_Air_Flats_in_Cincinnati3.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohawk_Place_Historic_District_in_Cincinnati1.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohawk_Place_Historic_District_in_Cincinnati2.jpg

Regards,– Gilliam (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to keep coming back, but you've been so helpful, and you're already aware of the situation. FL or Atlanta has returned, and began a slow edit war ([5], [6], and [7]) and taken up ownership of the article. He's also tried to start a mediation request where he's excluded the other editors who have helped me (actually, one of them put a lot more work in than I) to fix the page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nyttend:Thanks for your input. I could put together a collection of diffs showing that he's being extremely dishonest, but (while I understand you probably wouldn't mind) I'm reluctant to go against your opinion at the moment. I'll save that for if and when it becomes necessary. I'd be willing to go through with another RfM, so long as he doesn't try to rephrase the content issue to bias the process in his favor again. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I had indeed misunderstood you (obviously). However, I'm still reluctant to go seeking sanctions at AN/I, as I loathe the idea of being the guy who runs to the admins over a situation that might get resolved elsewhere. For now, I intend to follow through with the mediation, as I have every expectation of any reasonable, uninvolved party seeing that Original Position and I are in the right. Maybe it will be enough to convince them to stop trashing the article. I don't hold much hope, but if there's any, it's worth a shot.

Of course, if you happen to look into it and feel that sanctions are necessary, don't let my squeamishness stop you from doing your job. I can show you some diffs if you get the time and inclination. Honestly, that's exactly what I expect to happen if you do look into what FLoA's been on about lately. it's what I would do if I were an admin. But I only really care about the article, so if mediation can resolve it, that works for me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

AN/I

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:FL_or_Atlanta. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Nyttend. It has been over six months since you last edited your

".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at

this link

. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Lincoln Place Apartment Homes#Today and Park Towne Place#The_Penthouses_at_Park_Towne_Place? Is my sensitivity set too high for ad detection? After a revert or two with now at least some type of reference, I still think they are not within scope. Generic1139 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

(

peacock terms don't belong. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation}

01:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

No Index Tag

Sir,In a biographical Wiki article,upon the request upon whom the page is based on,how does one add the NO INDEX template so that the Page is not indexed by Search Engines.Thank You (Rama2015 (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC))

Sorted.Thank You.(Rama2015 (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC))

I'm assuming you remember this discussion and decision on ANI - [[11]]

For a short while, I actually thought it was working nicely. I managed to devote my wiki-time to expanding/improving far more articles than I usually manage, but then I had a minor issue, so I wanted to ask your advice, rather than open up a new can of worms on ANI. If you would rather me pass this on to a different admin, please let me know.

Anyway...the issue:

I saw this article Yamaha FZR250 had been deleted and changed to a redirect, so I checked the history and saw that the deleting editor wasn't the guy that I'm not supposed to interact with, so I restored the article, added a couple of images with the plan to expand on it, and make it into something worth keeping.

That was yesterday. Today, I find that the editor I'm not supposed to interact with (and vice versa obviously) has put this article up for deletion. Granted, he didn't revert my edit. If someone wants to act like a wikilawyer, it could be claimed that as he didn't mention me or revert my edit, he is within the rules on the interaction ban. But, it's certainly not within the spirit of the interaction ban. Well, at least that's how I see it.

There were a number of similar articles that were also put of for deletion by the same editor, so I wondered for a moment if it was a coincidence, but when I checked the order in which they were put up for deletion, the one I was working on was nominated for deletion first, and the rest were added later.

What do you think? Is this something that I am overreacting about, and better ignored? Is this blatantly against the spirit of the interaction ban? Is it worth me making an ANI report (which I really don't want to do, I'm enjoying not being the reporter/reportee on such reports right now) Is there another less stressful way to deal with this? Any advice would be welcome & thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think that nameless editor should have stayed away from the article: nominating for deletion is a backhanded way violating "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means". I cannot in good faith close that AfD as disruptive, though I was tempted to do so. Obviously, Dennis Bratland makes things more difficult for himself by starting that AfD, where you should be entitled to comment. So here's the deal (Nyttend, feel free to think whatever you want to think): I think you should be allowed to comment at the AfD, and Dennis cannot respond to you. At all. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• Interaction bans require a certain amount of interpretation, unfortunately. I'd disagree with Drmies about the appropriateness of the AFD nomination, and would say that (a) neither editor has reverted the other, (b) this was not nominating an article that SC created, it's been around for years, and was primarily a revert to old content, not primarily a new article of any kind (c) based on the other articles also nominated for deletion in the same AFD, this doesn't appear to be targeting one editor, and (d) if all 5 editors are interested in the same articles, they're going to have to tolerate some article overlap. So I'd call no foul on anyone. The key going forward is going to be not reverting each other, and not addressing each other personally if they happen to show up in the same discussions. Whether and how SC participates in the AFD is tricky, and I'd say Drmies' suggestion is as reasonable as anything else. Of course, SC must bend over backwards to address the issues, not the nominator, and not whether the nomination was in good faith, etc. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The way I see it, restoring article from redirect = opposite of deleting article. But having dealt unsuccessfully with many iBans I'm now more strict, I think, in judging possible violations. In everything else, per Floq. Oh, Nyttend, "the other editor" emailed me to ask me to ask you why you haven't emailed him back. He sends chocolates too. If you do talk to him, tell him I don't see the supposed copyright violation, though I do see an awful lot of terrible writing in a certain article. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

easiest solution for me, is to ignore that article. My work there took me two or three minutes, so it's no great loss. If I see a huge amount of notable and potential for that article, my position might change. Once a few weeks pass, it will be easy to see which (if any) parties involved in the interaction ban are misbehaving and assumptions of gaming will be backed up with clear patterns of behavior. I have no issues with the other involved party being involved on articles/talk pages that I edit, he contributes well when it comes to well researched content, we just don't work well together. I'm still of the opinion that this interaction ban is going to be beneficial in the long term. Parties involved either get indef blocks, or learn to ignore people they don't play nicely with. Sorry for letting this drama waste so much time, and thanks for the efforts in getting it resolved. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There's an upcoming problem you'll likely have to consider. The thread at Talk:MoS that became a battleground over a certain word is due to close shortly, as per discussion here. Most likely a new "untainted" discussion will begin, as per the statement by  SMcCandlish:

"There is no consensus to import any of the WP:TONE essay wording into MoS. There is some support for the idea of having MoS say a bit more on the matter, but we'll need to defer that for a discussion that drafts and proposes such an addition."

I can see this future discussion turning into a continuation of the first, if not thoughtfully handled.

There's a recent edit - a short and insubstantial one - at Talk:MoS that leads me to suspect that one of the parties to the four IBANs might attempt to "mark" any such discussion so that the other parties could be either excluded or have to tread very carefully in discussion. It might be worthwhile heading off any problem before it becomes one. SMcCandlish looks to have a good handle on the situation and may be able to offer advice. --Pete (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to clarify - for the information of all - just how far you consider this topic ban to extend. As per SMcCandlish, the proposed continuation would not consider any specific words, but the question of how much of

. In your opinion, is a broad discussion on the style of Wikivoice a breach of a very specific topic ban?

And is a lightweight interjection in a new discussion by one party to an IBAN sufficient to "poison the well" for the other(s)? --Pete (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Four things to cover: I think the principal way to deal with it is going to be to be

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS stuff from some people in some projects that's the problem, not the projects themselves. I'm a multi-project founder myself, and am about to start another that we've needed for a very long time – see draft at User:SMcCandlish/WikiProject English Language, and feel free to sign on as a participant now, so I have support when I take it to WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢

 ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, both, for comment. Let's assume best case scenario with minimal disruption. All five are free to participate in the discussion, without referring or interacting with other parties to the IBANs, and without dropping below the general level. Any obvious gaming or trolling or frivolous complaints to be treated on merit by supervising admin. I think MoS is not the place to discuss individual word usage in any case, unless it's something used in many articles causing site-wide difficulties, necessitating central consensus. Transgender pronouns, for instance. --Pete (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd suggest all 5 just not participate in any follow-up discussion, but I guess if you make that a suggestion and not a rule, one will participate, and then someone else will too just to prevent the other from thinking he "won". So at the very least they should be aware that any participation by the 5 editors in such a discussion would be subject to really close scrutiny and a serious lack of slack-cutting. Obviously it won't be the case that the first person to comment gains a first-mover advantage and prevents anyone else from participating. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I really appreciate the advice given. Let's hope nobody rolls the boat. --Pete (talk)

I feel the same about "winningest" as I do about the FZR250 article - not important enough to waste any further time, or cause drama over. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Likewise. That ship has sailed. And some of us no longer hold tickets, anyway. --Pete (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

hello as a new editor I am still learning as I go. I assure you I did not simply copy and past. There is only so much you can do in your own words and still convey the information. This is what the reference wrote. Engine durability has been improved with a stronger cam chain and tensioner, a new oil-jet system to cool the underside of the pistons, thicker crankshaft main journals and beefier connecting rods made from a stronger material.this is what I rewrote differently A new oil-jet system to cool the underside of the pistons as well as a stronger cam chain and tensioner to further increase durability. Also in a effort to make the motorcycle run cooler and there by more durable they added a second radiator fan although some of the wording Is the same I tried to change it enough to not be copyright infringement and still relay the information should I have just quoted the author? this part was not even in the reference and you removed Also in a effort to make the motorcycle run cooler and there by more durable they added a second radiator fan Also just curious who brought this to your attention. Someone from the ban? Are they still stalking me? Is this not a violation of the ban? I also appreciate your input. 72bikers (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I appreciate your input on this matter. It was not my intention to break any rules. Nor am I in any disagreement with copyright infringement rules. It was simply a mistake that can be chalked up to my inexperience. Now to address mr bratland stalking me to get me blocked from Wikipedia. Born out of his grudge he has towards me. Clearly this is harassment how is this not in violation of the interaction ban? Can you not see he can not let this grudge go. Why is he still stalking me could not another editor point this mistake out? Did it not need to be him in a effort to get me kicked off wiki? Truly this should be addressed. [What [User:72bikers|72bikers]] (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You just removed about everything I wrote. You even removed references to the information that is left Even thing that were totally all of my own words and the thing that were not I was direct quoting the reference. Of witch I have seen other do just this. 72bikers (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC) why am I being harassed still by this editor 72bikers (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC) You removed the information I added to the article. And did not even bother to show what is was coping. How am I to learn if you just delete everything I wright and not even bother to explain. Why did you remove references to the information that is left. 72bikers (talk) 00:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Why is this editor stalking me in a effort to get me kicked off wiki. why is he violating the ban. 72bikers (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC) I only restated because I got no response. excuse me if I do not know all the rules as I am a new editor. But clearly you can see this editor is stalking me in a effort to get me blocked just because he has a grudge against me. he has not done anything to that page in like 6 months so he followed me there. This is the exact behavior in witch he claimed he needed a ban against other editors. having said this I will not bring up again you clearly see how I perceive his actions. If you choose to perceive differently that is your choice and there is nothing I can do to change this. I will rework the article then leave a message for you to take a look at. Should I do in my sanbox first before posting? 72bikers (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC) As far as quoting goes just short quotes right? 72bikers (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Nytted, I reverted your edits to the intro of Columbia, Missouri. Much better to use the census population estimates for a quickly growing city; The 6-year-old population figures are 10% off! Also your edit introduced a factual error Columbia is not the four largest metropolitan area in Missouri but the 5th. It is, however, the fourth largest urban area. You also said the county wasn't specified, though it was in the second sentence. Grey Wanderer (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello again, I've again reverted part of your edit, though I do agree the country shouldn't be hidden so I incorporated that change. There is a source for the census estimate right in the info box. Always good to check that. As you know statements in the lead should sum up the content of the article so they don't necessary need a source as long as one is provided later, though it was a year out of date so I have updated it. Again, Columbia is not the fourth largest metropolitan area in Missouri, but it is the fourth largest urban area. These are census defined terms you can't just use them willy-nilly dude! A response would be appreciated before reverting. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

) 01:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC

photos

I get to Stark and Tuscarawas on a fairly regular basis and every once in a while to Columbiana and Jefferson. With gas at $1.39, its a lot easier to travel a bit. I'll keep a camera handy if the sun shines. I'll consult your maps. Thanks Roseohioresident (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Assamese frog. Don't like amphibians, Nyttend? Only mammals good enough for you? Drmies (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Nyttend. You have recently proposed a merge of two templates, one of which is

) 15:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks from the lilypond

Thanks for taking on the job of evaluating these hundreds (thousands?) of froggy redirects. It's a bit of housekeeping that needs to get done and I appreciate you working on this project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed thank-you so much. Having done hundreds of them already (starting with the obviously bad ones) I was getting pretty tired and ready to trash them all. Legacypac (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

And thanks for all of the ongoing work you've done,

WP:RfD more often. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}

23:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Cruise (film)

Greetings.Would you be so kind to provide a specific rulle or guideline that indicates that former DYK should not bare a PROD notice?--Catlemur (talk) 21:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes it does work but 'should not' is what is meant. Eagleash (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there; I note your minor change to

12:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I did not revert your change, either blindly or otherwise. And yes,Camperdown lost her ram inside Victoria. I believe that at the 1866 battle of Lissa an Austrian ship commanded by Admiral Tegethof lost her ram in attacking Re d'Italia.--

"talk"

15:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

As you say. Dreadnought did indeed ram and sink U29; while she had what was called a ram bow, this was in fact merely a prolongation of the hull plating and was not a ram as such. --

"talk"

15:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

This comment is in response to your comment here. I know this is a bit of a late response on this, but ... After

) 23:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

I see that you have responded to my page protection request of Package format article with blocking one of the offending user's IPs. But the offender is doing it again with another IP. Not that he ever had an IP. Page protection seems to be the better solution. Please reconsider.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. —Codename Lisa (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe you have missed the reply that I provided for Nathan here. In addition, the issuing reason ("user in good standing, request seems reasonable") is insufficient and also falls under an appropriate reason for removal. My actions were in no way punitive and the standards for whether or not the right was removed or not was applied consistently to each user. Furthermore, I must say that I'm disappointed in your reversal of my actions, as I don't see why you didn't first discuss it with me, especially knowing that I was actively discussing the matter with other users. Could you explain to me how it was an

19:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Speaking of "applied consistently", Mike V, when you removed my IPBE, you accused me of edit warring, and in response to my inquiry, you just provided one single diff!!! I really hope you don't consistently level false accusations of edit warring against other editors. Even the most malicious sock-masters do not deserve any false accusations. I am saying before doubting Nyttend or any other admin's judgment, doubt your own. —Codename Lisa (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, as I'm sure you are aware I can't discuss the technical data on-wiki. However, if you still have concerns about the edit warring issue you are more than welcome to contact the arbitration committee. I'd be happy to provide them with a full rationale on my findings. Mike V • Talk 22:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of the process that makes me severely doubt your judgement, even more than before. You already decided that you were right and that all other involved-in-the-process admins were wrong in these cases (and as an aside, what's the point of discussion, since your interpretation of policy is so much better than the interpretations of all those other admins?), but instead of questioning whether a fringe interpretation were really right, you acted on it, affecting lots of users and making it a good deal of effort to revert. Let me spell it out really simply, since you clearly don't understand: you failed to provide any evidence that removing the right from Nathan was preventive (I didn't check any other users' situations, but your words make me expect that you failed equally there), and your rationale even failed to provide a rationale that mentioned being preventive. Hint: merely getting the right on flimsy grounds is no grounds for removing that right, especially without discussing it with the user and explaining why removal is necessary for preventing disruption. You completely ignored the policy, affecting lots of users, and yet you complain that I didn't bother to discuss the situation with you first. If you continue this any further, you can expect someone else (I'm just predicting; I'll stay out of this issue further) to be filing an Arbcom case quickly, seeking the removal of your administrative rights. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Removing the right from users who do not need it is preventive. It prevents the user from being suspected as related to the number of banned editors and sockpuppets who use anonymous means to edit. In addition, if the user has no genuine need to edit with IPBE it prevents any opportunity for abuse. (Which does occur: 1, 2, 3) IPBE is not the standard, it's an exception made only to those who are in need of it. I disagree that my actions will affect a number of users. The primary reason the right was removed from users was because they were no longer affected by the blocks for which the right was granted in the first place. While I'm sorry to hear that you disagree with me on this matter, I wholeheartedly believe that my actions are grounded in policy. As you stated that you wish to no longer engage in this matter further, is it fair to conclude you would have no objection to me reversing the IPBE right issued to Nathan? Mike V • Talk 22:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

As noted at

WP:WHEEL, Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration, and I will make that immediate request myself. Nyttend (talk

) 23:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, which is why I brought this discussion to your talk page. Now, do you have any objections to me removing the IPBE right or would you like to bring it to a wider avenue to discuss this further? In addition, I would appreciate if you would answer my question about how reverting my IPBE removal is an

appropriate use of your administrative tools. Mike V • Talk

23:21, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely: do not remove it. Once again, as I said above, you violated policy in removing this right, and as you had decided that you knew better than the admins who granted the rights to these users, there was no point in wasting my time in attempting to convince you that you were wrong. Nyttend (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mike V • Talk 23:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi there! I currently emended and extended this article. Would you mind to take a look for typos and/or grammar? That would help me alot. Hope you enjoy the article. Regards;--Nephiliskos (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I notice you removed the "db-u5" speedy template from this user's user page saying "It's just a little about himself; we permit this kind of thin".

I'm aware that legitimate users are allowed to have some level of personal fluff on their page, but this is quite clearly not a legitimate contributor- his sole edit not related to the user page was an attempt to spam his Facebook into an article.

I'm generally happy to cut people a little slack and give them a chance to prove they do intend becoming proper contributors, but after six months I'd have assumed it was fair to treat this as a case of

.

Ubcule (talk) 13:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Nyttend's reply copied from User talk:Ubcule:-

Are you suggesting that it's a G11-type of spam, or if not, can you give me a bright-line definition of when it's blatant misuse? The policy specifically says that Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases, and this doesn't look obvious to me. Nyttend (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm saying it's "a user page [that] may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as a page in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of userspace".

At face value, that would seem to apply to the personal fluff of someone who (after six months) has made no legitimate contribution to Wikipedia proper.

I understand that speedy deletions aren't- and shouldn't be- undertaken in cases where there is reasonable doubt, but I didn't see it there.

If you have any other suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them. I know that {{inactive userpage blanked}} is also an option, but strictly speaking that's only supposed to apply after twelve months and is- I assume- intended for legitimate users who *have* actually been active at some point. I'd assume the intent isn't to provide twelve months of free web hosting for non-contributors' personal vanity pages!

All the best, Ubcule (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

A cup of bubble tea for you!

Thanks for helping me sort out that mess. :) I will implement the long-term solution that's been suggested to me on my talk page once I get this horrible flu infection out of the way (it's been going around my building -- my lab manager sent me home yesterday, and 2 people the day before that), as well as deal with other real-life hassles that comes with being a millennial in New York City. ;-) Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey Nyttend! Hope you've been well. Not sure if you're from around the Columbus area, but if you are (or are willing to move from afar), I'd like to invite you to attend

05:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Mail

With all due respect. Blocking an editor, via someone's emailing you, isn't very cool. Skyring, should've made his written request here, for anyone to see. GoodDay (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to

) 19:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

GAB^Hello! 18:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Specifically, this edit where you reverted by {{db-redirtypo}} tag with this summary: "Read the criterion and don't attempt to create linkrot".

Some background: User:2.219.190.8/sandbox was created by mistake in the first edit by new user User:LollipopRob (talk · contribs). Rather than just tag it for deletion as {{Db-nouser}} and have the new user's work deleted I chose to move it to LollipopRob's own sandbox. I don't have to power to do that without leaving a redirect, so instead I tagged the original location for deletion. I read the various criteria, and found the 'typo' one to be closest. I'm not sure how this creates linkrot, as nothing links to it and I notified LollipopRob of the new location on their talk page.

What would have been a better course of action for me to take in this instance? --| Uncle Milty | talk | 23:45, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I was about to restore the A11 to Law's Law until I noticed it was you who removed it. It seems to me that your stated reason for removing it is precisely the reason for believing the article is made-up. Since the alleged tradition “has mainly died out,” the author cannot have received it as a living tradition, and he can’t have found it on the internet because it doesn’t seem to be there. It seems to me the only conclusion is that it was made-up. —teb728 t c 00:20, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend

Hope you are well. I have come across this user who displays all the typical signs of WP:OWNERSHIP working on

. To be able to get a good idea of what he is all about, I found out that he uses a number of usernames, sometimes switching between them witin minutes. Now, I do know that some users have permission to use more then one username, but I know also that that is only in specific cases and for specific functions. I don't think this is such a case. Two of the userames are variations of his real life name, Taco Tichelaar. I would appreciate if you could please look into this. As to the WP:OWNERSHIP, besides the fact that the user is of the belief that whatever detail that can be found anywhere has to be included in the article like a giant jigsaw puzzle, he is uncollaborative when others remove anything, to the point of telling them to go edit elsewhere and that he does not need them. There are three issues here, but this request is about the use of multiple names. The other two issues are:

• The individual: His interaction with other editors and his participation in the project (he claims he is interested in information, not following the project rules)
• The content: minute details that detract from the narrative.

If you have the time, you could have a look here and here for a sample of the editor's behaviour. Here are the names he has been using in editing Rasputin and editing the talkpage.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Taksen
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TacoTichelaar
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/T._Tichelaar

I am notifying the editor and admin User:Materialscientist, who has helped this editor over time. Thanks for your time. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

You are mean, Rui. It has to do with working on different wikipedias, the English, German, French, Frisian, and Dutch. There was no problem ten years ago. Taksen (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No I am not mean, I do what I can to root out bad practices. You are quite an advanced used and display a good knowledge of the tools etc., so I find it odd that you come here and say that "There was no problem ten years ago", when you are fully aware of the consolidation of usernames that was undertaken. And I know that you know this for two reason:

• 1. One of your user names (I mentioned here only the three that you use in the WP-en recently, there are others such as user:Taks, user:Taco Tichelaar — different from TacoTichelaar without a space — and one or two more, not all used in the WP-en) clashed with a username in another project and you were notified about this exactly one year ago, at which time "~enwiki" was added to your username until you decided what to do about it;
• 2. In 2012 an admin in the Dutch admin redirected one of your user names into another (presumably your main one) and pointed out that you should not use more than one, to which you reported that you used the alternate username to reply on talkpages.

Now, if by "has to do with working on different wikipedias, the English, German, French, Frisian, and Dutch" you are trying to say that you use these separately for each language, it is not true. Just this month you have edited Rasputin in the English WP using all three accounts, as you can see here and here. In fact, as can be seen, these accounts are not used much and the most recent edits of both were on Rasputin.

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I was quite willing to accept good faith, but after your defence, I am no longer sure. When you say that you "did not understand how to work with one username on different wikipedias", that flies in the face of truth, because you have been doing it for years. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt when you say that "There has never been a bad intention". All I am asking is that you display more tolerance towards other editors. You are a valuable contributor with profound knowledge of your subject areas and extremely resourceful in locating sources. But other editors are equally knowlegeable in tems of formatting, language, suitability, WP:weight, size of photos etc. and you should attempt to see what they are getting at before contesting — which you often do, sometimes just because you "prefer" or to prove a point. Like you spent a whole day trying to prove that there were rubber boots in Russia at the time, which I had deleted saying it was "unlikely and pointing out that "the sidebar says they were made of animal skin". What I was trying to do and to say was that removing the word solves the situation. I am not sure that proving that they were indeed made out of rubber was worth spending a day on. And you might want to look up the meaning of "unlikely" before gloating that I was "wrong with [my] idea about the year of the introduction of rubber boots", as you did on the talkpage. But now we both know and I am grateful for the information - history of industralisation is fascinating. As for your remark that as an African (Angolan), what would I know about frozen rivers, that is beyond comment, I will just let it fly, lest I read into it what was not implied .... For me this case is closed and not only do I bid you all the best, I further invite you to start anew, as it behoves us all, for the good of the project and all concerned. Best regards, see you somewhere in this huge maze. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again, Florida or Atlanta has decided to return to his task of damaging the Argument from authority page by edit warring ([12] [13] [14], note that this last reversion was done in response to me telling him that I don't want to argue anymore and he should find better sources or drop it) his preferred interpretation back in. His behavior on the talk page is extremely condescending ("I was just saying you seem to be getting overworked about what’s really a minor issue. We've talked together a long time, I can tell when you're not quite your usual self. Are things going alright?"), and consists of his usual tact of arguing with the conclusions of sources and cherry picking quotes, all while playing semantic games with anything said in response to him. I really need some help to deal with this guy. You've been there before, and you know the issue (having warned him previously and stated your support for a topic ban), so I came to you. I really don't know what to do with this guy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I saw that you gave him a block, and I appreciate it. But he's not getting the message. At all: [15] [16]. He's also got about 20-30 edits to the talk page since his block expired. Perfect Orange Sphere has joined him again, but he's being more reasonable and more or less sticking to the talk page, which is fine by me. I'm sorry if this is getting to be a pain in your ass. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't edit warring, I was interrupted in the middle of making edits for a consensus version. I don't think I can be called the edit warrior if I get reverted within a few seconds even after explaining what I'm doing beforehand on the Talk P: FL or Atlanta (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

In fact, like

WP:NOCON says normal practice is to keep it. So since there was never consensus for removing the example, there's no basis for keeping it gone. FL or Atlanta (talk

) 00:33, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Just want to point out that you can definitely add
  canvassing to FLoA's repertoire: [17] [18] in addition to the post on the IP's page. (he didn't notify anyone but the people who seem to support his position). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it.
  21:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

How is saying "hey, we're talking about your example, your input could be useful" canvassing? If one of my long-reverted edits were going to be restored, I'd want to chime in. I notified them for the same reason I went to Third Opinion and made a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: to "broaden participation to more fully achieve consensus" as

WP:CANVASS says it is good to do. Currently the discussion on the Talk is going nowhere (you've even said you refuse to speak to me further so its not like we're progressing P:) so we need more input. FL or Atlanta (talk

) 22:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to agree with either of you 100%. Giving a dispassionate notice to someone previously involved in a discussion isn't fundamentally a problem. The linked examples aren't necessarily canvassing, although of course they would be a problem if these messages were intentionally sent only to people who had advocated for its inclusion; I haven't checked, so I won't express an opinion. On the other hand, when you've already been told that you've become disruptive in a certain topic or on a certain page (and blocked for it), edit-warring on that topic or page is absolutely unacceptable; FL or Atlanta, I won't block you for edit-warring because the incident is now 24 hours old, but had I noticed this series of edits when the situation was ongoing. Nyttend (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

The linked examples aren't necessarily canvassing, although of course they would be a problem if these messages were intentionally sent only to people who had advocated for its inclusion

I linked FLoA's edit history to user talk space in the last link of my above post (here it is again). You can see that he's only contacted people who have supported his position, aside from arguing with me on my talk page and here. He's never contacted Lord Mondegreen, Original Position or anyone else who has ever indicated their disagreement with his position, even when he filed for dispute resolution. His message to the IP linked in the top post here has the edit summary of "Alliance!", which looks an awful lot (to me) like a straight up declaration that he's canvassing.

He's also been making a point of trying to bait me; suggesting that he knows me well enough to speculate about my personal life or bizarrely claiming the example I've been arguing to keep out was a "consensus version" that I'd agreed to. He showed with his unblock request that he still doesn't get that there's anything wrong with the way he's handling this, and he's shown that he intends to just keep going by heading right back into the fray 5 minutes after returning from his block (his first edit after the block expired was to remove the block notice, which is fine, but note the time stamp of this and the previous link.) MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 02:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

“You can see that he's only contacted people who have supported his position”

The people I notified were people who’s examples were being re-added. How would I know whether they support my position that the chromosome example is a good one or not? This accusation makes no sense.

“He's never contacted Lord Mondegreen, Original Position”

…Because they’re already talking on the Talk page. Why would I notify someone about a discussion that they’re in?

“which looks an awful lot (to me) like a straight up declaration that he's canvassing”

How is leaving a message saying “hey, I’m glad someone else views the issue the same” canvassing? They made the edit before I left the message.

“claiming the example I've been arguing to keep out was a "consensus version" that I'd agreed to”

I said there that the version with all the examples would be like a consensus version between all of us. I didn’t say you had literally actually agreed to it. FL or Atlanta (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

). 00:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hezbollah Flag

I am planning to insert a flagicon of the Hezbollah flag on Operation Infinite Reach, which I am currently working on. However, I apparently cannot use this file. Is there any way I could use it on this page? Thanks, GAB^Hello! 22:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Nyttend. I've observed that you've removed the background colors for "second-class" cities in the article

) 15:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure either but it seems to be. I'll try to gather some information from the associated Wikiproject. Thank you for your time. Rollingcontributor (talk) 15:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure if you're interested in this (or the b side), but Bill Haley lived nearby. Oh, and I borrowed your car. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I think you may have touched on this at the helpdesk: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Galaxy_World_of_Alisa_possible_wiki-hoax.2C_cleanup_needed.3F. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

Hi, I think the issues are different enough to keep the two discussions separate. Visitors will certainly be searching for "Space program" so that page needs to exist, whether as a redirect or article. However I find it questionable whether they would ever search straight away for a "List of space programs", so I think there should be a discussion as to whether that page be deleted. If the two discussions are merged, these issues will spill over each other in an unhelpful mess, likewise if we run two parallel discussions, some people will make comments in the wrong discussion. So I think that the current way the wind is blowing, to finish the one discussion before getting into the second, is the best way to go. Hope this helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 08:52, 31 March 2016 (UTC)