User talk:Topcipher/Archives/2017/March

Hallo, You converted The Quick Fix from a redirect to the TV show to a dab page, so it's your responsibility to fix the two incoming links which used to work fine and now lead to the dab page instead - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/The_Quick_Fix. Thanks. PamD 08:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: My apologies on having missed it. Will ensure to do so going forward (this was my first 'dab' edit) and I've followed through your changes / updates too now.
Thanks.
TopCipher 08:45, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the warm welcome and helping me create my WP account. Vmavra (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vmavra: Thanks! Let me know in case you face any issues navigating around :) Happy to help!
TopCipher 10:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Topcipher, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of

@WereSpielChequers: Thanks for helping with the review. The only reason why I tagged it for speedy deletion is because the information provided was no just extremely unreliable but also boarder-line incorrect. For instance, when I tried looking this up on Google Maps (and a few other reputable Indian Govt. sites), the PIN code provided in here did not match-up to the place described. In any case, I've made a note over villages and speedy deletion, will proceed ahead accordingly.
Thanks, again!
TopCipher 10:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Topcipher, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on

@Schwede66: Thank you for your consideration.
TopCipher 04:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am User:Scottyoak2. The Welcoming Committee has instructions about how to Welcome new users. I wanted to suggest that you review their recommendations regarding users that have not contributed yet, especially their advice to Always check their edits first. I see that you occasionally welcome new users at the rate of 10 per minute, and that most of them have not made any edits yet. If you have any questions, please let me know. Scottyoak2 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scottyoak2: Thanks for letting me know. I've made a note of this and will ensure to check first before creating a new talk page to welcome them. Appreciate it!
TopCipher 05:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please correct your signature to follow the instructions in

@Roxy the dog: Sorry! Just realised it and have rectified it now. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Topcipher. Speedy deletion work is important and I do appreciate the effort. I would just ask that you please review the

@Adam9007: Thanks for reviewing my tagged criteria and for letting know. I see that the page has now been deleted & moved to draft instead. In any case, I have made a note of this and will ensure to tag notability related aspects alone instead of marking the articles for deletion. Thanks, again.
TopCipher (talk) 05:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Topcipher. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Ammakkoru Tharattu, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to films or TV programmes. Thank you. Adam9007 (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007:I see; but I've researched this article and there is genuinely no notability to justify it's Encyclopedic existence. Would you suggest it to be tagged to a different criteria for deletion? If otherwise, I think only maintenance tags should work. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what other CSD criterion applies, but you could always use PROD or AfD. Adam9007 (talk) 05:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: Got it. In this case, I decided to propose speedy delete because it lacked notability. If it's not too much trouble, could you please share a link where it states that A7 does not apply to films or TV programmes? I did find the information towards the fact that it doesn't apply to educational institutions (per our discussion above) but not for this. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 05:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They're not in the list given by

WP:NOTCSD. Adam9007 (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Adam9007: I'm sorry but then who made the rule that A7 does not apply to films or TV programmes? I do realise that it has not been mentioned in the list either. Just trying to understand if this could have been tagged better if there were any indication provided in the guidelines. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who made that rule or even if it is explicit, but I do know that

WP:NOTCSD says A7 does not apply to anything not in that list. Adam9007 (talk) 01:45, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Adam9007: I see. Got it! Will ensure to follow through accordingly. Thanks for your time!
TopCipher (talk) 09:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On my page Syed Shah Kasturi Bhukhari There are lots of Link's available externaly but there is a problem "Edit not saved".?? I don't know why this happen Rehman Badami (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rehman Badami: No worries & thanks for reaching out. I'm not sure why did the edit not save but if there are any external / credible sources available, please do add them again and then remove the BLP PROD tag as that way, it would justify the existence of this article. Hope this helps. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK I do — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehman Badami (talk • contribs) 06:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC) What is BLP and PRD ??🙄🙄 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rehman Badami (talk • contribs) 06:08, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:BLPPROD. This basically means that all/any biographies need to have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article
TopCipher (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@User:Topcipher One Source? there are so many sources available Again the Same thing happened "Error Edit Not Saved" ???you can search about shah Aqeeq baba in his documentary the Kasturi shah is also present in Geo TV

and 
WP:NGEO
 you can sent one team of Wikipedia in this area for more evidences
BadaamiBadaami talk 06:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AFC. This should definitely help! Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@User:Topcipher BLP means Biography about living person. But Syed Shah Kasturi Bhukhari died 700 years ago sorry I can't make this article by draft because he is well known Saint in Asia people are searching about him on Wikipedia but they find nothing . I am saying there is problem "Error Edit not saved" and my Source (referenced links) not save??? I have lots of reference but it not saved???

BadaamiBadaami talk 06:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AFC; however, if you intentionally choose not to abide by the required criteria, I'm afraid I would not be able to assist further. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 06:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

How can I explain?? Please sir search about Shah Aqeeq Baba Documentary you can get evidences I have issue to Saving page I don't know why because it's "error edit not saved" in my page and here's too.Sir give me your E-mail to I can send you reference about this page

BadaamiBadaami talk 06:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AFC

- that would be the best bet to have everything resolved.

Hi Topcipher, just as a FYI (in case this individual should reach out to you again), the user has been blocked as a sock of

WP:NPOV (and there is a deletion discussion going on, about the saint's notability), and the new article seems to be an attempt to include all the text that was taken out of the existing one. I suspect the reference problems were due to him trying to add blacklisted links, but that's just a guess. In any case, as I say this is just as a FYI, because he has created a number of socks in the last week and I don't think he's going to give up. From what I understand, the death anniversary of the saint is coming up and I believe that's why those who venerate him want to do so on Wikipedia. Understandable, but against policy... Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 09:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Orangemoody and came across what's mentioned above. If I may (or if my user access levels permit this), how do we as non admins identify if it's a sockpuppet account or otherwise? I mean, I see the forensic deductive analysis could help indicate this (or otherwise, common sense) but say if we were to responsibly identify and report such users, is there a way we could help contribute towards it too? I'm only asking so that before engaging such users or if we incur any suspicion, we could use said tools first and then proceed cautiously. Thanks anyways for having me notified and regret that I could not identify it any sooner.
TopCipher (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hey, don't apologise for showing good faith towards what you thought was a new user! I mainly wanted to let you know so you wouldn't waste your own time on this, and because it's always good to have more people aware of a known situation. I am not an admin and I don't think there are any particular tools that we regular editors can use for identification (none that I'm aware of, anyway...). Wikipedia search does go some way - I might search for article titles, not just in article space but in other namespaces as well, and sometimes that unearths previous SPIs, for instance. Sometimes it's just a matter of sensing that the supposedly new account seems awfully knowledgeable already. And some sockmasters have a style that is impossible to disguise once you've seen a few of them. In this case, however, I probably wouldn't have sensed anything if I hadn't happened to be aware of Hammadsaeed and his shenanigans. And I really do think that assuming good faith towards a sockpuppet is better than being overly suspicious. Cheers, and keep up the good work! --bonadea contributions talk 10:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bonadea: Alrighty! Well, all points noted and thanks again for your time in assessing the situation.
TopCipher (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rehman Badami been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elliott Marc Jones is very well known in the indie gaming scene, his game Redactem has over 60,000 owners on Steam and is the number one rated game on IndieGameStand. In 2017 he was listed as Expert Rankup's fourth most influential gaming personality, surely that's enough to prove he is worthy enough of a Wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsonite24 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Samsonite24: Thanks for sharing your insight. Please note that following -
1. DO NOT remove the proposed for deletion tag yourself as you (yourself) are the author of the article. You may contest against it's deletion; however, as per the guidelines, you are NOT to remove a patroller's tag yourself.
2. The reason to propose this article for deletion is because the notability has not been cited via credible sources. Kindly note that the keyword here is credibility of the resources provided AND NOT the subject of the topic themselves.
Hope this clarifies. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 10:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Topcipher: It's only CSD tags a page's creator cannot remove himself. Anyone, including the article's creator, may remove a PROD tag. Adam9007 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam9007: Noted. I suppose I must've misunderstood that (remember reading somewhere that an author could only contest).
On similar note, could authors also remove PROD tags even without first working over the reason for tag to be placed as well? (since that was the case here). Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Once a PROD is contested, it's permanently dead. Adam9007 (talk) 18:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Topcipher,

I would appreciate if you would indicate to which of the sources I added you take objection, and why.__Gamren (talk) 08:44, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:NONENG. Hope this helps. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siduduzo (talk • contribs) 12:05, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Siduduzo: Thanks for reaching out but sorry, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. Once an article is spotted to violate copyright infringement, the admins simply have it deleted (which is what happened in this case).
But I'm glad you see the seriousness of this issue and trust that it would be avoided in the future. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Fritsche has been deleted as not notable. This page should be speedy deleted.Xx236 (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Xx236: Agreed. Sorry, hadn't noticed the already existing speedy delete tags on the user (author's) talk page. Was simply hoping to extend good faith on first look. But yes, please - kindly proceed with speedy delete. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 09:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: Just FYI.

Hello, I'm Larrydouglas222. An edit that you recently made to India seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The section below was a reasonable edit, but the other content about the emancipation proclamation was just weird. —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Larrydouglas222: I'm sorry, but which edit are you referring to? I do not recall making any such edits on the aforementioned article.
Could you please share the diff for the same? Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the PROD. I have now added one reliable source to the article and deleted the PROD notice. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalst: Thanks for complying. Will check back the article in a bit and review the same accordingly.
TopCipher (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to hearing from you. Roger Salmon is a fairly high profile figure and there should be a decent number of stories for his time as Director of Passenger Rail Franchising, but because of how long ago that was, it will take a bit of work to dig them out: more work, at any rate, than i have in the next few days — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chalst:  Done TopCipher (talk) 11:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Topcipher

I noticed you recently changed {{reflist}} to <references /> in an article on my watchlist. I have no gripe, but would like to know why you went to the trouble; I was under the impression they were roughly equivalent but {{reflist}} was preferred (I used <references /> in my first couple of pages and was persuaded it was a nasty habit). Doug butler (talk) 02:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug butler: Thanks for reaching out. I'm not sure if I've come across an article which said that {{reflist}} is either better or preferred than <references /> but I do understand that {{reflist}} allows for ease with CSS edits to citations. The reason for me to have a preference to <references /> is because it the one which is new; an update over the older version where we used {{reflist}} or so is what I understood based on the resources I covered over various Wikimedia projects (Refer this & that).
Here are some of the other reasons -

1. While using VisualEditor (VE), citations automatically encapsulate within <references /> and not {{reflist}}
2. The Template:Reflist now starts with using the <references /> tag instead.
   All-in-all, there is no issue with using the {{reflist}} as quite frankly it is much versatile over <references />; however, <references /> is simply what we have coming next for which I believe the work in underway and in progress.
   Hope this helped! Thanks.
   TopCipher (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing Nate Leipciger; however, I have unreviewed it. The article was full of copyvio. Please remember to check all articles for copyright violations. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JJMC89: Thanks for checking back on this. I must've missed re-marking the page as unreviewed (which I typically do) once I mark them with maintenance tags - as both Twinkle and Page Curation tool marks the page as 'reviewed', even when you intentionally do not take that up.
In any case, my apologies on having missed it here and will ensure to not mark a page as reviewed until all checks are done. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a heads up. DEFAULTSORT values such as this one are not needed. DEFAULTSORT is by default the pagename (case insensitive). -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: I see; since I did not find one on the page, thought to add it myself. Will ensure not to (since it is indeed available by default) add going forward. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please read the rules of use for AWB, esp item 4 - "Do not make insignificant or inconsequential edits". Edits like this are not helpful. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 19:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: Thank you for having me notified and my apologies over any inconveniences caused. I've made a note of the same and will ensure this does not repeat; just happened to start using AWB yesterday and was trying to get a sense of it by making small/minor edits only. I now see that the edits I may've made on such articles were too little to matter.
Once again, thanks for letting know.
TopCipher (talk) 02:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Topcipher, I noted that you added the Orphan template on article I created. I have link two pages to it. I'll like you to review it again and hope you'll like it. Thanks!

Amirk94391 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Amirk94391: I see that you have linked them now; looks good. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: My apologies on this one! It seems fairly obvious now that I made an error while tagging said article(s) without first reaching out to the author (whose intentions clearly were of to better contribute towards expanding WP.
I've further acknowledged my mistake on the user talk page of the author (also apologized, if it helps); will ensure this doesn't repeat! Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Topcipher. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing
  Twinkle
  .
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of
  good faith edits
  .
• Rollback should never be used to
  edit war
  .
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see

@

Beeblebrox: Thank you for your consideration. I've made a note of all the above points and as assured during my request, will ensure to use this right with extreme caution. Will also reach out to you in case I have any doubts/queries or any other difficulties. Thanks, again!
TopCipher (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Topcipher, I saw that you have added the Orphan template on article page I created. If no other pages mention V-Key, what is the best way to link this to other articles? Appreciate your advice! Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsiah (talk • contribs) 06:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AFC. This should definitely help! Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Topcipher, thanks for your advice above. it was really helpful! i saw you have added a tag on article is either heavily paraphrased/copy-pasted. actually i have tried using my own words as far as possible, but some parts are rather technical and i do not want to misrepresent the meaning, which was why i kept certain terms. i am working on that now, and if there's a specific line or para you think is particularly regurgitated from somewhere, do let me know? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsiah (talk • contribs) 15:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adsiah: Appreciate you considering making the edits. Sorry, a bit out at the moment but I was able to gather this link here that would help you with you need (follow the statements/para highlighted in Red), for now.
In case you have already rectified the same, then please ignore; otherwise, this tool should be of help (also, just FYI, all these are indeed available and tagged on the page too).
Thanks for reaching out though.
TopCipher (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Topcipher, this tool is so cool and it's a really good guide. it gave me an idea which areas i could rephrase better in my own words! nice! andi managed to reduce the similarities to 12.3% - mostly technical terms that can't really be changed though. what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adsiah (talk • contribs) 16:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

promotional tone. This is what I mean -
Words/statements like "V-Key specialises in software-based digital security.." could simply be specified as "V-Key is a software-based digital security.."
"...and applications more secure with cutting edge..."
The entire segment from "Benjamin Mah is the co-founder and..." to "...cryptographic solutions for the Ministry of Defence (Singapore)" talks ONLY about the people, than the company!
phrases like "...trusted digital identity..." further sways away from wiki guidelines and policy.
I suggest we move this to a draft space so we could first align it to adhere to Wiki policies and then make it live in mainspace. Thanks
TopCipher (talk) 16:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Gloriana Rada (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Hi! I've completed my degree in Architecture and I am studying quantum physics but as I haven't made something mean full into the world (like the porn stars and Hollywood stars you put here) you guys don't allow me posting my brief here, nice, thank you, have a nice day!.Gloriana Rada (talk) 17:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gloriana Rada: Thanks for reaching out and I'm sorry to hear you feel that way; believe me when I say it - most of us, after accomplishing a level of expertise in our lives, feel like we deserve to be recognized for having done so; for having gone through the trouble of achieving everything that we have and to earn the notability we so rightfully deserve - I do get that! However, (and I say this with regret keeping the context in mind), Wikipedia is simply not built for that. It only captures content that is Encyclopedic! Now, in case you feel that any of us may've wronged you in those aspects, please do let us know and we would accordingly try and address it, so as to ensure that there are no rules broken.
P.S. I do see that you have a great portfolio over at issuu and with that I wish you good luck for all your future endeavours.
Happy to assist in any way we/I can. Thanks.
cc: Gronk Oz, Jimfbleak
TopCipher (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gloriana Rada (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Thanks for your words, and taking the time to justify. Regards.Gloriana Rada (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:TNT, had a good laugh while I read it for the first time and have since given my utmost allegiance towards ensuring copyrights sanctity! Thanks, again!
TopCipher (talk) 18:25, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Topcipher thanks for the invitation. I will consider adding some of my relevant architecture manuscripts to create some wikipedia articles, when I have some time. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloriana Rada (talk • contribs) 18:40, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing up that page on Miroslav mate - I'm new to the community so I easily overlook those mistakes. I wish you luck mate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp00n exe (talk • contribs) 04:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

disambiguation page) that could help people get to your article if they needed to, quickly.
Happy to assist in any way I can!
TopCipher (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

In fact, looking at your recent contributions it appears that you're doing nothing but add inappropriate {{

Iridescent 16:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:AWB. The reason I work over new pages is because many (in fact, most) of the newbies would not even know if there is something of this sort to be done (i.e. improving their own articles by having other pages link to it) and pardon me for speaking out of rank here but I would not go as far as presuming that "..it's disruptive, annoying, and a waste of everyone's time.."; now, I understand that I may've antagonized an administrator (such as yourself) by tagging your article with it - while performing a legitimate edit using AWB and if it helps, I do apologize for that.
The point I'm making with this is that not everyone would be so disrupted/annoyed if they were a newbie and instead, reach out to understand better. I would beg of you (if I must, as I wasn't given an opportunity to provide with an explanation for your first message) to refer this example here and would like to further assure you that it was in no way my intention to "tag-bomb articles".
Having said this, I do realize that I'm capable of making mistakes (I've made plenty of them here and would be more than happy to provide with a list) but none of those have resulted in an absolute/unilateral decision to revoke any of my accesses. If in case I was able to justify my actions along with the course of actions I intend to take to ensure instances like this never happen again, I would request you to kindly reinstate my access, as I prefer to learn and understand more as I go by using the tool. I can also understand your disappointment in my acts that may've not been constructive but I would further like to retort to where you've mentioned "...nothing but add inappropriate {{orphan}} tags to newly-created pages." - I have (or should I say, the tool has helped to) also remove outdated (not unnecessary) tags too. Please refer this link here (I could go on with sharing links to my other works but I trust that I was able to convey my message in the spirit that it was intended in.)
Looping @BU Rob13: who trusted me to use the tool based on my merit and @RHaworth: who may help confer my contributions over new pages with my patrollings. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

8 hours and 32 minutes is not a little while especially as I left a note in the creation edit summary that I intended to expand the article. Ok, to be fair you have only added 5 minutes to my task, but it feels like teacher has come along and snatched what I was working on and marked it as rubbish. Op47 (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AWB?
Please help elaborate in case any of those have been incorrectly done, so I may ensure not to repeat the same per relevant guidelines. Thanks for sharing your views over the same.
TopCipher (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes that is the article. It is not that it is incorrect, It is just that I hadn't finished my work. It's like your cleaning your room and your mummy comes in and starts telling you off to clean your room. You just want to scream "what do you think I am doing" Op47 (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Op47: Thanks again for sharing your opinion but I'm not quite sure how to respond to it. If my actions weren't incorrect, I could only presume that I should've steered away from doing what I should be, using a tool that is intended to do what it did (in the examples cited), from experienced editors? - Again, I hope you would accept my apologies as I do not know how to have the tool do it (keep away from articles that may antagonize mature editors). Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The only response needed it to learn from the experience. I would leave an article for at least a week before tagging it like this. That seems a sensible compromise between annoying users and clearing up rubbish.

@

the AWB tool has the 'New Pages' section to begin with - hope this is relevant. I'm still unsure who are we referring to while we paint a picture of 'annoyed users'. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I noticed that you added a wikilink to tje article Concours d'Elegance and left an edit summary suggesting that you had de-orphaned it. The article may have been tagged incorrectly. Perusal of the what links here shows that. What exactly is the deal here? Surely you do know there is a difference. Antonioatrylia (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonioatrylia: Sorry, but I neither recall nor see that I may've edited this article. My apologies in case I could not follow your message. Thanks
TopCipher (talk) 16:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not edited that article recently, than please do pardon my note. Antonioatrylia (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Antonioatrylia: No problem at all. I think you were referring to this edit here? Please have me posted in case I could be of any other assistance though! Happy to help. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're under a misapprehension as to what AWB is and what its purpose is; on en-wikipedia—which is all we're concerned with here—it's a tool to allow editors to make multiple repetitive changes that would be time-consuming to perform manually, not a tool for patrolling new pages (which should be done manually, as unless and until

@

WP:NPP, I was under the impression that it talked more with context to deletions and not much of anything else, given that it is placed right between 2 paragraphs that talks about deletion & how one ought to be careful before proposing as such.
While I agree that my edits with AWB have been speedy (although I can't speak if it were bot-like as I do not know how fast they function), unfortunately, I still do not see the extent that would warrant a complete suspension from it. After a quick glimpse over the link shared indicating the "systematic inappropriate tagging...", I do see that I've done as high as 12 edits/min (at 17:29 of the 25th), most of them still stand as current edits and rest others have been worked upon and as such, the relevant tags removed.
By having engaged you in a dialogue here, my only intention was to have my AWB rights reinstated but since that is clearly not going to happen with my current predicament, you could trust me to leave this at it. Thanks, again!
P.S. Please know that I always ensure to read through the articles (no matter how little) before making an edit to the content; maintenance tags on the other hand, I admit to having trusted the tool itself to be it's best judge.
TopCipher (talk) 23:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• 174.31.24.203 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mondo Bando Seattle Wa. Heavy Metal Pioneers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, please tell me what needs to be changed. The articles cited are from outside sources. There was nothing like Mondo Bando at that time in Seattle. It would be great to be included in the history of the early Seattle Heavy Metal movement. Thank you. 174.31.24.203 (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

174.31.24.203 (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

band's notability criteria. Hope this helps.
TopCipher (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

This week's

article for improvement

(week 13, 2017)

The Czech philosopher Radovan Richta (1924–1983) originated the theory of technological evolution. Hello, Topcipher. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement 's weekly selection: Technological evolution Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Bird of prey • Tandoori chicken Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Hello Topcipher. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Open Access in Algeria, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: My apologies in case I tagged it incorrectly, but I still see that almost all the content has been copy-pasted from unesco.org (I checked it here). Would we be deleting the content or should it stay as is? Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While it is copied directly, the website is CC-BY-SA IGO 3.0 so it's allowed. There is the proper attribution at the bottom of the article (though it's easy to miss). Primefac (talk) 17:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Ah! Got it. Sorry, again! This is the first I've come across this. Appreciate you having me notified too. Will ensure to avoid such errors as far as possible, going forward. Thanks.
TopCipher (talk) 17:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, no worries. First time I've seen it (in a long time, anyway) - only reason I knew is because the copyvio report told me! Primefac (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: Damn! This was staring me right in the face; guess in the moment I just went for a CSD - truly my bad and thank you so much for taking the time in helping me understand.
TopCipher (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Topcipher,,

Gupta surname is used by teli caste in Bihar, UP, Maharashtra, chattisgarh and other states. Half of the Guptas of India are of Teli Caste.

Thanks and Regards, Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.192.210.173 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, are you referring to article Gupta? If so, this edit here was reverted as it did not cite any sources and sometimes, since the edits are done via IP and not a registered user, it becomes difficult to see the difference between vandalism and actual/real or factual content.
I do apologize in case this was a legitimate edit and invite you to kindly feel free to share more with relevant/credible sources. Thanks for reaching out.
TopCipher (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check the edit history. Phrase "widespread opposition to donald trump" removed by anonymous and they called it unsourced and biased. But I had it backed up by a 3 million person march the day after his inauguration and the fact that he lost the popular vote. I didn't say whether he was good or bad, just the fact that there is widespread opposition. When I reverted this person's deletion, you reverted me and called it vandalism.

Thanks

Mjleone (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjleone: Thanks for reaching out and I've now made a note of this. As you may see in the edit history, this phrase has been removed & restored again by 2 other IPs - which is what I intended to revert; if this is a legitimate edit, then I don't see a problem in letting it stand and my apologies in case my last revert removed this content, was simply reverting edits by IP. Appreciate your consideration and thanks for changing it back to it's original state.
TopCipher (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! If you like to revert vandalism, keep an eye out on that page -- tons of targeting my contributions I have been dealing with because it doesn't fit a specific biased narrative.

Mjleone (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjleone: I see. No worries though, I've got this page on my watchlist now. Will monitor such edits. Now that I have a good reference base (such as edits made by users like yourself), I'll ensure to restore them to their last known good state accordingly. Thanks, again!
TopCipher (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing MohammadReza Dehghan, Topcipher.

Unfortunately Mabalu has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Unreviewing so that if the creator removes the deletion nomination again, it won't slip by as "reviewed"

To reply, leave a comment on Mabalu's talk page.

Mabalu (talk) 10:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this, I know it's really annoying, I wish there was an option to "unreview" uncontroversially as here, without automatically sending a patronising (and not really appropriate in this case) "so sorry" message to the first reviewer. Mabalu (talk) 10:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabalu: Thank you for having me notified. And no problem at all. Thanks for re-patrolling the page. Not sure why Twinkle did not mark the page under my watch-list (as it typically does). In any case, appreciate the effort and don't worry about the message; its totally on point!
TopCipher (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Some editors get REALLY shirty about getting "unreviewed" notifications.... Mabalu (talk) 11:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabalu: Haha! This one was clearly on me though. Should've received the notification and reverted it myself. Thanks, again!
TopCipher (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - me again!! Just wanted to quickly note that when you tagged Kevin Borich Express for copyvio, you marked it as primarily copyvio from another Wikipedia page. Wikipedia articles are always open source, so technically it wasn't copyvio, although the editor should have noted that they transferred the text from the specific revision of the other page, something I am pretty sure they had no clue about. I just thought that maybe you didn't realise that cross-Wiki copying isn't copyvio - although the secondary copyvio from an off-Wiki source was definitely problematic (although not enough to justify a speedy deletion on grounds of copyvio - better handled by removing the offending copied sections). Mabalu (talk) 11:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mabalu: Thanks for letting know; I wasn't quite sure if copying content from one article and pasting it another / new article space would be allowed but I did want to tag it with a simple {{Merge to}} tag, until I found the 2nd link with copyvio. I decided to go forward with a CSD because it indicated close to 50% copy-pasted content.
In any case, appreciate you looking into it and having things clarified.
TopCipher (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi you have edited this [1] as a clean up using AWB. Could you please explain this edit. Thank you.FITINDIA (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:REPEATLINK - my apologies in case this created any inconvenience & if you'd prefer, I could revert it (or you may too). Appreciate you having me notified.
TopCipher (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@Topcipher: Thank you for your prompt reply please undo those edits and thank you again. FITINDIA (talk) 17:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Again, appreciate the opportunity to having discussed this - new things to learn everyday :) TopCipher (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]