User talk:Nyttend

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

Common name

Hi. If memory serves, I believe I generally agree with you. And as you are an admin, I expect that even when people read what you have written as a non-admin, they may assume it is more likely to be be based on wp policies. So I was surprised to see you write, in a discussion as to the appropriate name on wp for an article title, as though the wp policy wp:commonname did not even exist: "We aren't a news aggregator, so the terminology the news people use is of secondary importance". You don't even acknowledge that your words are at odds with the policy. Which says we should pick the name based on what English language RSs (including major major English-language media outlets - which you disparage) use. I understand people can disagree with our policies. And can seek to distinguish a case from our policy. But I'm always surprised if a sysop makes an argument that ignores the existence of an on-point policy; especially when the policy is on its facecontrary to the sysop's statement. Furthermore, as to your argument that the name is already taken -- well, of course, that's why we have dab pages, and dab hatnotes. Galore. Best, and I hope you take this in the friendly but direct manner that I intend it.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I'm moving your response here, below, as I think it is easier to follow a conversation in one place.Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Either you completely missed my point, or I've completely misunderstood you.

We rely on secondary sources, not primary sources, as the basis for making our decisions. As primary sources, news articles are completely irrelevant for judging long-term notability, since they're necessarily weighted toward the recent, and they cannot provide any kind of historical overview for the events they're reporting. The WP:PRIMARY section of the OR policy is clear on this:

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

We therefore must ignore current news reports when we're determining what's most common in the reliable sources — we have no business making interpretive claims such as "the newspapers use name1, so it's more significant than name2".

As a kind-of side note, consider that primary sources are necessarily going to pay more attention to the latest events; there aren't that many news articles about Isis, Thoth, Ra, or any other Egyptian gods. Moreover, the vast majority of sources (primary, secondary, or tertiary, and reliable or unreliable) have said nothing whatsoever about this group that's just arisen recently. When we are most definitely not the newspaper, why must we give preference to news stories when they're just a tiny minority of all English-language reliable sources of any sort? It's like John Paul Jones and the occasional attempts (see the RMs at his talk) to move his article so that he's (at best) equal to a pop musician: the vast majority of reliable sources discussing "John Paul Jones" have referred to him, not the musician, so we keep him as the primary topic. This isn't any different.

Nyttend (talk) 04:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We must have a miscommunication. You wrote, in your comment as to which article name to use: "We aren't a news aggregator, so the terminology the news people use is of secondary importance".

I responded by pointing out that we have a policy in this regard. And that under the policy we do in fact focus on what English language RSs use as the common name. Including major major English-language media outlets use.

News articles are published by media outlets.

You never mentioned the policy. And I don't see how your view is consistent with the plain language of the policy.

Above, in response, you speak about primary vs. secondary sources. I've read that twice, and still fail to see what relevance that has to my point. I'm referring to major English media outlets -- why would you view those as anything but secondary sources? That whole conversation does not seem to respond to the points I made, so I think you are quite correct as to miscommunication.

And, it matters not a whit if there is an ISIS that is a god, or an Islamic State of yore ... those are issues for disambiguation. We do know how to dab. If two people or entities have a name in common, under our policy wp:commonname, that is the name we use for the people or entity ... we don't pick some less common name just because the more common name is shared.

The discussion was not about what the primary topic should be (something else you discuss now). It was about the name that the entity should have. We don't give John Paul Jones a made-up or second-most-common name because there are two of them (or more). We have a dab page, or a primary topic page, and each is called John Paul Jones, as they should be. Epeefleche (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the primary source article and understand what a primary source is. News articles are a fine example of a primary source: they're produced in the immediate chronological context of the event in question. It's one of the most basic principles of historiography: a secondary source is something produced after the fact, by someone who's been able to review the event from a distance by examining the primary sources, which were produced at the time of the event. Encyclopedias write based on secondary sources, not primary sources such as news stories. It's particularly significant with something in this situation: we write for a timeless audience, not for the idiots who know nothing of history and only know what's on TV. We serve those idiots by showing them that there's actually a broader historical context, reminding them that the here-and-now is ephemeral, and (in this specific context) that the secondary sources have discussed Islamic states for over a thousand years, that a few recent news articles using the term for something else are a ridiculously tiny minority, and that they'd be an ignorable number even if they were secondary. Nyttend (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Tarakan (1945)

Hi, I've tweaked the wording in this article to clarify what happened. The Japanese soldiers evaded the Allies until the end of the war, when they appear to have promptly surrendered. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York NR noms

Try another browser. I've had problems with IE and the Java apps at the OPRHP site before, but not as much with Firefox and Chrome. You may also want to make an exception to the security protocols for that site ... sometimes that's an issue.

If that fails, I could see about printing the noms as PDFs and mailing them to you.

And if all else fails, we can whip the horses' eyes, and MAKE ... THEM ... SLEEP! Daniel Case (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's something Morrison says near the end of the song that no one has ever quite figured out. Not in the article, but should be. Daniel Case (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about the weather, it was lousy here too, 200+ miles further east. But aside from that ... Great! Another fully illustrated list soon! Daniel Case (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photo Trips

Thanks for the heads up. We won't conflict this weekend; *if* I can get out, it will be to pick up some stragglers in the Somerset/Bedford counties. If you plan on mounting a big expedition into WV in the hear future, we should touch base, I'll do the same. That's what I'm going to work on next, now that my home base of southwest PA is getting, as we say, mined out. Generic1139 (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll try to remember to remove the needs photo tag in the future. Seems like a job for bot, though. Generic1139 (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My notional bot would only check the image= parameter in the nrhp infobox. Not perfect, but it would have gotten all the ones with my photos that you recently fixed. I take your point, though. At least one assumption would need to be made, that the reqphoto template was placed as a result of the NRHP process, and not one of the projects the article may be in scope for. Since the tag might often come from elkman's info box tool, it would have been nice if it had added a parameter to identify that had come from the the NRHP project, so we could more easily botify. Hindsight. Generic1139 (talk) 18:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, real life has intervened and I've not be able to get out this weekend. Soon, though. Glad the weather worked out for you. Generic1139 (talk) 19:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting out Sat morning - a few in Westmoreland and Somerset. Generic1139 (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Media Viewer RfC

You are being notified because you have participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Trinity Episcopal Church (Kirksville, Missouri) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|Episcopal]] church building at 124 N Mulanix Street in [[Kirksville, Missouri|Kirksville]], [[Missouri, [[United States]]. Displaying an eclectic style, it was placed on the National Register

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to National Register of Historic Places listings in Franklin County, Indiana may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|address=Old [[Indiana State Road 1|State Road 1]] over Whitewater River]]
|}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trollface

No, I don't have magic admin powers. I assumed they were the same, since it's an ongoing thing. I defer to your judgement, as you can see it. Got a link for me? Begoon ^talk 12:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, no link; I checked the deleted content. Since you had not seen the deleted content, you should not have tagged it as a repost. Nyttend (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Cool. I'll ask another admin to compare the files and comment on what I "should" or "shouldn't" have done. For clarity, your bizarre pronouncements on what I "should have done" are, at this point, unwelcome. Thanks for your reply. I promise to apologise if I am wrong. Begoon ^talk 13:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clearer then. Do not tag a page for speedy deletion if you do not know that it qualifies. In particular, do not tag a page for G4 unless you already have seen the deleted content and know that it's a repost. Please remember that it must be a repost; pages with different contents on the same topic, including this image, are not eligible. Nyttend (talk) 14:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clearer too. Do not post your "instructions" in this manner on my talk page again. They are unwelcome, as are you if this is how you wish to comport yourself. My actions, as seen in the deleted page history, and at Talk:Troll (Internet) were intended to act in this website's best interests. Yours seem all about scoring some sort of points. I'm unsure why you felt this sort of pompous behaviour was justified here. Adjust your attitude, please. You have some privileges on a website, that's all. Get over yourself, and preferably do it elsewhere. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 20:50, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well: I will make no more instructions. If you continue to abuse the speedy deletion criteria and/or continue harassing me for enforcing them, you will be blocked for disruption. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a very strange thing to say. I reacted badly to what I considered a very offhand action - that I confess. I do, for my part, apologise for my snarkiness in this matter - I think we're both better than that, and I look forward to better dealings with you, as I'm sure we have had in the past. Peace. Begoon ^talk 22:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intense flame war getting worse

Would you have the time to take a look at this [1], [2] related to this [3]. An already very intense flame war ignored by admins for 10 days has gotten completely out of hand after this extremely popular canvassing [4]. The longer this drags on, the worse it will get.Jeppiz (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Historicity of Jesus

Looks like TParis has handled it. I don't think describing yourself as a Christian disqualifies you, but the canvassing probably makes it more trouble than it's worth. Acroterion (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you absolutely sure?

On User:Seth_Fleming, they're plainly using their user page as some sort of 'checklist' for their real life activities that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. I could -maybe- understand if they had some userboxes or details about their editing stuff, but literally, they're only using it as a webhost. Tutelary (talk) 00:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whiteratxo

Where are the sources that this person is a child of George Clooney, and that Clooney had no interest in fatherhood, or that the mother was only interested in prescription drugs? Where is the source for the claim this individual had a negative relationship with Miley Cyrus and is currently the boufriend of Taylor Swift? This userpage portrays Clooney and Cyrus in a negative light with no sources, and is at best a violation of U5 or G11. INeverCry 01:03, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just hope this doesn't have anything to do with my editing of Russian topics or my atheism... INeverCry 01:30, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A move may be required

This move should be logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My de facto topic ban

Hello Nyttend,

I wish to present my point of view regarding some of the points that came up in the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Plagiarism.2C_BLP_violation.2C_and_long-term_POV_pushing_by_User:The_Discoverer ANI discussion, which I only saw after it was closed.

In the 2013 ANI discussion, User:Jreferee later revised his closing comments, after I explained my point of view to him. Unfortunately Zanhe did not present the ANI discussion in its final state.

I have never engaged in sock puppeteering.

In the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive750#Sports.2FGames_in_India 2012 ANI discussionand [5], I was just splitting some big sections of Sport in India into smaller articles, and the copyvio text came from Sport in India. I did not add even a single word that wasn't already in Sport in India. My only mistake was that I did not mention in the edit summary that I had taken the text from Sport in India.

Regarding the quote of MacFarquhar, I had copied a sentence from the blog, while I was copying text that the blogger had quoted from MacFarquhar. I was only copying this text to cite, and not to include in the article content, and I did not copy any analysis.

Regarding my addition to Sino-Indian border dispute, I admit that I was wrong. I felt that paraphrasing the two sentences would be interpreted again by Zanhe as POV. I guess I should have added them as quotes from the respective sources.

Regarding the copyvio issue, I assure you I'll not infringe again. However, please take into account that the 2013 Sports in India incident copyvio was not due to me, and the older ones were when I had less experience.

Regarding the edits on the Sino-Indian and Indo-Pak related topics, I would like to take up your offer of understanding from you where I erred, and how I can improve.

I also request you to lift the editing ban on me. I will try my best not to fall foul again, and will ask you for advice if I have a doubt.The Discoverer (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend, I strongly urge you not to lift the ban on The Discoverer. This is not about giving a new user a second chance; he is a serial offender who had been given numerous chances to reform, but never did. As the evidence [6] [7] added by Bladesmulti has shown (which I missed because The Discoverer had deleted all warning messages from his talk page without archiving them), he has been infringing on copyrights and plagiarizing for six years. Too often he has smooth-talked his way out of serious trouble, enabling him to commit new offences, which has put a heavy burden on other users to detect and rectify. I have lost count of how many times he has apologized for an offence, only to commit it again. As the most recent situation shows [8], he's capable of offering seemingly sincere apology for an offence, while simultaneously committing a new one. I've edited more than ten thousand pages and dealt with hundreds of vandals and POV pushers, but have never seen anyone as dishonest as The Discoverer. -Zanhe (talk) 23:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nyttend would better know about lifting topic ban. It is, that a user must heavily contribute into subjects for some time without causing any havoc. Until now, Discoverer has not made any edit on article or talk(pages). Bladesmulti (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nyttend, I would like to discuss the two problematic issues you pointed out: one is the Claude Arpi situation, and the other is the incident on the Sino-Indian border article.

Regarding the Claude Arpi edit, please could you elaborate about what went wrong there?

Regarding the Sino-Indian border edit, I understand that the fact that I added two sentences verbatim from the sources was wrong. That is from the copyvio aspect. From the NPOV aspect, was it unacceptable to add these to the article (leaving aside the copyvio)? As it stands today (" In September 2014, India and China had a standoff at the LAC, when Indian workers began constructing a canal in the border village of Demchok, and Chinese civilians protested with the army's support. It ended after about three weeks, when both sides agreed to withdraw troops.[citation]"), the description of this border incident is based only on one news source, while there are other news sources A and B that say that India claims that Chinese troops entered Indian-claimed territory. That was the first point I was trying to add. And I wasn't trying to push only one point of view, I myself incorporated Zanhe's addition into my edit. Regarding the second sentence "And with every intrusion, China changes the ground realities at the border, gaining ever more territory in the process and redrawing the map in its favour." from the BBC, there are other news sources A and B which talk about this in terms of "incremental area denial". .The Discoverer (talk) 12:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the border dispute case, I was trying to state the facts: that India claims that Chinese soldiers entered Indian claimed territory (A, B and C), and as the BBC puts it, "With every intrusion, China changes the ground realities at the border, gaining ever more territory in the process and redrawing the map in its favour." and this is also dealt with in these sources A and B.

Please help me understand where I went wrong and what concerns you have in the above border dispute article, and also in the Claude Arpi case.The Discoverer (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Khurnak Fort edit, I admit I made a mistake. I meant to attribute that the part "the Johnson Line and the Macartney-Macdonald Line, which were proposed by the British" to Maxwell. That both the Johnson and Macartney-MacDonald line placed the boundary at Khurnak fort can be seen from any map of the Johnson and Macartney–MacDonald Lines such as this one. Infact, the Johnson line, the Macartney-MacDonald line, and the Indian claim are the same in the region of the Khurnak fort. My error is that I called it "This traditional boundary", which is debatable, but not necessarily false. For instance, this source clearly states that during talks, India submitted among other official records as proof of jurisdiction, the 1908 Settlement Report regarding revenue in kind, which showed the amount of revenue collected at Khurnak. Further, once Zanhe raised an objection to this sentence, I agreed and did not add it back. In fact, in every case, I have been open to comments and discussion, taken into account others' concerns, tried to build consensus, and explained the rationale behind my edits in edit summaries and talk pages.The Discoverer (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Req. deletion/move not done

Hello Nyttend. I am the one that requested the deletion for a move because of primarytopic for Trondhjems SK. I based my criteria for the skating club to be primary because of several more famous members of that skating club before the ski club, since the skating club have more internationally known World Champions and Olympic winners than the ski club. And also 2 out of 5 founders of the Norwegian Skating Association represented this skating club in Trondheim (reference Template:No icon). The skating club is also just slightly older, but that is no big deal since both clubs are more than 129 years old. So I'll ask you on what bases did you decide that there were no primary topic for the articletitle Trondhjems SK. Regards Migrant (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Skating and skiing clubs

Moved from User talk:Migrant

(the discussion started here... don't move it around, although it can be moved further to the related talk page for the disambiguation page or something.) Regards Migrant (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For those of us in English-speaking countries, both entities are quite obscure, and giving either one the primary-topic name is going to cause confusion. This is of course justified if one article is fuller and/or demonstrates that it gets the large majority of appearances in English-language publications, but right now the two articles are functionally identical in scope and size: if one is to have the primary-topic name, you really need to have a full community discussion, and/or you need to flesh out the articles to make it clear that one is much more significant than the other. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I thought that the linked names in each article named several more famous member athletes in the skating club article than the skiing club article ? So if you look at those linked biographies at each article I would guess you see what I mean. There might be clue in that there aren't yet any NO:WP article for the skiing club (allthough they are notable for that wikipedia because of it's age), but there are one for the skating club (NO:WP -article). So how good knowledge do you really have in the sports-segment of wikipedia. I just did a look through your edit-backlog for the 2 past months and I couldn't find any real txt-adding for sports-articles. It seemed mostly like churches-category, adding pics in several topics and some other changes and not that many regarding wintersports besides the list of redirects for the winter-olympics (1st to 22nd). Regards Migrant (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that there were more famous sportsmen in the skating club, but that by itself isn't enough to say "this one's primary". Since we're talking about two topics that are little-known among anglophones, the default is to consider neither one primary. In short, we have the primary-topic thing so that we cause the least surprise among readers: we do our best to reduce the number of times that someone ends up at the wrong article, and since both topics apparently get very few appearances in English publications, we can't really predict which one is more significant and deserves the primary topic status. This is why I suggested a substantial expansion of both in order to indicate that one really does get much more English attention than the other. Nyttend (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration of Category:Wikipedians who use Linux

Hi, I noticed you restored Category:Wikipedians who use Linux. I had previously deleted this category as recreation of previously deleted content. As you can see from Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/April_2008#Category:Wikipedians_by_operating_system, there was consensus to delete this and all similar categories. A more recent discussion on a similar category can be found here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_13#Category:Wikipedians_who_use_Microsoft_Windows. There has never been any consensus other than to delete operating system categories. The intent of the category is identical - it is irrelevant that the specific content of the category is different if the reasons for deletion still stand. I am formally requesting that you reverse your restoration and re-delete this category to follow all previously established precedent and consensus. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, your interpretation of WP:CSD#G4 is that categories are not eligible for deletion via this criterion so long as the content of the category description is different, regardless of the intent of what the category is intended to categorize? I'm absolutely shocked if so. The deletion discussion deleted the category because of what it intended to categorize. It is immaterial if some or even all of the category description is different so long as the intent for the category is the same. If I follow that logic, anyone could get around the deletion results of a CfD by simply changing the category description contents from what was previously deleted. I've reached out to the closing administrator for their comment on this. Additionally, I am disappointed that you went ahead and reversed my deletion instead of first going to my talk page to bring me your concerns, which I would have expected for a policy dispute. VegaDark (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan tag

I saw your edit at Australochus and the orphan tag. That made me wonder why the orphan tag wasn't showing up in the article. After some testing and searching, I found this edit to the template. I guess hiding the tag was done on purpose. As soon as I learn something, it changes. Bgwhite (talk) 04:12, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2011 in Australian literature

I see the problem. I was asking for the Talk page to be undeleted when actually I meant the Article page "2011 in Australian literature". Revision history of that page can be found here: Talk:2011 in literature. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm not using the right process, which is causing the confusion. if you have a look at the Talk pages of "2011 in literature" you see the following: "2011 in Australian literature was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 04 January 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 2011 in literature. The original page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here." From this it looks like the "2011 in Australian literature" page was created and then merged into "2011 in literature". Maybe I need to ask for a demerger? Any advice appreciated. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notify by mentioning?

I noticed your yellow box at the top. Do you have "Mention" enabled at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo? Many editors today probably expect you will be notified if they link your user page, for example with {{Ping}}. (I haven't mentioned you and didn't come here due to a specific situation) PrimeHunter (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Media Viewer RfC

I'm confused by your removal of the Media Viewer notice from the Template:Centralized discussion. Your edit summary was that it was closed?!? Alsee (talk) 01:04, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Places that aren't there anymore

As promised, the former locations of the Mount Pleasant Armory and Ligonier Armory have been imaged. It happened to be (unbeknownst to me) Fort Ligonier Days, the big parade went right past the armory location, and high school band bus parking area was adjacent. It took a while to get that pic. I was the only person there with a camera with his back to the parade. Generic1139 (talk) 04:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with this in userspace

How is this possibly worthy of you recreating it? Did you notice the [9] older version with nearly 1.4 million bytes of the same? I can understand that you were not aware that this user was just one of a string of socks who had been making similar banana related edits last week, and maybe I didn't ask for the right speedy (G1?, U5?), but why restore it? It just seems odd that this would have to got through MfD to get cleaned up. Meters (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

try these

User:Smallbones/Philly NRHP recommended, plus I can recommend some near Broomall. I still owe you an e-mail, which should explain a few things. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for copy of deleted article

Thanks for the information. Unfortunately, it's not as similar as I hoped, and I can locate nothing online. Thanks for your help anyway.--Auric talk 22:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about KY county list

Hey Nyttend, I noted that the FL template was being removed from the List of counties for Kentucky...Does that mean it will be a former FL?? If so, please do let me know as I would very much like to help make it a FL again...UNLESS of course, I have misunderstood the edit..Many ThanksCoal town guy (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coord Purge

I did about 100 of the county lists in User:Nyttend/NRHP row and coord using Dudemanfellabras's script. One or two of the lists only had coord in the unlisted or delisted sections. I noted them on the talk page for your list, hoping there is some easier way to convert them to the nrhp row format than doing it by hand. Upon reflection, it seems likely that some of the lists that did get corrections made by the script also have coord in old format entries that the script doesn't see, and weren't caught by noticing there were no entries to be corrected. I can go look manually, or you can catch the presumably small number of them by running your bot query again when we're all done, which wouldn't be a bad idea anyway. Generic1139 (talk) 05:35, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see we're starting to collide on the remainder. I'll back off for a while and see what's left later tonight. Generic1139 (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User :PersianFire, again!

Hi Sir. after you comments on talk page of PersianFire and guide me, He commented in his talk page and I answerd him. Then I removed no source critical information of two articles but he reverted my edits.([10]-[11]) He doesn't debate with me about the engagement and just insist of add no source information. I can't do anymore with these sort of users and I don't know their logic. Please come inside and protect the articles. Thanx.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you f*cking kidding?

When three editors revert a single editor who reverts an article seven times, that's the definition of an edit-warrior. Reporting it is what one is supposed to do, and the user repeatedly blanked all efforts at discussing the issue. I find your statement patently absurd. If anyone deserves sanction here, it's Diego Moya for basically butting into a thread to level threats and attacks at me for using the proper process to report an edit warrior. Ridiculous. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.

Thank you for message, I have a question, what can i do about an edit war? who decide what is kept if the editors can't decide? Thanks again Javier2005 (talk) 14:32, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR of User:PersianFire

Hi again Mr Nyttend. About engaging between me and User:PersianFire in two articles, I added valid source to save my edits, So he couldn't revert it and just...!

But in another case, I delete his no source information and he reverted it again! If I add a short description in my edit summaries, he never did it and no discussion with me and you to convince us for his no source information!! I guess this case is a WP:3RR case. I want take a decision. Thanx.Gire 3pich2005 (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit caused an error on the Progress page

This edit, where you combined Olympia, Washington, back into Thurston County, caused an error when I was running the bot on the Progress page just now after it had been running for a little over three hours. I have fixed everything now and will re-run the bot, but just for future reference, any time you do anything with splitting or recombining lists (although the latter should be far less common), either update the Progress page to reflect that change or let me know, and I will do so. Thanks.--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kroger 200

I feel that the Martinsville Camping World Truck Series race is clearly a primary topic since this race still exists. The other two races in the disambiguation page reference 2 races--one which was titled "Kroger 200" years ago and is no longer, and the other is the same situation but the race doesn't even exist anymore. Anybody coming to Wikipedia to look up "Kroger 200" will be referencing the current race--the only one that exists. NASCARredirect (talk) 21:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re 20 to 1 tag removal

I respect your removal of the speedy tag, but I had tagged it that way because no sources were offered as to the source of the rules(a publication, tournament, etc) which suggested to me that it was made up. 331dot (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at 331dot's talk page.
Message added 23:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

331dot (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

an close

Re [12] -- the Rfcu was certified by myself as well as Msnicki, therefore meeting the two editor requirement. Please revert your AN and let the dicussion continue. NE Ent 09:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Archive summary

Can I talk you into using the |result = option in the archiving of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Rfcu_deletion_review?--S Philbrick (Talk) 13:07, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Memorial logo.png

Oh, right... What's the template to request its removal then? It can't stay because it's a non-free image that is not used anymore due to being superseded.--Pudeo ' 14:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

notice

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

Thanks, NE Ent 15:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]