User talk:Nyttend/Archive 51

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nyttend. 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.

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

→

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited SIGOS, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages San Mateo and App (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 12:28, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Another request to delete older graphics

Nyttend, I hope this message finds you well. Like before, I find myself asking for your help in deleting old versions of a graphic I kept editing due to either mistakes or new information I found that lead me to rework the graphic. So, if you don't mind, could you please delete all the old version of File:Example US Army Special Forces Recognition Bars-Historical.svg? Someone has already transferred it to Commons before I was finished making correction; hopefully move to Commons does not change the rules on what you can do to help me with this. Best regards, McChizzle (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --McChizzle (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Nkmonda12

Hi, if you have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Selim Shaikh you'll see the user is a CU confirmed sock awaiting blocking. Triptothecottage (talk) 04:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

New message from Triptothecottage

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Triptothecottage's talk page.
Message added 05:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Triptothecottage (talk) 05:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email
Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak
Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:55, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

notice of ANI discussion

Please see wp:ANI, in section "photos not of the NRHP-listed resource". --Doncram (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:APPLCOR.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:APPLCOR.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Icodense99 Block

Hey Nyttend, I'm going to unblock Icodense99 as Johannes has come to their defense as requested lifting of the block as well. I'm adding a note to stay away however and let Johannes remove the edits they wish to remove to prevent this again. Good block, but I think the message got to them, and "time served" works in this case. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

‘Harassing’?

In the discussion about Materialscientist (WP:AN3) you used the work ‘harrasing’. For one, I clearly stated that I did not have a view on the subject and was simply asking a question and secondly, none of the users were harassing the admin, only stating their opinion. Please read all replies thoroughly before accusing someone of something they didn’t even do. Willbb234 (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

If you did not feel the message concerened you, then you should remind yourself that the message was a general note to those questioning Materialscientist actions. About an actual fact, that Materialscientist used tools within his disgression as an admin.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Nothing about this discussion was questioning Materialscientist’s actions so I’m not sure why you included that in this discussion. Also, I didn’t feel as if the message was ‘a general note’ as it specifically pointed fingers at a small number of Wikipedians and accused them of something they didn’t do. It sounds as if you agree with me as the Wikipedians involved in the discussion were questioning Materialscientist’s actions and not ‘harrasing’ the admin as Nyttend claimed.

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

George Beauchamp

Hi! Thanks for contributing, please don't take I make hoax on purpose, I am overwhelmed by English language, OK? Best wishes. and Thanks. --LLcentury (talk) 11:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, It's my horrible English that confuses me plus the technical issues of Wikipedia I cannot understand. Please don't block me, I am trying to contribute not to hoax. Best wishes. --LLcentury (talk) 11:34, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindness, my question is, I am not asking the whole tag to be removed, but now with the article in this condition can the "may hoax" be removed?... Just wait a minute, a Barnstar awaits you :) --LLcentury (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For your kindness and patience LLcentury (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Articles in your sandbox

Hi Nyttend. I have finished reviewing the article titles at User:Nyttend/sandbox. All the remaining articles need to be actioned. I moved a number of articles to a new name, because they had been created by that user with a non-ideal name and later moved to a less ideal name.
I also came across some articles that didn't make your list, such as Hugh Duff O'Donnell — Aodh Dubh Ó Domhnaill; Calvagh O'Donnell — Calbhach Ó Domhnail; and Shane O'Neill — Seán Ó Néill. I fixed all of those but I'm a bit concerned that there might be more.
Apologies for taking so long, but many of the people were so obscure that it was all but impossible to find out which was the correct name. Scolaire (talk) 14:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I found – and moved – another four, all of which he moved on 17 May 2019 and which weren't on the list. And there's plenty more from that date alone. Scolaire (talk) 16:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

TechCrunch

Hello Nyttend. I'm slighly confused regarding your mass-removal of TechCrunch sources. I was of the impression that it is a reliable source, and I have used it frequently in the past. Are you sure it is an unreliable source? Per WP:RSP:

Careful consideration should be given to whether a piece is written by staff or as a part of their blog, as well as whether the piece/writer may have a conflict of interest, and to what extent they rely on public relations material from their subject for their writing. TechCrunch may be useful for satisfying verifiability, but may be less useful for purpose of determining notability.

Furthmore, you claim that it has been spammed, but the additions made were by several different users (including reputable users and myself). Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 14:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, mass removal without pointing to a consensus for mass removal violates the spirit of WP:FAIT. if you can should where TC was determined to be spammed, that might be reasonable, but I don't see anything in recent history to see that. --Masem (t) 15:05, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --qedk (t 桜 c) 08:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No doubts as to your integrity

Rock of Gibraltar admin & Wikipedian I respect without reservation

My apologies for any embarrassment I may have caused you. I have, in all seriousness, never questioned your integrity as an admin, nor would I think that there was anything less than a demonstrably solid rationale for your actions. My only concern was that most actions have to be taken quickly in order to avoid further disruption, and that you (or any admin) cannot know all contributors, nor does it stop them/us (good faith editors) from getting a bit silly when we start in on trivia.

I can only assure you that I wasn't trying to be superior in asking that someone else step in to evaluate the situation, just defending a fellow editor I have always known as being genuinely HERE.

Feel free to trout me for not actually having approached you personally: it was a very bad judgement call on my behalf (although I've never claimed to have good sense, only that I'm arrogant enough to believe that I think I have it)... Hope I'm forgiven for being a tosser. I don't think there's a proper barnstar to cover the situation, therefore I'm making it up as I go along. I am a gnat with little imagination, but I think it's a cute pseudo-barnstar for admins. Failing 'cute', dissipating any stress I've caused you would be a good start. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Patrick Phungwayo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transvaal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2019 (UTC)