User talk:RL0919/Archive 2016

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.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cheating Cheaters (play), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Strand Theatre. 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) 09:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The article Random plot generator has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The subject is non-notable and silly.

Plot generator has also been proposed for deletion because of reasons listed at the top of that article.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

As I say on the plot generator page - my interests have moved elsewhere - and I have said all I wish to add.

If you wish to develop the theatre pages here [1] feel free. Jackiespeel (talk) 17:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ambrose Applejohn's Adventure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charles Hawtrey. 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) 09:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Volunteer Organist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Middletown, New York. 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) 10:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I undid your edit to Pascual Madoz, because the template {{EB1911}} is not redundant. {{EB1911}} takes the same parameters as {{Cite EB1911}} but they are used for different purposes:

• {{Cite EB1911}} is a replacement for {{Cite encyclopedia}} because it fills in some of the parameters such as year=1911 for the editor and adds the article to some hidden maintenance categorises.
• {{EB1911}} and its various redirects such as {{1911}} do all that {{Cite EB1911}} does but also adds attribution text if the contents of some of all of the article are copied from EB1911. This fulfils the requirements of the plagiarism guideline.

In this case the Earwig tool shows clearly that most of the text in the Wikipedia article was copied from wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Madoz, Pascual

-- PBS (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

RL0919, the IP user you blocked, 69.118.146.138, was previously defended by Toddst1. Toddst1 had previously defended 69.118.146.138 at the WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism when AdamDeanHall previously reported the IP user, saying it's not vandalism which the IP edits are very much are at best. Several users, including AdamDeanHall, have been reverted his/her edits and this user keeps on doing it. I mean AdamDeanHall may be at times disruptive, but the IP user 69.118.146.138 is also being disruptive, maybe more so and Toddst1 is still defending that IP user. I thought I should bring this to you. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I also saw Toddst1's comments on the IP's user talk page and on his own user talk page. Obviously I disagree with his assessment and agree with yours. The ongoing pattern of dubious edits, including in some cases what seem to be manufactured citations, while ignoring all talk page warnings and discussions, is at least disruptive, and most likely intentional vandalism. --RL0919 (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

RL0919, I've reworded my submission for Greenspan advising the George W Bush administration to depose Saddam Hussein to protect the international oil markets. I think the Chairman of the Federal Reserve recommending to the President that Saddam posed a threat to the world economic system is worthy of a mention. If you still think it does not belong in the "Career" section, can you please recommend where it should go? Thanks. Ph1ll1phenry (talk) 20:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Framed as advice he gave the administration at the time, rather than just something he opined about later, it seems reasonably relevant to "Career". I did move it into the chronology of his time as Fed Chair, rather than a separate subsection, since that is where is other contemporary policy advice is discussed. --RL0919 (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi I need you to help me how to fill information Ariric (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Could I ask why you've deleted Draft:Zohaibali0335.com?, As far as I recall there was only images on the page but regardless of that shouldn't we be helping the newbie instead of deleting their page ?, We could've potentially lost them as they may not of had any idea why it was deleted ?,
If there was extremely personal stuff on there then I could perhaps understand but as far as I can remember it was just massive images and a bit of text?
I never ever care about userpages as I've always !voted Delete on them however for some reason in this case I just don't think it was right,
Anyway thanks & Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 22:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

All the comments clearly agreed that this page did not belong in Draft, and you were the only supporter of Move as the solution. (Nom and two others supported deletion.) Even if more people had supported that suggestion, I would be reluctant to move to a user's main user page when they haven't asked for it. If the user does ask for it, happy to restore and move. --RL0919 (talk) 22:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Only because no one thought of it, I agree it shouldn't of been in draft however the sensible solution would've been to help the user and move it instead of being bloody awkward over it but whatever, In 10 years time we'll all be wondering why there's no editors here ... and it'll all be thanks to extremely helpful admins like yourself!. –Davey2010^Talk 01:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Early Ayn Rand (cover).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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello, RL0919. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi RL0919.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations on finally getting Night of January 16th promoted! Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, RL0919. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hallo, I noticed your creative edits at some Zoo talk pages. Maybe you would consider becoming a member in Wikipedia:WikiProject Zoo? Dan Koehl (talk) 17:33, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding, the use of the "Chronology of the Walt Disney Company" and the Disney War book.

• 18:45, 28 November 2016‎ RL0919: "if the information was obtained "via" this web page, then the web page is the source; any book(s) the web site used should be cited only if a WP editor obtained information from the book"

-This is you stating effectively that it is about me not you, as I used the website.,

• 19:27, 28 November 2016‎ Spshu: Undid revision 751954710 by RL0919 (talk) "except the website is not the reliable source"

- Which was challenged as a reliable source at Talk:Disney_Consumer_Products, thus only referring to "Chronology of the Walt Disney Company" and other Disney Chronologies at that website as "via" website or indirectly. And you indicated exactly why the information was there, the original source was not directly present for the WP editor.

• 20:06, 28 November 2016‎ RL0919 "1990s: found the underlying source, so we don't need to rely on an non-reliable website"

-Telling me that you "found" the underlying source can just mean that just "found" the publication details. That doesn't indicate that you have the underlying source.

• 23:41, 28 November 2016‎ Spshu: Undid revision 751970032 by RL0919 (talk) "but I did not look at the book for the information from it, I relied on the website"

-Indicating that I did the research, since you cannot seem to figure out that I know where the information came from.

• 23:43, 28 November 2016‎ RL0919: Undid revision 752003857 by Spshu (talk) "*I* found it in the book; it's not about you"

Since, you did make it about me from the beginning, it was about me. Chalk it up it the imperfections in the English language. Spshu (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello there, I noticed that you have removed the GA template from Bhopal: A Prayer for Rain. The GA review for the article was conducted at Talk:Bhopal: A Prayer for Rain/GA1. Later, the page was moved. That's the reason there's not a proper link to the review page. I hope you will reinstate the GA tag. Thanks, --Skr15081997 (talk) 08:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Good catch; should be fixed now. --RL0919 (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Fountainhead you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

The article The Fountainhead you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:The Fountainhead for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sagecandor -- Sagecandor (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Demi-Virgin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

	Theatermaker Award
	For developing articles in the sorely underrepresented topic of theater history. Bravo! BobAmnertiopsis∴ChatMe! 20:11, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The article The Demi-Virgin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Demi-Virgin for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of J Milburn -- J Milburn (talk) 20:19, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This is to let you know that the Night of January 16th article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 16 January 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 16, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

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.