User talk:Some Gadget Geek/2016/April

Don't know if you missed it, but I closed this RM too, so you can move those articles too. Cheers, Number 57 12:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Some Gadget Geek, When you added the hatnote thing to template:p it somehow messed it up, (See pic -smiley with red line underneath) It only affected that one smiley ... when I reverted you the entire thing went back to normal so I'm assuming it was you,
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 22:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: Oh, I just wanted to make sure that Template:Smiley and Template:Smile were not confused with each other, in a manner similar to Template:Note and Template:Note2. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah if you look at both notes the /noiclude is under the rest and then the rest joins on to that bit .... whereas when you added it you had noinclide & /noinclude all on the same line which somehow screws it up, I've readded it back correctly ... I think... , Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 02:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...for the accidental TP reversion - the page is on my watchlist and I was a bit clumsy with a click just now... rolled back my own change so all should now be normal. Apologies again! Mike1901 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's all right - wasn't aware of this before. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike1901: Most of us have tried that, no worries. After a couple of times you realize that User:MusikAnimal/confirmationRollback.js or the like is a good investment. If you are working cross-wiki and have rollback in any form or shape elsewhere, consider putting mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MusikAnimal/confirmationRollback.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); in your global.js on Meta. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 08:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice - thanks Sam! Didn't know that tool existed... Mike1901 (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi! Why have I seen this entry in my watchlist? Thanks! <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 15:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• (User rights log); 15:28 . . Some Gadget Geek (talk | contribs) was automatically updated from (none) to extended confirmed user

Have a read on this RFC. Sam Sailor ^Talk! 15:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam Sailor: That is interesting but a little unclear - so it appears that Wikipedia added another user right that has enabled me to edit pages with an even higher level of protection than semi-protection but lower than fully-protected. So what is it, and where can I find out more? Cheers, <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This "user right" is more of a measure of experience, like autoconfirmed: You need to have made 500 edits and have an account at least 30 days old. It's relevant for some particularly controversial topic areas, particularly pages relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. See WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED. Huon (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Huon: So exactly which pages am I now able to edit with this right? Is there a category somewhere which these pages are classified under? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same ones as before. Someone who doesn't have this right could edit less, though. Huon (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia pages under 30-500 editing restriction has the pages that those without extendedconfirmed cannot edit. You were able to edit these pages previously. The addition of the user group (and right) with the new page protection level is the new way to restrict editing of those pages. It was previously done with a combination of semi-protection, an edit filter, and reverting of those who did not meet the requirements. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So how exactly can I nominate a page for such protection level? Any special criterion to be met, and can I use WP:RPP for this purpose? (Twinkle doesn't support this new protection level, by the way.) <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED is two lines and one link to further information. It will answer all your questions. Please read it. Short answer: You cannot nominate pages for such a protection. Huon (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I get it - the arbitration committee is responsible for deciding which pages receive 30-500 protection. I'm just wondering what criterion they use - in other words, what exactly made them decide that the topics being protected as such deserve such a level of protection - surely not just a simple edit war? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a simple edit war--a simple edit war wouldn't even get to the Committee. The only two subjects it applies to is gamergate and the Arab-Palestine conflict. It's a pretty recent thing, so it's hard to predict the criteria for it. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@I dream of horses: What I want to know are the particular reasons that led to the A.C. to agree that these pages, and no others, should be protected as such, so could anyone provide a link to a relevant discussion (aside from the one above that proposed the creation of the protection level and user group) - particularly the one in which the A.C. decided that Gamergate article was subject to "intractable disputes"? <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED comes with a link to WP:30/500. That section comes with footnotes. Those footnotes, in turn, link to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173#TheRedPenOfDoom, third filing, WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive183#Caste articles and talk pages. For more background on the GamerGate case see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. By now this begins to resemble trolling; you are an experienced editor, and we should not have to tell you how to use footnotes or follow wikilinks. Huon (talk) 19:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I know how to find out more, but in any case, I believe that Wikipedia does not have any official policy about what defines a troll <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Some Gadget Geek,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Foogle for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You win the prize for the unintentionally funniest edit summary of the day: [1]. Why is it funny? Because of the name of the article. Thanks for the laugh! --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's just cleanup using AWB - it's just what any article needs - hence the AWB part of it. I didn't mean to write it, and even if I did, it's not funny at all to me - and it shouldn't be at all. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "cleanup using AWB" is a perfectly normal (and probably auto-generated) edit summary. It just struck me funny when it was used to describe an article called "chicken shit" - presumably more in need of cleanup than usual! I enjoyed it in good faith, with no disrespect to you at all, and thought you might get a kick out of it too. Since you didn't think it was funny, I apologize for bothering you. --MelanieN (talk) 00:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to thank you for your feedback on my addition to the Riot Games page. I understand why you removed it and I appreciate that you did it respectfully and acknowledged me about it. I was practicing making minor edits as part of an assignment at school so I decided to make one that would make the least possible impact without ruining a page. Nonetheless, I respect your decision to remove my work and would appreciate any future feedback you give me in the future! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ithinkimruben (talk • contribs) 18:05, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russell 3000 Index, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Benchmark. 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) 10:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]