I'd like to know why this page along side 2015 Kuwait Champions Challenge was deleted since it's a tournament organized by Kuwait Football Association if it was non-notable why are there many other friendly tournament articles still out there please return these 2 pages, there sre friendly tournaments based in america which have a semilar meaning to thr article with there own article and have not been deleted, thsee 2 pages have refrences and all other necessary things.

(talk) 03:49, 1 January 2016

Thank you for removing the Relationship section. I was about to propose its removal on the talk page when I saw your change. —teb728 t c 07:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please request to return the 2 pages of Kuwait Champions Challenge and 2015 Kuwait Champions Challenge thank you for you help. —khalid sadeq talk page

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Mrjulesd's talk page.
Message added 19:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

--Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Just wanted to add similar Happy New Year wishes, Nyttend, and will take this opportunity to add that you have been an excellent WP teacher and inspiration for me (inadvertently) in so many ways you are not even aware. A most sincere THANK YOU. Atsme^📞📧 21:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nyttend. You have new messages at Mrjulesd's talk page.
Message added 22:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

--Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great Scott! Now I'm sure I'm losing the plot. I thought I kept pretty good tabs on our prime ministers' private lives and foibles, but that morbid detail of his demise had completely escaped my notice. Naturally, I assumed it was vandalism, but I checked it out and it's legit. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

The worst part about this revelation is that I wasn't aware of it but some anonymous jerk on the internet was you were. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:15, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I just realised why that one passed me by. From mid-February I was out of town for a while, celebrating the birth of my first grandchild with her parents.

I really must get my priorities sorted out once and for all.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:19, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word biomedical also means health. It is not broadening the meaning. So what does that say about others who clamed it was broadening the meaning. Do you think there are were only good faith editors or were there bias and bad faith editors commenting in the RfC. There is another RfC. It is obvious what is going on here. Decisions for policy and guidelines should only allow neutral and good faith editors commenting. QuackGuru (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend. I wrote an essay called Why MEDRS? that explains why MEDRS is so important for content about health. I cannot tell you how many times we have relied on it to keep bad information about various quack remedies or other health claims with very weak or no scientific support out of WP. It functions kind of like the FDA does for the US - the FDA's job is to prevent people from selling snake oil. Would you please reconsider? A possible way out here would simply be to say "no consensus" since as you noted the !votes were pretty evenly split. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A no consensus finding will have the same result. Because the edit that caused the RFC can be found here [1] with CFCF inserting "and health" and other places in subsequent edits, where it had not been before looking back as far as 2011. Per WP:NOCONSENSUS the edit would be removed. AlbinoFerret 17:07, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

You claimed "Your position was rejected by many participants; when one side interprets an idea one way, and the other another way, the closer can't just assume that one interpretation is right and the other wrong."[2] The closer must find out who is right or wrong. Does MEDRS cover health-related information? Yes or no? QuackGuru (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to your comment, you can't decide who is right or wrong. Then the way a RfC is closed is wrong and broken. QuackGuru (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked your closure here, no change to the substance, just the location of the text. I think I got it right, but who knows. Just letting you know. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 21:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend. As recently saw there is a user called The Banner that was a couple of months blocked by you , apparently the user continues to edit in a way continued battleground mentality and frivolous I would like to inform me about it because I do not consider their editions something good or pleasant to Wikipedia, even removing pages with relevant information according to this user considers should not be on wikipedia especially towards beauty pageants and other issues. Thank you.Evanex (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Washington, Kentucky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maysville, Ohio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the indefinite full protection on Azerbaijan could be lifted now? The edit warring was all on a single day, and it's now been several weeks since then. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be that guy... But I'm not sure how better to respond. The user Perfect Orange Sphere seems to think that what you said at the AN/I thread doesn't apply. He continues to insist upon reverting my edits here and here, he has explicitly asked me to stop editing the page and participating in the discussion, and he continues to insist upon some very Dunning-Kruger-esque points to defend his interpretation, such as implying that presumption is the same thing as absolute certainty and insisting that published papers by environmentalists, computer scientists and science educators have more weight than academic definitions of the term. I'm not asking for you to ban him, just to help however you can. I would really appreciate it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:09, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that this means anything nefarious is going on, but Interestobserver (talk · contribs) was apparently created just a few hours ago. The only edit from the account was an unexplained revert of one of my edits to the article. It might be one of the IP editors from the dispute creating an account (the other was Perfect Orange Sphere not logged in), but as best I could tell Perfect Orange Sphere was the only one hitting the undo button. Feel free to tell me to get lost if I'm getting on your nerves by coming to you, it's just that (as I suspect you can see), there doesn't seem to be any way to get through to them myself. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I hope I didn't imply that you should block him, that's not what I intended. I only wanted to bring it to your attention, in case it becomes an issue in the future. I will let you know if that happens. I intend to take your advice, and leave a politely worded message on the user's talk page. Also, I understand what you are saying about the talk page and agree completely. I'm quite happy to discuss the article with anyone, whether they agree with me or not. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 03:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note to let you know I have posted the reasons here for reverting your change in Haiti's article. Reverting your change does not mean I do not appreciate your work and contribution. I welcome your thoughts. Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 12:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my web site F1almanah.mk is now upgraded from racing portal to complete sport portal named Derbi.mk and that is why the archive is missing. I have uploaded many files from Formula 1 as that was prime focus of my work and to tell that most of you have no way to offices of famous people is correct, but you should read that this picture was taken in Skopje on Nov.22 during his visit to Macedonia where this interview happened. You can see my credentials on Linked in (Aleksandar Tabakovski). https://www.linkedin.com/in/tabakovski

You can reach me by email on any of mentioned domains, just put my last name before @ sign.

Hello. Having noticed you have edited it in the past, could you take a look at Mexico, Crawford County, Ohio. I suspect the Crawford County "ghost town" and Mexico, Wyandot County, Ohio are one and the same place.– Gilliam (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only maps I have handy are the Rand McNally atlas and Google Maps, but Mexico, Wyandot County, Ohio is a dot on the map even in print, so it would not appear to be a genuine ghost town. Do you think we should allow both Mexicos to remain? I didn't want to add Template:Disputed to Mexico, Crawford County when that article probably gets very few visitors and its talk page even fewer.– Gilliam (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I created an article about singer Carina Jaarnek today. She died yesterday. If you want to, take a look.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently working up a non-NRHP article (1990 gubernatorial election in Nebraska), and would like to include a few maps: which candidates won which counties in the four-way Democratic primary, and how the two candidates compared in the two-way Republican primary and the general election. As I recall, you had some suggestions as to how the NRHP progress maps could be made maximally legible for color-blind readers. Could you make some similar suggestions for my case? I assume that for the two-candidate maps, shades of red and blue like those used on the NRHP maps would work. However, for the four-candidate map, I'd like to use four distinct colors, since using two shades of red and two of blue might imply some kind of political alignment. One of the colors can be white; but I don't want to use, say, blue, red, green, and white if two of the colors are identical to the color-blind eye. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you leave me a note with suggestions, or point me to a good four-color map that I can use as an example? Thanks. — Ammodramus (talk) 20:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I'm going to try to produce these from an existing Commons map using Inkscape, so I'll come up with SVG files. Right now, I'm trying to find a good Nebraska-counties map that I can modify with minimal effort. Not sure if I'll find this; might have to spend some time outlining all 93 counties. Happily, most of them are rectangular, or pretty close.

You suggested white, yellow, bright green, and "deep red". Is the last R-255/G-0/B-0, or is it more like R-128/G-0/B-0? You mention that for some people, red/green is a problem, so I don't know if R-0/G-255/B-0 and R-255/G-0/B-0 would work for them. — Ammodramus (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've only used Inkscape once before, to produce a map for Battery White in May 2014. Unfortunately, I've completely forgotten it since then. As I recall, though, it wasn't terribly hard to learn. The advantage of using it is that SVG maps scale nicely, so can be blown up for readers with poor vision, or those who want to check out a fine detail.

I was playing with a cousin of the Buffalo-County-highlighted map that you suggested. I'll have to study it in more detail, but it looks as though the creator started with a map of Nebraska with all the counties, then imposed a red box on the county they wanted to highlight. I was really hoping for something where each county was defined as a separate box, so that I could click a county, tweak its color fill, then move on to the next. — Ammodramus (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you've been watching my talk page, but I put in a quick note thanking you and DMFB for your suggestions. The map that he recommended looked like it was just what I needed to work with.

I've been playing with the color scheme a bit, and am now disinclined to use white as one of my colors. I don't like the way that white states on the border look when there's a white background. I'm thinking, instead, of using a light gray: either 239-239-239 or 247-247-247. Do you think that would that work, or would either or both of those be too similar in brightness to yellow (0-255-255)? — Ammodramus (talk) 19:20, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is an aesthetic thing on my part. I'm using white for the area outside the state boundaries, and when one of the border counties is also white, it looks as though the state has a bite taken out of it. I've been trying to make the state's border a little heavier, which might remedy the problem, but my lack of skill with Inkscape is hindering me there; and it's possible that I can't change the state border alone, but would have to do the internal county boundaries as well, which might look nasty.

I'm going to see if I can use dots or diagonal hash-marks on white counties. That'd distinguish them from other-state space. However, chapter 1 of the Netscape tutorial hasn't covered that yet... Ammodramus (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your latest. 239-239-239 works OK for me: it's enough different from 255-255-255 to separate in-state from out-of-state space. Ammodramus (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got the maps done last night, and launched the article this morning. For the four-color map, I threw a touch of red into the light gray; I also lightened up the deep red, since (128-0-0) tended to obscure the county lines. Could you let me know how it works for you? If it's problematic, I can try to fix it and upload a new version; if it's OK, but less than ideal, I'll try to do better should I find myself map-making in the future. Thanks; and thanks again for all the advice leading up to this. — Ammodramus (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Glad that the map works well: I'll keep it as a template should I need to generate maps in the future. Of course, by then I'll have forgotten all the things I've learned about Inkscape in the past 48 hours, and will have to start over again...

Regarding the tie, the Sandhills are not only sparsely populated, but what population there is is overwhelmingly Republican. In 1990, Grant County had 106 registered Democrats and 389 Republicans. 67 of the D's voted in the primary, but 9 apparently didn't vote for a gubernatorial candidate. Of the 58 who voted, 19 each voted for Boyle and Nelson, 12 chose Harris, 7 went for Hoppner, and 1 for Nimic (the pauper theologian-philosopher).

Thanks for your comments on the article. Good to have a critique from someone who's new to the subject: I've been close to it for so long that I miss omissions and misimpressions like those that you noted. I'll try to fix them soon. — Ammodramus (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Think the two issues are fixed now. Thanks, especially, for pointing out the support-oppose thing on LB1059: when I re-read it, I could see how a reader could easily become confused. I made the phrasing more explicit, and also standardized "support" and "oppose" in the paragraph.

Incidentally, there was confusion back in 1990, too. The measure was placed on the ballot by a pro-repeal petition; but a "For" vote meant "Keep 1059", while an "Against" vote meant "Repeal it". The World-Herald, in an editorial on the subject, called attention to this and warned readers to make sure that they were voting the way they thought they were voting. It looks like we'll have a similar situation in November, when a referendum is held on the Legislature's decision to end capital punishment in Nebraska: a vote for "Retain" will retain the Legislature's measure, and eliminate capital punishment; a vote for "Repeal" will repeal the measure and keep the death penalty.([3]) I look forward to lots of confusion and anger in the letters columns in the paper... Ammodramus (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2012 description for file:Union County Public Library in Liberty.jpg, you say it is in both the Liberty Residential Historic District, and the local Liberty Downtown Courthouse Historic District. Based on Residential and Courthouse maps, it now seems clear that it is only in the courthouse district. I'll make the necessary changes. Generic1139 (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only real problem was that the image was in the courthouse NR HD category, and the library isn't there, it is only in the residential NR district. I've (re)adjusted everything. Generic1139 (talk) 20:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits, such as on Butler Institute of American Art are losing needed information to properly work on NRHP articles. All such articles are supposed to be categorized in at least two ways. By NRHP location and by NRHP type of place. You are just leaving them categorized by county location, leaving no hooks for editors to notice the article has not yet been categorized by 'type of place'. And the rule in categorization is that if a category does not exist at one level, then what would be the parent category is used--not deleted. This is used in WP throughout the category system and NRHP is not an exception to that. In this case, there is no NRHP category at the Ohio level for museums of any kind so Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places in Ohio must be used. Then we go up to the national level. In Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places, there also does not seem to be a museum subcategory so that Category:Buildings and structures on the National Register of Historic Places should be added to this article. Why there is no NRHP museum subcategory at either this state or the national level is a mystery, but no one will even notice that the category is missing if the article is not first placed in the categories I mention here for all to see and consider. This is a matter of good editing and helping everyone along in this process. Thanks Hmains (talk) 06:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,Could you consider deleting this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arvind_Lyer&action=info There is no article named Arvind Lyer and it is being redirected to Arvind Iyer.Thank You (Rama2015 (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)).[reply]

Thank You for explaining.Well Taken.(Rama2015 (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)).[reply]

Perhaps you would be willing to trim this edit, and reprimand the editor? Debresser (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this note when you left it, went off to finish what I was working on, and completely forgot to respond; I'm sorry. Because two responses have been left to this edit, redacting "notorious edit-warrior" it would make it look like you and the IP were complaining about the question itself. Has this comment been part of a pattern from Pablo? If not, the two responses should suffice; if so, let me know (with diffs) and I'll respond. Nyttend (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, luckily this is not part of larger pattern. I vaguely remember we had a disagreement quite some while ago, and apparently he never grew over it. Thanks for the offer. Debresser (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo behaves like a real ass,[4] but nothing I can do about it. Debresser (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One thing springs to mind; address the concern that I have with the chosen text that you have edit/revert-warred to restore to the article. The "D" in "BRD" does not stand for "dismiss". pablo 20:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed it, if you haven't noticed. But your unacceptable comments were there from the start. Debresser (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

She continues, even after the block. In this edit she again removes the same content that is clearly in the source. Debresser (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you restore my article for Christiana Louizu, she just won X Factor. Chris Calvin (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article was well done I will add the new ref's when its restored (sources that she won ^[1], ^[2]), this is probably the only article i've made without saving it on my computer, so i need to make it from the beganing and I will basicly made just the same article again, so i'm asking you for help, restoring it will save me like some hours in searching for every song she sign ect. Thank you. Chris Calvin (talk) 05:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Newville, Ohio. I'd like to know your opinion whether such an article is an appropriate use of public-domain material. I find a 100-year-old and overly-detailed description of a place to do more harm than good. Even if it's technically allowed to copy and paste from old books, I have tried to summarize only the most interesting and relevant parts to our readers. How can I go about removing passages like "Major Hogan was a scholar and a gentleman, more devoted to his books then to his business interests." or "It was a sound of music - of men’s and women’s voices mingling harmoniously together in sacred song." As you know I have included references in all of my history sections, but I dread that someone will later fill in my "stubs" by copying long-winded, out-of-context material they can conveniently glean using the link in the References section. – Gilliam (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on File:CFD LED Free convection heat sink design.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've seen your message at Check Wikipedia. Sorry if I answer here but I'm not confident enough about the regexes I've found. Unfortunately, a search like this is too broad, since it includes 2,000 external links hiding in fake footnotes, some math formulas, and also many hand-made footnotes, like the <sup>[19]</sup> in Intraventricular hemorrhage (coupled with a <small> in the References section). Other searches like these:

• insource:/\<sup>\[[Cc]itation (needed|required)\]\<\/sup>/
• insource:/\<sup>\[[']*[Ww]h(o|en)['\?]*\]\<\/sup>/

are too narrow, sorry. Good find anyway. --CX42 (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are photos I took and uploaded per your request:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bon_Air_Flats_in_Cincinnati1.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bon_Air_Flats_in_Cincinnati2.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bon_Air_Flats_in_Cincinnati3.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohawk_Place_Historic_District_in_Cincinnati1.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mohawk_Place_Historic_District_in_Cincinnati2.jpg

Regards,– Gilliam (talk) 21:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep coming back, but you've been so helpful, and you're already aware of the situation. FL or Atlanta has returned, and began a slow edit war ([5], [6], and [7]) and taken up ownership of the article. He's also tried to start a mediation request where he's excluded the other editors who have helped me (actually, one of them put a lot more work in than I) to fix the page. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nyttend:Thanks for your input. I could put together a collection of diffs showing that he's being extremely dishonest, but (while I understand you probably wouldn't mind) I'm reluctant to go against your opinion at the moment. I'll save that for if and when it becomes necessary. I'd be willing to go through with another RfM, so long as he doesn't try to rephrase the content issue to bias the process in his favor again. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. I had indeed misunderstood you (obviously). However, I'm still reluctant to go seeking sanctions at AN/I, as I loathe the idea of being the guy who runs to the admins over a situation that might get resolved elsewhere. For now, I intend to follow through with the mediation, as I have every expectation of any reasonable, uninvolved party seeing that Original Position and I are in the right. Maybe it will be enough to convince them to stop trashing the article. I don't hold much hope, but if there's any, it's worth a shot.

Of course, if you happen to look into it and feel that sanctions are necessary, don't let my squeamishness stop you from doing your job. I can show you some diffs if you get the time and inclination. Honestly, that's exactly what I expect to happen if you do look into what FLoA's been on about lately. it's what I would do if I were an admin. But I only really care about the article, so if mediation can resolve it, that works for me. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nyttend. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Anne Seisen Saunders".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at Lincoln Place Apartment Homes#Today and Park Towne Place#The_Penthouses_at_Park_Towne_Place? Is my sensitivity set too high for ad detection? After a revert or two with now at least some type of reference, I still think they are not within scope. Generic1139 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Nope, I agree that both of those sections look like real estate ads rather than descriptions of historic buildings. I think all we need to say is that the buildings are still used as apartments, and maybe some info if they've been significantly renovated, but the stuff about amenities and the peacock terms don't belong. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir,In a biographical Wiki article,upon the request upon whom the page is based on,how does one add the NO INDEX template so that the Page is not indexed by Search Engines.Thank You (Rama2015 (talk) 03:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Sorted.Thank You.(Rama2015 (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC))[reply]

I'm assuming you remember this discussion and decision on ANI - [[11]]

For a short while, I actually thought it was working nicely. I managed to devote my wiki-time to expanding/improving far more articles than I usually manage, but then I had a minor issue, so I wanted to ask your advice, rather than open up a new can of worms on ANI. If you would rather me pass this on to a different admin, please let me know.

Anyway...the issue:

I saw this article Yamaha FZR250 had been deleted and changed to a redirect, so I checked the history and saw that the deleting editor wasn't the guy that I'm not supposed to interact with, so I restored the article, added a couple of images with the plan to expand on it, and make it into something worth keeping.

That was yesterday. Today, I find that the editor I'm not supposed to interact with (and vice versa obviously) has put this article up for deletion. Granted, he didn't revert my edit. If someone wants to act like a wikilawyer, it could be claimed that as he didn't mention me or revert my edit, he is within the rules on the interaction ban. But, it's certainly not within the spirit of the interaction ban. Well, at least that's how I see it.

There were a number of similar articles that were also put of for deletion by the same editor, so I wondered for a moment if it was a coincidence, but when I checked the order in which they were put up for deletion, the one I was working on was nominated for deletion first, and the rest were added later.

What do you think? Is this something that I am overreacting about, and better ignored? Is this blatantly against the spirit of the interaction ban? Is it worth me making an ANI report (which I really don't want to do, I'm enjoying not being the reporter/reportee on such reports right now) Is there another less stressful way to deal with this? Any advice would be welcome & thanks Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that nameless editor should have stayed away from the article: nominating for deletion is a backhanded way violating "undo each other's edits to any page, whether by use of the revert function or by other means". I cannot in good faith close that AfD as disruptive, though I was tempted to do so. Obviously, Dennis Bratland makes things more difficult for himself by starting that AfD, where you should be entitled to comment. So here's the deal (Nyttend, feel free to think whatever you want to think): I think you should be allowed to comment at the AfD, and Dennis cannot respond to you. At all. Drmies (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's an upcoming problem you'll likely have to consider. The thread at Talk:MoS that became a battleground over a certain word is due to close shortly, as per discussion here. Most likely a new "untainted" discussion will begin, as per the statement by  SMcCandlish:

"There is no consensus to import any of the WP:TONE essay wording into MoS. There is some support for the idea of having MoS say a bit more on the matter, but we'll need to defer that for a discussion that drafts and proposes such an addition."

I can see this future discussion turning into a continuation of the first, if not thoughtfully handled.

There's a recent edit - a short and insubstantial one - at Talk:MoS that leads me to suspect that one of the parties to the four IBANs might attempt to "mark" any such discussion so that the other parties could be either excluded or have to tread very carefully in discussion. It might be worthwhile heading off any problem before it becomes one. SMcCandlish looks to have a good handle on the situation and may be able to offer advice. --Pete (talk) 15:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you'd like to clarify - for the information of all - just how far you consider this topic ban to extend. As per SMcCandlish, the proposed continuation would not consider any specific words, but the question of how much of WP:TONE might be imported into WP:MOS. In your opinion, is a broad discussion on the style of Wikivoice a breach of a very specific topic ban?

And is a lightweight interjection in a new discussion by one party to an IBAN sufficient to "poison the well" for the other(s)? --Pete (talk) 16:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Four things to cover: I think the principal way to deal with it is going to be to be refuse to enable any "winningest"-related quasi-trolling. If someone wants to go on about it, say "this isn't about that word, this is a general issue". If an argument about "winningest" breaks out again, refactor it immediately to its own section. If you need to respond to something "winningest"-related in someone's !vote on an RfC or whatever, use {{Rationale discussion}} to redirect commentary about it to the "Discussion" section below the RfC. And so on. Just don't let it become mired in "winningest" venting. Cite WP:REFACTOR; it's perfectly valid to fork threads for focus and relevance, and to relocate off-topic commentary, though some people tend to whine and even revert-war about it. Same technique can be used to head off other such disruption.

I'm not even aware of any bans relating to "winningest", much less to whom they may pertain, so for all I know there's another camp I didn't notice yet who are pushing on tone/register matters other than the "winningest" camps (both the word's haters and its boosters; I think most of us are in the "maybe okay in North American sports jargon, don't use it more broadly" middle ground, based on the sources that show usage thus far). Re: "poisoning the WP:IBAN / WP:TBAN well": I think it would be interpreted as WP:BATTLEGROUNDing and WP:GAMING (with WP:BOOMERANG consequences) to try to "bring up on charges" anyone for participating in such a thread just because someone somewhere in it mentioned a verboten subject and a TBANned party didn't notice, or if two IBANned parties both comment in the same thread but avoid addressing each other directly. But, if the thread were to dwell, for better or worse, on that subject to a large extent, a TBAN would probably apply, and if two IBANned parties dominate the thread but dance around, not quite directly responding to each other, that would surely be seen as a problem. Cf. WP:COMMONSENSE, basically.

Moving on, For the record, I (along with someone(s) else, I forget who), don't think it's a good idea to import wording directly from an essay, but rather write something new, uncontroversial, and concise that adds to MOS whatever we think is really necessary to add and which reflects ground-truth WP consensus on the matter, and maybe even update the essay to agree with the new MoS wording. I agree the essay's a good place to look to get our current general approach to the question, though. The risk in just copying wording over is encouraging others with "pet" essays to try to insert their language into MoS as well, a long-standing problem MoS has had, especially with wikiprojects' wannabe-style-guide advice essays. (In one case we had 8 solid years of over-capitalization WP:SSF and WP:FAITACCOMPLI antagonism to force MOS to obey a style "standard" that doesn't even have much real-world support in the field to which it pertains.)

All that said, most of MOS's topical style advice, in MOS subpages and in MOS itself, came ultimately from wikiprojects. I don't want to sound "anti-project"; it's the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS stuff from some people in some projects that's the problem, not the projects themselves. I'm a multi-project founder myself, and am about to start another that we've needed for a very long time – see draft at User:SMcCandlish/WikiProject English Language, and feel free to sign on as a participant now, so I have support when I take it to WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]