User:Zzyzx11/Archive32

This 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.

Request for comment

As a significant contributor to the article United States presidential election, 2016, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

California State Route 211

Greetings, Thank you for your edits on California State Route 211. There are a couple of other intersections you might wish to mark, from Ferndale city limits going towards Fernbridge, "Market Street", "Port Kenyon Road", and "Waddington Road" (google has Substation Road). If not, no biggie, but I thought you might like to put the other three roads. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Although there is a guideline for these types of tables at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Road junction lists, there has been some debate as to what counts as "major" at-grade intersections. Even Goble Lane and Sage Road may be questionable for the looks of them. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympics.svg

A tag has been placed on File:PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympics.svg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

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. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Issue with protection of List of National Football League officials

A week ago, you protected this article from editing by non-autoconfirmed users [1]. This was apparently in response to two vandal edits by User:68.231.165.129. Given that this was single point vandalism, and a block of the IP would have solved the problem, protecting the article was unwarranted. Further, IP editors have been editing the article productively (example). Protecting the article from editing for much of the remainder of this season is wrong. Please remove the protection. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I mistakenly put the expiry date to a longer time instead of my intention of only a few days, so I have therefore removed it for now. However, I disagree with your assessment that the initial protection on "the article was unwarranted" due to that fact that this Greg Wilson made a severely controversial call in a match last week that potentially gave the game to the Seattle Seahawks instead of the Detroit Lions.[2]

Maybe it would have also been probably clearer if I specified "WP:BLP violations" in the blocking summary instead of just "vandalism". Blocking the first IP that made BLP violations against Wilson's entry on that list article would not have necessarily "solved the problem" during those few days after the game as such relatively game-ending controversial calls in the NFL generally receives recent high level of U.S. sports media interest, and thus also generate numerous BLP violations from other IPs towards said NFL game officials. The vandalism was redirected to that page because there is no specific article on Wilson himself. This list of NFL officials is the closest thing we current have (and even though it is a list page, WP:BLP still also covers "material about living persons in other articles and on other pages").

In such a case with a recurring Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons-issue regarding the controversial calls by sports game officials, there should be some WP:IAR leeway here and protect at the first sign of trouble (or should we must wait until an article on a sports referee or game official is definitely bombarded by BLP violations like, for example, the Yuichi Nishimura article was on 12 June 2014 after this referee made a controversial call in a 2014 FIFA World Cup game? That is one of the example of the several cases I have come across). Furthermore, if there were more active admins on these NFL articles, or reviewers knowing specifically why an article is on pending changes, I might not be that inclined to lean more towards such an IAR in this BLP situation. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joe Buck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2015 U.S. Open (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) 09:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Indianapolis Colts

Although I agree that the Colts have won four championships (not five), the article should still list their 1968 NFL Championship. For instance, the article on the Green Bay Packers lists their 1966 and 1967 NFL Championships while still stressing that those two championships aren't counted in the overall total of 13 championships.50.136.139.204 (talk) 02:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

World Series Programs

First off, thanks for clarifying on the Template:Current Sport. Second, I believe that all of the World Series Programs fall under non-free rationale since it is: one of the primary means of identification for the articles, and could be seen as the equivalent of music cover art, but for sports. I'm writing this on your talk page, because I noticed you had seemed to be putting the no fair use rationale on many of the World Series programs and I'm not sure how many you marked. Also, I'd rather have the discussion in one location rather than across all of the different Programs' talk page. Elisfkc (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not disputing whether your explanation is valid. I merely marked those non-free images because they each are missing that suitable rationale. This is detailed on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Using the boilerplate {{non-free book cover}} copyright tag or the {{Information}} tag is not enough. Thus, if you wish to keep them, please edit each image (per the directions on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline#Template) to include what you just posted above. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks for clarifying. I appreciate the straight-forward answer. Elisfkc (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

How margin of error works — Statewide opinion polling, Democratic Party primaries, 2016

User All4peace (talk) has initiated a discussion, on the article talk page on English Wikipedia about how we present MOE.

I would very‐much appreciate your participation ! Info por favor (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz Stadium‎

@Red Jay and BilCat:. Apologies, I was actually on to him all along at the very start of the RM discussion, and immediately began to compile evidence.[3] I know that both of you attempted to seek help. I just did not want to tip him off early so that he would reveal more evidence/socks/possibly more sleeper accounts. I got to know him quite well after this incident with one of his socks. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. It became obvious as time went on that we were dealing with the socks of an fairly experienced master, but I had idea who it was. Glad to know someone was watching. - BilCat (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Same here, it seemed obvious something was going off. Glad it's sorted now. Red Jay (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like he/she's not ready to give up yet. Facepalm See these edits by User:97.47.66.148 and User:97.47.67.254. I've reverted as vandalism. - BilCat (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Re:Saint Peter

Just because I referenced an American doctor and am American, doesn't mean I am trying to impose an American English empire or whatever. I just was using Dr. for Doctor as an example. The Same would go for Mr. for Mister. You don't spell out Mister Jones, etc. You write Mr. Jones. I was just using Dr. Oz as an example. NapoleonX (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

B.Güven

Hi, I represent Birol Güven and his company on social media. He is an important celebrity in Turkey and his Turkish wiki page is: (türkçe wiki adresini gir buraya) We understand that other people have created an English wiki page for Birol Güven for before and it was deleted. We'd like to create a new page in accordance with Wikipedia rules. What can we do to create this page? Could you help us? (https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birol_G%C3%BCven) 88.240.126.70 (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

2015 NFL season games

I've taken off the deletion tag. Of course it should have more accompanying text, but it should be noted that much of that is already in 2015 NFL season, of which this would just be a section if it wasn't so long. The rules you quoted (NSEASON and SPORTSEVENT) don't seem to apply here, since this is neither a team season page, or an article on an individual game. Documenting the results of a season seems standard practice on Wikipedia for other sports, e.g. the EPL, so with this page I decided to fill in that obvious gap in Wikipedia for the NFL. The fact you can find all of it on the NFL website hardly seems relevant, that can be said for most of what is on Wikipedia, especially sports related information. If it was originally intended that Wikipedia not to be a sports alamanac which lists detailed stats like individual results in tables etc, that ship seems to have sailed already. Ricard62 (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Having said all that, I have had a change of mind and have just transferred the reg. season results into a section in the main season article under "Results", using multiple collapse boxes (1 per week) to ensure it's not too long. How does that look to you? It meets my original goal (to document the season results all in one place, rather than in each team-season page) - obv. the post-season bracket was already there - and gets around the obvious issue of having a page which was essentially just a table, with no accompanying text. Note that since you last looked, I also added a date column, and a column with a link to the relevant game section on each team-season page. I hope that it's clear now how it is of potential use to readers (who might not have realised every game is detailed on team-season pages), and fills a gap in information on the season page (I can't stress how odd it looks to have a season article which goes into great detail into a whole host of detail which most people would consider minutia, but without actually listing the regular season schedule/results - arguably the single most important thing to document about the season, other than who got what playoff place and the p/s results). Ricard62 (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's OK. Standard practice is, like you did transferred the reg. season results into a section in the main season article, or something like 2015–16 Premier League#Result table, to put the scores are included in other pages. The objection was having a stand-alone page with no citations and only tables with no accompanying text. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I am interested to edit Cupa României finals and I see that 1974 Cupa României Final was deleted by you, can I acces the information from the article ? Maybe I can find usefull informations there. Or if you restore the article I would correct it if is the case ! Thank you !--185.72.178.161 (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

1975 Cupa României Final - also with this article !--185.72.178.161 (talk) 23:30, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If you read that I was the one who deleted those pages, you should have also noticed that I put in the summary, G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban. Blocking is the method by which Wikipedia administrators technically prevent users from editing Wikipedia; while a ban is a formal prohibition from editing some or all Wikipedia pages, or a formal prohibition from making certain types of edits on Wikipedia pages. A person is blocked or banned when he or her has been repeatedly disruptive to Wikipedia. The general rule is one editor, one account: someone who is banned or blocked may not use alternative accounts (known as sock puppet accounts) to evade such blocks and further create or edit pages on Wikipedia. In most cases (like in this one), such edits made by a sock puppet account are to be reverted, and pages created are to be deleted. Other editors in turn are not permitted to re-post the same material unless they can independently show that the changes are verifiable and productive. In other words, if you are willing to "correct it if is the case", could you also independently find the same or similar information that the blocked editor found for these two topics? The two articles will need to be re-started from scratch. And since I'm not too familiar with editing these football articles, I can forward you to a couple of editors who could better assist you. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

St. Louis Rams roster navbox

Just letting you know that it's currently broken. It appears as normal on player articles, and has them highlighted within, but attempting to click view or edit in the corner says the template doesn't exist. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

On the National Football League Players Association page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
On the SAG-AFTRA page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Bracket template

Hi Zzyzx11.

I have noticed that you have worked on some bracket templates and after trying some in one of my sandboxes (without saving) I realise that I need help. So I wonder if you could possibly help me?

The bracket I need is a 10 team bracket for 2015–16 SHL season where the top six teams qualify for quarter-finals while the teams placed 7-10 plays round of 16 for the final two spots in the quarter-finals. Previously we have used Template:8TeamBracket-Re-seeds so I was thinking that could be used as a base and expanded to "Round of 16" with two pairings and the note about re-seeding could be at the bottom saying it will be reseeded after both Round of 16 and Quarter-finals? I was thinking the two extra pairings in Round of 16 could be at the same "height" as Semi-finals pairings.

Do you think it is possible and can you help? There is absolutely no rush, and only if you feel like it, or I will keep trying myself or ask for help somewhere else.

Any response is appreciated. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Have you looked in Category:10-Team bracket templates? I think you are looking for something like Template:10TeamBracketReSeedsBronze, without the bronze medal game. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I have looked a little bit but could not find a "perfect match" and although Template:10TeamBracketReSeedsBronze without bronze is what I am looking for, I like the little more "tight" view of Template:8TeamBracket-Re-seeds. Qed237 (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: I have made some modifications on your User:Qed237/sandbox5 (which I assume is the page you are working on).[4] I have not tested it yet. And you'll need to update the parameter names since I was using Template:8TeamBracket-Re-seeds as a base without changing the existing ones: the ones for the first round of 16 currently have "RD0" as the prefix. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very very much, it is perfect. I made a small correction and moved the text about re-seeding and also updated the round parameters as well as the default values for those parameters. And yes it was sandbox 5 I made some tests in. Do you think a new template could be created now with the current look? Something like "Template:10TeamBracketReSeeds"? Once again, a big thank you! Qed237 (talk) 00:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you to create the template once you finish whatever additional changes you need to make. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay great, once again thank you very much. Qed237 (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Green Bay Packers

Thank you so much for catching my mistake on that. I was responding to a requested edit from the talk page and lifted their references onto the article as I was working and forgot to delete the extraneous content before I hit "submit". Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

2016 Heritage Classic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Heritage Classic

United States presidential election (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Liberal Republican Party

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interstate 105 (California), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Norwalk Metro Station (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) 10:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

File:SbX.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SbX.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2006 MLB All-Star Game.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2006 MLB All-Star Game.png. 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) 17:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:30/500 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:30/500. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:30/500 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:01, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited McClure Tunnel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Verify (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) 12:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Error message?

After this edit, I'm getting an error message at the bottom of WP:TFAA saying "Error: Invalid time." I don't know why. - Dank (push to talk) 13:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Forgot to add a pipe character to specify a blank parameter default.[5] Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Move protection removal from Washington Redskins

There has never been any attempted move of this article, and the original reason for move-protecting this article is now invalid, so I am requesting that this article be un-move protected. Thanks. — Music1201 ^talk 16:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, the article was under vandalism at the time because the "Redskins" name is controversial, so I did both forms of protection at the time. Per WP:MOVP: "Highly visible pages that have no reason to be moved". There was also a discussion about changing the name that is archived here, and there are probably more elsewhere because of this name controversy. Also per WP:POLICY, "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense", so I felt that since the "Redskins" name was being vandalized in the article body itself, it would be only common sense to do WP:IAR and also apply move protection. Please explain why this original reason is now invalid even though the controversy regarding the name still exists, is still recently in the news[6][7][8] and there is currently no reason to move the article. Please help me out so I can make an informed decision. I have had bad experiences in the past where I had removed protection on such controversial subjects only to have vandals return again, and thus had to apply protection once again. Otherwise, I feel that it would be unwise to just blindly, employ strict hard-and-fast Wikipedia rules. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I see you originally posted your request on WP:UNPROTECT, but forgot to ping me first here. I have thus cross-posted my concerns there to ask for a third opinion, so you may answer there instead on here.[9] Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

A reply has been made.[10] Any further comments should be made there. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:WikiProject New England Patriots

Template:WikiProject New England Patriots has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning

Hi. Thanks for the fixes to Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning! The use of plurality instead of majority caught my eye as well and I meant to follow-up at some point. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

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)

Please restore these images

File:CanalFamilleLogo.svg and File:VRAKTV1.jpg were in fact in use until someone improperly removed them. Please restore them (I can provide non-free rationales as needed). Mdrnpndr (talk) 19:22, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

These logos were deleted three years ago under WP:CSD#F5 - orphaned non-free use images. They were apparently removed from the Vrak article on grounds that they somehow violated WP:NFTABLE - the use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable. Thus I need to see what non-free rationales you plan on posting so that they:

Answer the question on Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline#Necessary components that reads, "What purpose does the image serve in the article?"
If used in a gallery or table, explain per WP:NFTABLE that an exception would be "very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered"

I'm not going to restore them if they'll eventually get deleted again for not complying with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. I have noticed that non-free images of various past/old logos of a number TV stations and channels have been periodically removed from articles time to time for not complying with these policies. Even the one on File:VRAK TV.svg is now questionable because it uses one of the standard, boilerplate "purpose of use" explanations that is suppose to be only used for a primary logo/primary means of identification image (which is now File:VrakTV2014logo.png). Thank you. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about putting them back in a table. However, the use of historical logos in cases where they differ substantially from the current one is not only widely accepted but nearly considered a requirement for purposes of subject identification by the reader. The images should be placed next to the prose where the relevant historical eras are discussed. Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, please provide a citation for your claim that the boilerplate explanation is only supposed to be used for the primary image. Mdrnpndr (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I have temporarily restored them, pending on what you can do to modify both the articles and the images. This does not guarantee that they will be free from being not deleted in the future. As for the policy I was referring to, sorry I misquoted it. Wikipedia:Non-free content#Implementation actually states, "editors are cautioned that these are generally tenuous in terms of supporting WP:NFCC#8, and are encouraged to improve upon rationales if they can do so. You are not required to use the template forms, but whatever form you chose needs to clearly address all 10 points in WP:NFCC". So it is more thatthe boilerplate explanations should be used subjectively on a case-by-case basis. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Update (and another request)

I have re-added both images to the article, along with a significant amount of new content related to them. I have also removed the current historical logo in the article as it is essentially a subset of one of the restored logos. I tagged this image for deletion, along with one I had already removed.

Now I would like to ask: could you please restore File:Le Canal Famille.png as well so I can compare it to File:CanalFamilleLogo.svg? This file was deleted by another admin, but that admin seems to be mostly inactive now. I plan to pick only one of these two images, but I need to have both available for comparison first. Mdrnpndr (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

If you notice, after I restored it, that appears to be a different logo. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but they are probably similar enough to only keep one in the article, so I chose the one that seems to have the most historical value and marked the other for deletion. Thank you for your help with undeleting these files! Mdrnpndr (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Major Intersections (California)

Thanks for the constructive edits of California highway's major intersections. Rest areas are useful additions to these junction lists and significant typos were fortunately edited. Again, †hank you.

-From a monitor of California's routes, Kevon kevono (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC) 15:35 (PDT)

Infobox television errors

I only happened across the edits at The Young and the Restless because Asim1212's edits placed the article into an error category. I've been fixing articles as they've been added to Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters. The work has been fairly constant, as soon as you fix one article, another gets added, and The Young and the Restless was no different. In past days most of the problems have been related to Pakistan and India, so I find it strange that the url being added by Asim1212 was registered in one of those countries. I hope it's only a coincidence. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: - unless they have also been adding questionable links, I hope its a coincidence as well. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

50.253.212.229

Thank you for blocking 50.253.212.229 (talk · contribs). A 3-hour block probably won't do much, as he's been at this game for about 10 days now. But at least it's something. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Monterey Road (California)#Major intersections

From Monterey Road's southern terminus, is using US 101 north a faster and more direct route to Los Angeles than using US 101 south?

Kevon kevono (talk) 20:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)13:53 (PDT)

Huh? If you use 101 north to try to get to LA, you are going in the opposite direction. If you are actually asking whether 101 or Monterey Road is generally a faster route through Gilroy and Morgan Hill, then it probably depends on the time of day: 101 is a freeway with no signals, but can get backed up during commute time or when events like the Gilroy Garlic Festival is going on. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Or, are you asking what happens if you take 101 north to SR 152 and then cut across east to I-5? Then that is probably faster as there are little urban areas down I-5, as opposed to going straight down 101 through San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the second one. And it's a more direct route, by a few miles.

Kevon kevono (talk) 03:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC) 20:07 (PDT)

Category:Streets in the San Gabriel Valley

I have undone this edit because the San Gabriel Valley is located in Los Angeles County, not in San Bernardino County (though some of the streets, such as Arrow Highway, do extend into San Bernardino County). Also, I believe that streets in the San Gabriel Valley should of necessity be a subcategory of Category:San Gabriel Valley. p b p 15:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Falcons stadium listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Falcons stadium. Since you had some involvement with the Falcons stadium redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Wishva de Silva | Talk 12:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal and reinsertion of Major US Cities template

As in this edit, why did you reinsert the Template:Major US Cities after having removed it here and in other articles? Alansohn (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@Alansohn: I forgot to check WP:TFD/H#To orphan before removing and deleting the template. Another admin wanted the deletion procedure postponed and instead to be used as a test case for a bot, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BU RoBOT 26, which if approved would make such removals faster. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:07, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

San José

I didn't see your comment there until after the RM closed. The short answer is that article titles are not magically immune to MOS or any other content guidelines. The idea that there is some kind of conflict between AT and MOS is a wiki-myth; the style rules in AT and its NC guideline pages are derived from MOS, and we totally routinely apply MOS:DIACRITICS at RM. There have been surely hundreds of cases now (the most obvious being the tennis and ice hockey wikiproject's attempts to strip diacritics from player names that properly have them on the basis that sports governing bodies tend to drop them and news journalism in the US tends to do so also). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 15:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I've addressed this in much more detail at the university RM, where you're misinterpreting multiple policypages. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 19:50, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Replied there. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Numbers 15:32 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Numbers 15:32. Since you had some involvement with the Numbers 15:32 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Your edit summary was correct. Approximately 11 years later, but still. Thank you, —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 07:18, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm neutral. At the time, I was not an admin, and Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chronological summary of the 2016 Summer Olympics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michelle Carter (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) 10:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Umar Khalid

This page was deleted through AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar Khalid (2nd nomination). --Marvellous Spider-Man 03:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Dolphins Stadium

this needs to re directed to Hard Rock Stadium you have locked it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.103.106 (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

NHL timeline graph

I just noticed that your edit to List of defunct and relocated National Hockey League teams was what caused me to notice the issue now being discussed at Talk:List of defunct and relocated National Hockey League teams#lockout gap and Ducks timeline. So thought I should ping you. timeline syntax isn't my favorite, so not sure if the issue precedes your edit or not. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Apparent Vandalism on 2000–01 NFL playoffs

Someone cleaned up some vandalism on the above article. You reverted them and restored the vandalism. The Vikings actually scored no points in that game. [11] I was going to template you for vandalism, but seeing your history I would assume this was some type of mistake and that you didn't purposefully re-vandalize the article. I manually fixed the box score instead. Just wanted to let you know what was going on. Sperril (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, apparently I did click on the wrong version to revert to. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Why did you insist on having the Stanley Cup Finals broadcasters article deleted

I've noticed that spear-headed the campaign to have that particular article deleted from Wikipedia. It isn't fair that the National Hockey League's premiere championship event doesn't have its own individual article for its broadcasters while other sports do. That article took a really long time to set up and put together to just let it go by the waste-side. And just because they aren't fully sourced on the proper article itself, doesn't necessarily mean that they aren't non the less, more thoroughly sourced on the respective articles for said television networks. BornonJune8 (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

My comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Stanley Cup Western Conference Finals broadcasters should have been clear. All three articles did not have much reliable sources. And most of the year, they were primarily edited by IPs, which (with the lack of good reliable sources) made it very difficult to determine what what verifiable and what was vandalism. Your comment reminds me of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#There must be sources. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

So why not complain/go after the people or person (for whom, mind you, has been repeatedly warned and even temporarily blocked over his/her random/sloppy edits) who was quite bluntly, vandalizing the articles? If anything, they were exasperating the problem, not helping or contributing. And it isn't like you, yourself couldn't help in contributing any reliable sources to help bolster the article. BornonJune8 (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2016

It's not my job to "rescue" every article that, quite frankly, probably should have never been started in the first place due to little or no reliable sources, including a number of these broadcaster lists. And again, most of these edits were numerous unregistered IPs, which makes long-term blocking problematic. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:17, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a on going and perhaps never ending "work in progress" (meaning that there's always going to be "room for improvement" and time to grow) so to say that I shouldn't have started said articles in the first place is extremely condescending. Not everything is going to be "perfect" at first or all at once immediately. And my point is that it's very ironic that you would complain about there lacking in sources on a particular article that intrigues you, when you want do anything to help rectify said problem. If it's not "your job to rescue" every said article, then why does it always have to be "my job" to point out or detect what's immediate "right or wrong"? I guess that I'm the "real problem" and not the IP users (it isn't like you can't message them to tell them to "knock it off" w/ their vandalizing). BornonJune8 (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2016

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Zzyzx11. 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)

	Archives 1 \| 2 \| 3 \| 4 \| 5 \| 6 \| 7 \| 8 \| 9 \| 10 \| 11 \| 12 \| 13 \| 14 \| 15 \| 16 \| 17 \| 18 \| 19 \| 20 \| 21 \| 22 \| 23 \| 24 \| 25 \| 26 \| 27 \| 28 \| 29 \| 30 \| 31 \| 32 \| 33 \| 34
Current time: Thursday, November 28, 2024, 23:44 (UTC) Last edit: February 28, 2023, 19:42 (UTC) by MalnadachBot (talk · contribs)