User talk:DatGuy/Archives/2016/October

ticket:2016093010015506

Apologies for so abruptly appropriating this ticket, but the customers of the underlying ticket were getting a little confused. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

@Storkk: No problem! Is the ID [1] still fine? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:08, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's crucial to update it. It's one extra click for an agent in the future, but on the other hand, it was originally submitted as that ticket number, and you were the agent. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map permanently

The module has again become scene of constant edit-warring. Three different users (or possibly even only one) have added some of the same edits with two unregistered editors making the exact same edits: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Now interestingly enough, the unregistered editor who made [this revert also changed Dulab to IS control, something another unregistered editor with a vastly different IP range had done. And he didn't realise until later on that I had sourced Dulab's capture by Iraqi Army earlier. Obviously he only came here to revert, but how did he make the exact same edits out of the blue? This is starting to seem like a possible sockpuppetry. Regardless, the module has been becoming scene of dispute again.

In addition, I have made three reverts however have reverted a registered user only once per sanctions limit. The other reverts are of unregistered users. [6], [7], [8].

Discussions on the module have often yielded results. However, it will be difficult to discuss it with unregistered editors who might not notice it and some unregistered users might also try to exploit the fact that their IP address and even ranges keep changing. The Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map is semi-protected to prevent edit-warring. I will like to therefore request Iraqi insurgency module to be semi-protected as well to prevent edit-warring. Newsboy39 (talk) 06:01, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@Maxim and Xaosflux: I realised I fucked up, I'm fixing it now with the bot account (should be considered the same task, right?) Thing was that I had /n at the start, but some pages had WikiProject Serbia at the top, so it should've had /n at the end. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 19:09, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

If you haven't yet, yes you can do a one-off run to repair your bot run. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Xaosflux Yes, I've already done it. Musik and I looked over some of the edits now and it seems all good. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 19:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Non-english articles

When tagging articles that are not in english, {{Not English}} provides an link to google translate to decide whether CSD it or not which is essitinal for reviewers. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I'm been doing} 22:37, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

@KGirlTrucker81: Thing is, he might be famous and have 30 billion articles about him in the original language. There are featured articles on the Hebrew Wikipedia that don't have articles on the English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DatGuy (talk • contribs) 22:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The future of NPP and AfC - progress

Thank you for joining the The future of NPP and AfC Work Group

There have been been recent discussions and some special task pages have been created. for your attention and input. Please visit the following pages to get up to speed and add your comments, particularly the straw polls and priority lists. Please also add these pages to your watchlist.

• en:Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC/To do
• en:Wikipedia talk:The future of NPP and AfC

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	For our newest (*shrug* probably) bot operator! Well done for sticking through it, you should be proud of yourself for working it all out -- samtar talk or stalk 14:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks bud! Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cortana (software)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cortana (software) 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 Falcon Kirtaran -- Falcon Kirtaran (talk) 05:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cortana (software)

The article Cortana (software) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Cortana (software) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Falcon Kirtaran -- Falcon Kirtaran (talk) 06:40, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cortana (software)

The article Cortana (software) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cortana (software) 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 Falcon Kirtaran -- Falcon Kirtaran (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You

		The Invisible Barnstar
		For posting that block notice when I couldn't get on. Many thanks for that. You saved me. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Rocky De La Fuente reversion

You recently reverted a series of edits on Rocky De La Fuente. In doing so, you reverted the addition of some tags (mainly POV) that I had added, and that are still applicable to the article in its reverted state (basically, you reverted it to about halfway through a series of problematic edits that have been going on since yesterday.) As I do not want to be marked as having another reversion at this point, I ask that you review your edit and either restore the tags or revert the article to an earlier point, that doesn't have the recently-added problem material that I've brought up on the Talk page. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Restored. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:20, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi DatGuy, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 05:18, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DatBot 2

Your BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DatBot 2) has been approved for a trial run. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Task approved, happy editing. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thank you. By the way, for some reason the number of pages rose up to around 4.6k last time I checked. Perhaps I clicked "make list" twice? Anyways, if you see the amount of pages increase, then that's why :D. Also, do you know how to run a bot on the toollabs (is that what it's called now?) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any running over there right now - will have to check around. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Please don't the same parameter twice

you should check for tdf before adding it a second time. I have cleaned up several of these this morning. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Ah, I see. Baldboris could've made it more clear. I've changed it now so that it'll skip the article if it's already there. I'll review around 100 of the following bot's edits to see if they're fine. Cheers, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

okay, they will pop up on Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not cool to shift the blame due your inexperience. It's pretty obvious to add skip if contains |tdf=yes, even if it might not get used. I asked you to add it to the cyclists cat. From what I can see there was only one added by me who was also in Category:Tour de France people. you you... BaldBoris 18:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, sorry if you felt I was "shifting the blame." That's probably me trying to fix another issue. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DatBot 2

Your BRFA (Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/DatBot 2) has been approved for a trial run. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Task approved, happy editing. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Thank you. By the way, for some reason the number of pages rose up to around 4.6k last time I checked. Perhaps I clicked "make list" twice? Anyways, if you see the amount of pages increase, then that's why :D. Also, do you know how to run a bot on the toollabs (is that what it's called now?) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have any running over there right now - will have to check around. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Please don't the same parameter twice

you should check for tdf before adding it a second time. I have cleaned up several of these this morning. Frietjes (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Ah, I see. Baldboris could've made it more clear. I've changed it now so that it'll skip the article if it's already there. I'll review around 100 of the following bot's edits to see if they're fine. Cheers, Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

okay, they will pop up on Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls. Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not cool to shift the blame due your inexperience. It's pretty obvious to add skip if contains |tdf=yes, even if it might not get used. I asked you to add it to the cyclists cat. From what I can see there was only one added by me who was also in Category:Tour de France people. you you... BaldBoris 18:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, sorry if you felt I was "shifting the blame." That's probably me trying to fix another issue. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 18:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

WMF waiting for our NPP short list

Hi, It's now been three weeks since we created the NPP Work Group and we are hoping for a dynamic push forward for the urgent updates and required improvements to the quality control of new pages.

We now have the attention of the WMF and their development team has made page patrolling a top priority. They are already working hard to address some of the major issues.

The success of this depends on our team being able to keep the developers supplied with the feedback they need - if we relax on this they will move on.

If you have not already done so, please complete your list of 10 preferences here as soon as possible from the list at To do - the WMF is waiting for our shortlist. Please note that No.8 (NOINDEX) has already been addressed.

Thanks for all your help. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanx for your help

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Great team work - Mlpearc (open channel) 21:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget poor Broncos and Mariners fan Floquenbeam. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 21:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

:-)

Great stuff DG. Thanks for bringing a smile to my Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 17:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

:-)

Great stuff DG. Thanks for bringing a smile to my Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 17:13, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Help me!

Regarding Lapankuri. See ლაფანყური (in the infobox). It contains a pushpin INSIDE the green area? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:50, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@DatGuy: I don't see a pushpin? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 16:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As near as I can tell, it's just a standard pushpin map but it happens to use File:GEO-KK-TL.svg as the base (as opposed to something plain like File:Outline Map of Kakheti.svg. So to get the pushpin into the green area, move the image in Lapankuri's infobox from |image map= to |pushpin map=. Primefac (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Reopening. Following error occurs (and the map doesn't show):

Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

being sorted in IRC. Primefac (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Forgot the user part, sorry about that and thanks for picking it up. AIRcorn (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Georgian villages

Hi DatGuy! Please see my reply to your comment on the Georgian Wikipedia. You can contact me via my talk page here on the English Wikipedia if you need some other templates. Thanks! –BruTe ^Talk 07:00, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@BRUTE: Thank you very much! However, isn't Lapankuri also a settlement? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. That village was also included in the template but with a different transliteration. Now it's fine. –BruTe ^Talk 14:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Anti Vandalism Academy

Can I be one of your students? Adotchar (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Counter Vandalism Consultant Sought

I am in the U.S., but I am looking for someone who can advise on what is and is not vandalism before conclusions. Time zone difference should not be an issue as I am mainly looking to shore up my understanding with questions that can easily wait to be answered the next day, or longer if needed. Please advise on availability/interest. KSci ^(talk) 22:15, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

@KSci: Sure. Ask them here and I'll answer them within this day or the next. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 05:39, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

- In may, someone adding numerous "citation needed" tags for very basic uncontested biographical data along and three other templates "this article has multiple issues" "too many primary sources" "requests for POV review" in an article about a living person. The subtle effect was to give the appearance that the living person, a Ph.D. in Philosophy, had a questionable CV.

- A disparaging quote supported by a citation that isn't relevant to the point.

I corrected the above giving a detailed explanation for each change. There were no objections, despite running active talk page disputes on other topics.

Other cases:

Changing words like "argument" (in philosophy), "debate", or disagree" to "attack" suggesting aggression by one party to an otherwise cordial disagreement.

Substituting the word "polemics" for the word "apologetics".

Adding "see also" links or category templates that are not unfavorable to the subject of the topic.

What do you see as "in" vs. "out" as subtle vandalism? These are the sorts of things I've corrected in 6-8 articles.

So far I have not encountered opposition correcting these things. This is only a question about the scope of the subtle vandalism role. I've run into a pattern of stuff like the above following the links to other articles on the same sort of topics. Ranging from very subtle to blatant.

KSci ^(talk) 01:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Per the BLP policy, any and every bold statement should be referenced. The tags depend per page. Don't understand what you mean by CV, as Wikipedia isn't meant to contain that sort of stuff
2. Again, depends per article. What is the "point"? Is it for example just a random point in the article, when talking about Phil Dumontet or Bill Gates that there'll just be a random quote saying

I like chocolate milk

— Steve Jobs and Phil Dumontet in a choir

1. Per BRD, if you feel it's unneeded, revert and discuss it on the article's talk page.
2. Same as the above
3. Not unfavorable? You mean unrelated? If the editor is new, revert (while keeping good faith in mind) and post a note on their talk page why it shouldn't be there, citing to the relevant guideline/policy. If this continues, then try not to edit war but tell them that it is disruptive. If it continues, warn them.
4. Depends per article, BRD.

Hopefully that helped. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 15:02, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it helps on some points. :)

I think you asked for clarification of CV (CV = Curriculum Vitae, a professional's short-form resume. In this case the CV was published by the professor's University. The effect of the tags was to make it appear that the living person's CV was either dishonest or at least questionable. No bold statements, just the subtle implication of multiple templates suggesting a reason to question the honesty of the person's CV.

I goofed in writing "not unfavorable" rather than "unfavorable". An example of what I described as would be an article on health and nutrition with a bunch of links added for McDonald, Wendy's, and Burger King.

I have a personal policy to revert once, and with a very, very good reason given, on a couple of occasions I reverted twice. I have no interest in edit wars and thankfully have not encountered this problem. Usually, I've found that those who perform undue reverts don't want to talk about the reasons. I've encountered one exception.

I like your suggestion to cite disruptive, though this can be a hard case to make. I've never tried this approach.

More questions later. Thanks for the input.

KSci ^(talk) 06:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I like that policy, seems like a good idea. I did not request what CV means. I said that a CV should not be on Wikipedia. As far as I can see, in the example you put that is probably vandalism. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 14:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Dat Guy. Sorry for misunderstanding your point on the CV.

Have you ever encountered a "too many primary sources" problem? To many primary sources would be, from what I've read on the topic, a template used when there is a question about the appropriateness of the article content. An clear cut example would, I think, be something like a someone's bio including something like offering medical advice that runs against accepted medical practice supporting its validity with the person's own books and friends.

In this case I'm referring to the offender's talk posts were uncivil and referred to the living person as "the crackpot", though he is a well-known and respected philosopher. Per your prior advice, the disruptive link might have been a reasonable suggestion - thanks for that tip. Fortunately, the problem person went away when other editors were firm with him.

Our conversation may be more helpful than is apparent from your vantage point.

Okay, here is another example.

The topic "apologetics" (for all religions) had its disambiguation page and lead text too wide in scope, and this was opportunistically used to include non-religious "apologists"(e.g. Bob is an apologist for mass murderers) as an apologist for the Nazis is said to engage in "apologetics", a usage I've never heard. I could find only one dictionary in many that included non-religious apologetics. Okay, so with the term "apologetics" used this way a large number unsavory examples of extremist non-religious apologists were interwoven through the article with the net effect being to lump religious apologetics with defenders of mass murderer as equivalent. Additionally, a section on "polemics" was added even though apologetics means "to provide a defense" meaning polemics was at odds with the topic definition. Next,two completely irrelevant textbook quotes (such as an outline of one author's methodology for assessing Nixon's responses to polemics in Watergate) was added with no relevance whatsoever.

I removed the POV stuff and the stuff on polemics and narrowed the article's focus to include only "religious" apologetics, and adjusted the disambiguation page to redirect non-religious apologist to the apology topic. I think this was the right thing to do and believe this was an example of subtle vandalism. I encountered no opposition, but I'd like a second opinion to be sure my view of subtle vandalism agrees with that of a more experienced editor.

The apologetics article says, by the way, that in British english the term apologetics is not commonly used. Is this true from where you sit? I have not been able to find a citation to support this statement in the lead, and your impression could indicate that one is needed.

Thanks again, Dat Guy. (BTW, my wife is a New Orleans Saints fan - "Who Dat?".

KSci ^(talk) 00:59, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Console peasants

I'm not familiar with the term, but other parts of the edit seemed reasonable, so I thought perhaps it was a relevant term that I'd just not heard. Nyttend (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2016 Eséka train derailment

On 22 October 2016, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2016 Eséka train derailment, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T♦C 16:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Happy holiday! Muffled Pocketed 08:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Eséka train.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Eséka train.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 20:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Negro Head Road

Hi, over a decade ago, when NC changed the name, I recall much reporting about it in Southern newspapers. I just added a relevant quote from a journal. Someone else has linked it to Nigger#Place_names. Derntno (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2016 (UTC) See https://www.google.com/search?q=nigger+head+road&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=%22nigger+head+road%22+OR+%22niggerhead+road%22+OR+%22nigro+head+road%22+

DYK for Cortana (software)

On 26 October 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cortana (software), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Cortana correctly predicted the winners of the first 14 matches of the 2014 FIFA World Cup knockout stage? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cortana (software). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cortana (software)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

NPP - Last call for work group comments on stage 1

Hi DatGuy/Archives/2016,

The future of NPP and AfC:

To take full advantage of the WMF developer time that has been allocated to this project, we must now quickly submit the short list of our priorities before the end of October, otherwise we may lose the attention of the WMF.

If you have not already done so, please visit the page at Suggested Improvements and select your personal choice of 10 features (excluding the ones the devs are already doing) and list them in your order of priority at Priorities.

Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello DatGuy. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:29, 31 October 2016 (UTC)