User talk:Zppix/Archive 1

Your reversion on Yellow-breasted tit

Hey,

As I mentioned on IRC to you only yesterday (or the day before, can't remember), you need to be more careful with your vandal-fighting. I don't know what about this edit you thought was vandalism, but please take more care.

[stwalkerster|talk] 22:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Response: Speedy deletion nomination of L’Oréal Paris

Hi Zppix,

I understand why the article was flagged for deletion because there is some confusion surrounding the topic, but L'Oreal Paris is a brand under the consumer products division of L'Oreal (which is the parent company). I put more information when contesting the deletion, but please let me know if you need more information. This link shows the breakdown of brands under the L'Oreal umbrella, for reference.

-cmcbride16

Harvard station move

Why did you capitalize station? That goes against the guideline and there was no consensus for it. Mackensen (talk) 23:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes there was my friend there was more support then opposing there was more then enough consensus

No, there wasn't. My original proposal does not have consensus, though the system approach probably does. Neither one capitalized "station". Mackensen (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

Thank you for making a report about Joebrown1958 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. This edit is clearly not deliberate vandalism. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, please remember that rollback is to only be used for actual and obvious vandalism... not good faith edits. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Roll Back on "List of Apex Predators"

Hi, Zppix. I added Humans to the list of Apex Predators and added a source to go along with it, yet you still reverted my edit as if it was common vandalism.

I think you might be overstepping your bounds here. I'm going to revert your rollback if I don't get a speedy response.

Thank you for your time and diligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.225.98.81 (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Please do not comment on my talk page if your going to come attack me. I've been a rollbacker for over a month or 2 now. I'm also pretty familiar with wp policies if you continue to attack me i will open an ANI Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Attack you? What? The template response you sent me said that if I thought you were in error to contact you here, so I did. I'm simply disputing the rollback. 68.225.98.81 (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
"I think you might be overstepping your bounds here." Meaning my rights on wikipedia. I regret to inform that i have more then enough rights on wikipedia to revert wp:AGF and wp:Vandalism edits and i also have the special permission known as rollbacker to aid me and to give me more control over rollbacker as well as pending changes reviewer which allows to me reject any of the aforementioned edits. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 13:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Nacho (footballer, born 1989)

Hi there ZPPIX, from Portugal,

apologies for the summary, it was not all it could be, especially with the hystericals in which I engaged. All duly arranged now.

Attentively, happy editing --84.90.219.128 (talk) 18:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Hello Zppix. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that you shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1), content (CSD A3), or significance (CSD A7) moments after they are created, as you did at Abbas saghaei. It's best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see Don't template the regulars Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

That is not a policy. Adam9007 (talk) 22:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I am aware but templates like this make experience editors look bad for mistakes they make... Many editors believe that we shouldn't template the regulars. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The point is you were way, way too hasty with that. You tagged it less than a minute after its creation. Adam9007 (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Biting

It's not a newcomer, it's an editor who's been repeatedly borking the member tables on Canadian federal and provincial electoral districts for weeks now, and has already refused or ignored multiple polite requests to be more careful — the only reason they haven't already been editblocked outright for disruption is because they use a different IP number each time. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bearcat: It's because they edit in different locations, also it may not be the same person... still your use of the F-Word in the edit summary is not nessacary just work it out with them on their talk page or atleast assume good faith. Once again you still need to follow Civility Policy.

Re-formatting another editor's talk page

I don't know why you thought this edit was a good idea. The only situation I can think of off the top of my head in which changing the formatting of another editor's talk page would be acceptable is the case of a new editor who has not understood how to edit properly, and has grossly messed up the formatting. If you ever think you can help an experienced editor to improve the layout of his or her talk page, I suggest you offer to help, and see whether your offer is accepted, rather than just wading in and doing it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

James the diff you refer to is me removing whitespaces that don't need to be there I didn't change any words and/or meaning of the posts. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Zppix, it doesn't matter how substantial the edits were; you don't walk into someone else's home and rearrange their furniture.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Your Mediation Committee nomination

I regret to inform you that per the two-oppose rule, your nomination to become a member of the Mediation Committee was unsuccessful. Please be aware that the Committee does not allow an unsuccessful candidate to re-nominate any earlier than three months after their previous nomination. The role of a mediator is nuanced and unique, so even an otherwise excellent editor may not be suitable to join the committee; but we hope that you are able to use the comments made during your nomination to improve yourself as an editor in general and as a potential mediator. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact myself or another member. Thank you very much for your interest! For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 02:28, 12 April 2016 (UTC) (Chairperson) (Not watching this page) I reopened my RFA because of lack of comments... Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

You're not getting any comments on your RfA because it's not been transcluded onto the RFA page. I don't work in RfA's (at least no more than to !vote on one occasionally), but I I'm pretty sure that until you've transcluded it that it's not considered to be submitted. The instructions on how to do that are in the collapsed section at WP:RFA/SN. Click [show] on the "When you have THOROUGHLY read the above" line to see them; I don't think you've done step 7 & 8. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC) PS: I started not to say this, but I'd be remiss to do so. The help I've offered above doesn't mean that I think that you should submit it. Frankly, I don't think that you have a ghost of a chance and — I say this from personal experience — getting turned down at RfA can be both brutal and extremely discouraging. My advice is that you mark it withdrawn and go out and get another 10,000 edits or so, most of which are involved in content creation/editing, not doing the kinds of semi-bureaucratic / wiki-gnomish things you've been doing up until now, and then try it again if you still have the appetite for it. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Square Enix/GA2

Zppix, your review of this GA appears to have taken a matter of minutes, and found nothing at all to change: no grammatical errors, no spelling errors or typos, no problems with meeting the "clear and concise" standards: nothing. A review of an article of this size, with as many sources as there are—to check the text against the sources to ensure that it accurately reflects the source material without close paraphrasing it, for example—takes quite a bit of time. You're a new reviewer to GA, so I can understand that you might not have understood the requirements both for GAs and for reviewing them.

You also don't seem to have referenced the previous review, Talk:Square Enix/GA1, where some issues were raised that, to my eye, have still not been addressed even after nearly two years. The Corporate history section still reads as if it were bulleted, with "On [date]" starting nearly every sentence, hardly appropriate for a GA.

I will be happy to work with you on doing a review here to the GA criteria if you would like, but the promotion would have to be reversed—I can do that too, if you'd like. I hope you're amenable; please let me know. Thank you, and I hope you're not discouraged by this. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunaly you have to request a reasasment as I just read... I cannot go back on a GA as far as I've readⓏⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Zppix, just as you reopened the Sylvester review a few hours ago—there are definitely problems with it, including others you haven't mentioned, but they're fixable in a reasonable period of time—you can reopen this one. (There's no difference in reopening a fail or a pass.) People correct themselves all the time on Wikipedia, and you can do so here—you won't be the first newcomer to GA reviewing to do so. Reopening doesn't happen often, but even experienced reviewers have done so when issues in a newly closed nomination were pointed out to them. A reassessment would only be necessary if you refused; I'm currently doing a reassessment on an article that was passed, reopened after I pointed out some major issues, and then passed again without them being addressed. I hope you will reopen it. Thanks for your consideration. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm refusing to do so you may nom it for reassessment however. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that you have decided to insist on this. I strongly urge you to check with a mentor or another reviewer before you finalize any further reviews, and consider a moratorium on starting new reviews.

A case in point is your new review today at Talk:Undertale/GA1, where your sole comment is Please add more sources to lead within 24 hours. Unfortunately, this demonstrates quite clearly that your foray into GA reviewing is premature: you don't understand the GA process nor do you understand the GA criteria. In fact, as the commenter has noted, citations are generally not expected (nor supposed to be included) in the lead section unless the information is either controversial or a quote—I explained this to you just yesterday with regard to your Sylvester review, yet you are again asking for it here. Further, a 24 hour deadline is unheard of at GA: seven days is standard. This is the fourth review in a row that appears to have been done in a matter of minutes—under an hour for an experienced reviewer is rare, and you are a novice—and the third in a row that is clearly problematic.

Please be aware that new GA reviewers who do a series of problematic reviews can be banned from GA if they persist in passing or failing nominations without reviewing to the criteria. You are not off to a good start. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flashback Records, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flashback Records (Disambiguation). 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) 11:33, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Flashback Records has been accepted

Flashback Records, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Dato' Dr. Norazlanshah bin Hazali[edit source]

Hi Zppix.

I am so sorr. This is my very first article and my first experience in wikipedia. I already add 2 references for Dato' Dr. Norazlanshah bin Hazali[edit source] article. But I dont know how to remove the tag. Could you please advice me. Thank you so much.

Below are the 2 references site I already add in the article Dato' Dr. Norazlanshah bin Hazali[edit source]

Dato CheTa (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC) Dato CheTa

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Request on 15:44:42, 29 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 162.245.21.61

• 162.245.21.61 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Credible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Zppix, thanks for taking the time to review the article on Credible. It would be helpful to have some specifics on how this article reads like an advertisement. When reviewers say this is the reason they are declining an article, Wikipedia automatically generates the following explanation:

"This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed."

This article has been through extensive revisions to address specific areas where previous reviewers felt the article was not written from a neutral point of view, or needed to be better sourced.

If you feel there are specific passages where the article is not written from a neutral point of view, it would be helpful if you could point those out.

There no opinions expressed as facts in this article. There are no "seriously contested assertions" stated as facts. The article employs "nonjudgmental language" and it is written in a tone that "neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject."

In terms of sourcing, the article relies entirely on "independent, reliable, published sources," including The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, NBC Nightly News, CNBC, Inc., Bloomberg News, and Fortune. There are NO "materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed."

At this point, the boilerplate language generated by Wikipedia for reviewers when they decline a submission because they think it reads like an advertisement is of little help in making further edits to this article.

Wikipedia editors are instructed that "a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." This is a legitimate article about a commercial entity, written from a neutral point of view.

162.245.21.61 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@162.245.21.61: Per WP:WINARS Wikipedia can not be used as a reference/source. Thanks Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kbuuk Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Kbuuk Logo.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 15:41:35, 2 April 2020 for assistance on AfC submission by Yyakilles

• Yyakilles (talk · contribs)
  • User:Yyakilles/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Yyakilles (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)