User talk:Mr. MacTidy

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

Speedy deletion declined: Kanha Raawat

Hello Mr. MacTidy. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kanha Raawat, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subsequent edits. Please try AFD. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector:, hello. Understood, but please note that the only two subsequent edits were addition of underlinked and uncategorised tags, rather than content edits. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see that, but at least one was a copyedit, and that breaks the threshold for G5 deletion IMO. I don't think this article would survive a deletion discussion, but I don't read the language that the "references" are written in, and sometimes I'm surprised. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:50, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been deleted for other reasons, but for what it's worth, I agree with you, Mr. MacTidy. Speedy deletion criterion G5 applies if there are "no substantial edits by others" and I don't begin to understand how Ivanvector could view the subsequent edits as "substantial". All of them were quite trivial. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesBWatson: My opinion, as I said, is that a copyedit exceeds the "uncontroversial" threshold of CSD. Yes, the edit was fairly minor, but I'm not 100% sure that every person who might review that edit would fully agree. I don't object to the deletion, for the record. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Sai Gon Mechanical Engineering Company

Hello, you moved the references to an external links section [1], but i think this is not correct. I used the links as references, and although inline references would also be preferred by myself, with information used throughout the article it should be ok to add the references without inline links. The way you did it, it seems that the article uses no references at all. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 11:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved both references inline. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 11:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: MC SKULE

Hello Mr. MacTidy, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of MC SKULE, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: at least one reliable source covers him, which is sufficient for A7. Try WP:PROD or WP:AFD. If you are interested in learning more about how speedy deletion works, I have compiled a list of helpful pages at User:SoWhy/SDA. You can of course also contact me if you have questions. Thank you. So Why 07:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom from Starvation

My apologies. I mistakenly thought I was on another talkpage. I had just blanked another talk page with the same content by the same author. Thanks for cleaning up. Meters (talk) 03:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help, and yes it's clear that the editor is here to spam an incoherent political screed - I might well have made the same mistake. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always happy to be politely corrected when someone notices before I do. Meters (talk) 03:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please, fix the interwiki

Here Doesn't links to the interwiki article. 190.24.53.137 (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which interwiki article? Mr. MacTidy (talk) 03:44, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the Spanish WP article, then don't worry, that will get fixed automatically. For now, the link still works via the redirect: try it. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for your help Mr. MacTidy on article I wrote on quickshifter! I really appreciate it.

- Navin Singh (navinsingh133) Navinsingh133 (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Well done on the excellent first article, and thanks for all the contributions you've already made on motorcycle articles - you seem to know a lot about the subject. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non-transparent removal of db-G12

Hi Mr. MacTidy. When I looked at the page history of Wingify, I saw the g12 nomination, and determined it was indeed a blatant copyright violation, as tagged. You had removed that tag stating opaquely "Not eligible for db-copyvio", leaving the db-corp in place. Can you advise what made you think this was not G12 eligible? Copyright violations are much more serious than promotion, and should not be removed lightly. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:50, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I looked at the cited URL, and used Duplicate Detector and Copyvio Checker to see if I'd missed something, and came up empty handed each time. What did I miss? Mr. MacTidy (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, those tools are useful for gross work—finding the low hanging fruit—but must always be checked by a human and their negative results are often incorrect. They fail to find non-renderable text, anything in a PDF, anything hidden in drop down or other lead off from the main page (which often don't have their own URLs) and of course, cannot understand close paraphrasing. Those are just the ones I understand. Sometimes I can be staring right at the copyvio, word-for-word copying, and cannot figure out why the tool can't "understand" the text is exactly the same. I wrote the section at Wikipedia:New pages patrol#Copyright violations (WP:COPYVIO) and put in a few warnings there about placing too much trust in these tools. Best regards---Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fuhghettaboutit: I didn't make myself clear above. When I wrote " I looked at the cited URL", I meant I first manually compared the two pages, couldn't see any overlap, and then used the tools to see if I'd missed something. So what did I miss? Thanks, Mr. MacTidy (talk) 05:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Maybe you somehow were redirected and did not arrive at the site it was flagged as a copyvio of? (Occasionally, I've been seemingly shunted off by some IP geolocate detection mechanism, to a different URL). I'm wondering because it was quite blatant and mostly word-for-word rather than close paraphrasing. Anyway, This is the site it was marked as a copyvio of. Do you see the section with two paragraphs under "Other Achievements"? The first and longest section of the article body—under the section header "VWO"—was the entire content of the first paragraph from this site (with no changes), starting with the words "VWO (formerly known as..." and ending with "...for their audiences." The lead also contained direct copying from there, such as the sentence "an A/B testing and conversion optimization platform,..." Most of the first long sentence of the next section (made up of two sentences total), that was under a section header "Pushcrew", is lifted from the second paragraph of the site, with some very minor changes (i.e., very closely paraphrased) so that it would not match if you used the find function with the whole sentence copied. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what went wrong there! But don't worry about me not taking copyvio seriously - if you check my edit history and CSD log there's a ton of G12 in there, and I revdel when necessary too. I don't drink or do drugs, either. :-) Mr. MacTidy (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Filliculostellate cells editing

Hello, my classmates and I have just uploaded the Folliculostellate cell article as part of our course and we do not understand what the edits you have done are. Could you explain what you have done and help us out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szenios (talk • contribs)

Hello @Szenios:, yes I'm happy to help. The article was originally an empty page for over ten minutes, so I moved it to Draft:Folliculostellate cell, and tagged the remaining redirect for deletion. Some time later, before it could be deleted, another editor came along and began filling the redirect with content, making it into an article. The problem is that the page creator now appears to be me, when it fact it was started by User:Lo209. So I've asked an administrator to merge the page history of the Draft article into the new article, which will then correctly show User:Lo209 as the article's creator. Please let me know if you have any more questions on this, or if I'm not being clear. Thanks, Mr. MacTidy (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. MacTidy. Thank you so much. We were not aware that that was what happened as it was our first time making a wikipedia page. Thank you for asking the administrator to merge the two histories. Thanks again --Szenios (talk) 17:10, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier editing?

You clearly have a very good grasp of how Wikipedia works. Have you previously edited before creating this account? I ask purely out of interest, and of course it's entirely up to you whether you wish to answer or not. (And to avoid any misunderstanding, this is not a veiled accusation of sockpuppetry. I edited as an IP editor before creating an account and, unlike some Wikipedia editors, I have no problem with other people who do the same.) The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have, and it's natural that you should ask, because my earliest edits from this account are pretty obvious that way. I've had several accounts. It's complicated. :-) But though you're not asking about sockpuppetry, I'll volunteer for other editors reading this that I've never made a single sockpuppet edit in hundreds of thousands of edits made. I've kicked off and added to a metric fucktonne of SPIs myself, in fact. But I'm surprised to learn that you edit under a pseudonym: is that a reference to the behaviourist? Mr. MacTidy (talk) 09:17, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion template removed

Hi Mr. MacTidy, I removed the spam speedy deletion tag you placed on Project one gallery. It wasn't appropriate as the venue has closed so can't really be promoted. However, I have added another CSD tag as it is actually a duplicate of an existing article. Lineslarge (talk) 19:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lineslarge:. The creator's original account name was User:Projectonegallery, and their other articles were promos for two people who ran it: the original draft that I speedied was basically promo linked to their promo pages. It's also apparently not eligible for db-a10: the new article is about a place that closed in 2009; the older article is about a place that closed in 1980. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, more complex than I realised then. Good spot on the dates, thanks! Lineslarge (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Patience Please

Dear Mr. MacTidy, before putting any template on a article please check if it is being worked on or not.Jeromeenriquez (talk) 12:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I waited ten minutes for you to add a reference to a WP:BLP. I've added one to stop it getting BLP prodded. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 12:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. MacTidy, can you explain why you nominated Akhu Chingangbam for Deletion? This article was redirected by someone, which is because they are just trying to clear the backlog and are not bothered about reading the content. I had to revert that redirect to save the article. And its not blank. Go through the article and remove the tag for deletion. Jeromeenriquez (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. MacTidy. I'm Tony. I do a lot of work with new pages on Wikipedia. Jeromeenriquez sometimes comes to me with questions about articles because we share interests in South Asia and Christian clerics. Something I did want to point out is that despite his long talk page Jeromeenriquez is a good faith editor who does make a lot of needed contributions to Wikipedia, as can be seen on his user page. He's basically the only editor we have expanding coverage of South Asian bishops, and he's done a good job learning from previous mistakes in this area.

All that to say, when an editor has been around for a while and is clearly here to contribute content, it's often better to assume it was an accident when they blank a page and revert it and leave a message on their talk page asking if they want it deleted rather than tagging it for G7. If you have any other questions about NPP, my talk page is always open. Happy editing :) TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPP

Hi. We appreciate your enthusiasm - we certainly need all the help we can get. However, as we cannot take into account claimed experienced from previous accounts or your IP edits, and as the bulk of your talk page contains issues regarding your patrolling, I'm asking you to restrict your patrolling to simple maintenance tags and to refrain from tagging for any of the forms of deletion until your account has at least reached qualification standards to obtain access to the New page Reviewer user group. Thank you for your comprehension. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mr. MacTidy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]