Jump to content

User talk:Mz7/June–August 2017

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Carmen Perez

I have searched and have found your contributions to be helpful. I have attempted to re-instate the deleted page for Carmen Perez by providing verifiable links and references in my last entry, yet the page was deleted. The links to verify the information are legitimate and great sources (such as Billboard), so I would like to request a re-instatement of the page or if possible, your assistance in getting this page active again. Thank you. Ricabaja (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello Ricabaja. I took a look, and I can see that the Carmen Perez article was deleted as a result of a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Perez (2nd nomination). The relevant issue here is the notability of the artist – that is, whether Perez is notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia generally determines notability by examining whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject – in other words, if reliable sources have significantly covered a topic, that carries the presumption that the topic is notable.
I noticed that you made extensive comments at the deletion discussion with links to sources that you believe support the notability of the artist. Unfortunately, I do not believe the sources that you provided at the discussion sufficiently show that Perez is notable. Sources like Wrestlingforum.com and IMDB are unreliable because they consist of user-generated content; anyone on the Internet can post to such websites with little, if any, editorial oversight. Sources like this 411mania.com article and this prnewswire.com article are insufficient to establish notability because they come directly from the subject of the article or someone directly affiliated with her (remember, we need reliable sources that are independent of the subject). Finally, the sources to the Billboard charts are okay; however, charting mid-range in a genre-specific chart is insufficient, in my view, to establish notability. I believe most Wikipedia editors would like to see appearances on the national music chart – in the United States this is the Billboard Hot 100.
So what can you do now? You could try to find additional reliable sources. We would like to see critic reviews, for instance, in reputable sources, such as national-level news media. If you gather additional sources, you may be able to submit a draft of a new article to the Articles for Creation project, which will put it a queue to be reviewed by an experienced editor for publication. Unfortunately, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, so if you cannot find additional coverage in reliable sources, consider whether it may be too soon for an article about Perez at this time. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, what you're saying makes sense and I appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me. I will search for addition sources to see if there is enough 'notability.' All the best, Ricabaja (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC) There is notability - Carmen Perez is a recurring actress on a Robert Rodriguez & Mark Burnett produced TV series "Lucha Underground" as Captain Vasquez (on El Rey Network). The Lucha Underground wiki page verifies this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lucha_Underground_personnel), a link I had provided along with other links, which were independent of the subject. The show is also on Netflix & iTunes. She has world-wide notability for this character and has a developing character arc. Also, I've been made aware that any Billboard charts should be sufficient, especially with dance music being such a popular genre mixed with pop these days. I've seen people with less credibility have Wikipedia pages. Can you please reconsider and re-create the page? Much appreciated in advanced. Ricabaja (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ricabaja. For actresses, we do have a notability guideline which states that actresses that have "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" may be notable. For musicians, we have a guideline which states that a subject may be notable if she has "had a single or album on any country's national music chart." I'm reading over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmen Perez (2nd nomination) again, and it seems to me that other editors did take into consideration Perez's role in Lucha Underground, as well as her chart history, but there was a consensus that they were insufficient for notability. Perez should have significant roles in multiple television shows or should chart on a country's national music chart. You may be right that dance music is just as popular as pop, but the Hot 100 uses different metrics, and I think the community would want to see more than a genre-specific chart to justify an entry in an encyclopedia. What we really need to see is new sources, such as critic reviews, in reliable sources, and unfortunately, I do not think you have provided the significant new information needed to allow recreation of the article. Mz7 (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Arcenio León

Hi. You declined to protect Arcenio León at RPP, with a good reason. That lone IP is back again, so I'm checking in to see if you'll block for edit warring. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Thanks, I've blocked the IP for 31 hours and will keep an eye on the article. Mz7 (talk) 01:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Blocked IP

Hi, you, or maybe your bot(?) banned an IP for 48 hours. However, the IP made dozens of revisions and maliciously added the wrong flags to different city pages. I believe that this is the worst sort of vandalism and really is a risk to wikipedia. Could you consider banning 27.151.195.249 for longer? Thank you. El cid, el campeador (talk) 02:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi El cid, el campeador. Yes, it certainly was highly disruptive – thanks for reporting it. I've gone ahead and rolled back all of the edits from that IP address, so the situation should be resolved for the moment. Remember, blocks on Wikipedia are intended to be preventative, not punitive. If it were a registered account doing this, I would have certainly blocked the account indefinitely as a preventative measure. However, IP addresses are trickier because there is a risk of collateral damage. IP addresses are often dynamic, meaning they can change periodically for the same user. In other words, a single user can have one IP address one day and another address another day, simply because that's how IP addresses work. After several days, it is likely that the vandal will have already moved on to a different IP address, and an innocent user will have switched to the same IP address that a vandal was using, thus causing collateral damage. Longer blocks on IP addresses have a greater risk at affecting these innocent users.
In extreme cases of vandalism, we can employ temporary range blocks (i.e. blocking related groups of many hundreds of IP addresses at once), and sometimes (especially for schools and other educational institutions) an IP address is static, so we can block it for an extended period of time. If there continues to be disruption from this IP address after the block expires, I will re-block the address with a longer expiration time. I hope this information clarifies why I only blocked for 48 hours. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Range to keep an eye on: 27.151.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)). Mz7 (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:Rfp/PCR

You are invited to join the discussion at WP:RFP/PCR. DoABarrelRoll.dev(Constable of the WikiPolice)(Chat!) 00:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Replied there. Mz7 (talk) 00:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank youDoABarrelRoll.dev(Constable of the WikiPolice)(Chat!) 01:46, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Blue Embrace

Just a heads up. Since you protected that article from being recreated again, you might want to do the same with Blue Embrace (Band). Yep, they're back. Yintan  08:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for letting me know. Mz7 (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

For the assistance [1]. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Notability for mobile phones

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § Notability for electronic devices

@Primefac, Kudpung, and PaleoNeonate: My estimates were wrong. I faced the situation just a few minutes ago. Kindly see User talk:Chevy111 for AfD links, and User:Usernamekiran/Notability (electronic devices) for the essay. —usernamekiran(talk) 13:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The VP thread appears to have been archived, so I'll post my comment at User_talk:Usernamekiran/Notability_(electronic_devices). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 14:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!!

I reworded everything in the 2017 Game 5 Summary as to not violate any copyrights. Thanks for the heads up!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makingitcorrect (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

My new rights

Thank you thank you! I really appreciate it :) Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ‡ ᐁT₳LKᐃ 03:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@El cid, el campeador: You're welcome! Let me know if you have any questions. Mz7 (talk) 03:40, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Camden Toy article

I've just realized that you reverted my date of birth addition to the article twice, not once. Sorry about that -- I wasn't being pigheaded. You deleted my first attempt so quickly that I thought the deletion was due to a computer error as opposed to an editor. I haven't found a good source for that info yet, so I'll abandon it for now. All the best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Alanna the Brave: No worries at all. I had figured you just didn't notice the first time around. If you ever find a reliable source for that year of birth, feel free to re-add it. Best, Mz7 (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Transcluding a thread from a talkpage

I am not sure if thats the right term. I am thinking about copying the discussion about device notability from your talkage to village pump. Do you think we should do that? Also, how to do it? —usernamekiran(talk) 01:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: I'd be okay with that. To do so, I would use the {{Moved discussion to}} and the {{Moved discussion from}} tags. Also make sure that your edit summary has a link to "User talk:Mz7" in it in order to comply with WP:CWW. Best, Mz7 (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Categories for socks: apparently not

Hi, Mz7. I see you recreated the category Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tyler Durden. The thing is, I had already created it earlier, but Bbb23 deleted it[2] and told me it was better not to create categories for socks, as it's normal for them to be redlinked and only populated through the sock tags. Makes it easier if the cats are emptied later as you don't have to delete them. I can see the logic, but it just looked weird to me to have a redlinked page which yet, somehow, existed. To you also, apparently! Bishonen | talk 16:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC).

@Bishonen: Ah, thanks for letting me know. I must have foolishly failed to see the red "this page has been deleted" banner when I created it. I've gone ahead and deleted the category again. I can see the logic too, but I suppose the redlink did also look weird to me. I'll happily defer to whatever Bbb23 thinks regarding sockpuppets any day, though. Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah, looks like the page was recreated again by Gene93k. Mz7 (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes. I think I give up; it's hardly a big deal. Keeping it red is hardly "easier" if it's going to be like this! Bishonen | talk 10:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC).

Special:Diff/786684656

Not really. I warned the IP on 18:27:03 and they committed vandalism after my warning on 18:27:58 per popups. -- 1989 19:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@1989: You're right, of course, that the second act of vandalism occurred 55 seconds after your 4im warning, but it is also plausible that the user didn't see your warning until after that second edit. That's the main reason why I didn't feel a block was entirely necessary at the time. In any case, the IP address has not vandalized since, so I don't think a block is necessary now. Mz7 (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration Report

Hey there. Just wanted to do a followup on being interested in writing for the Arbitration Report section for the Signpost. GamerPro64 16:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi GamerPro64. Sure, I'd still be interested. The arbitration process has been fairly quiet lately (actually fairly quiet for the past year and a half), but I'd be happy to help with anything that you might need help with. Mz7 (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
All right cool. I recommend keeping an eye on the ArbCom noticeboard in case there are any important announcements that would warrant a report. As well as seeing anything happening with ArbCom cases. GamerPro64 22:27, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Steven Barr

Excuse the additional section on your talk page but would the two new links provided in a reply on Talk:Transformers: The Last Knight be suffice?2600:1012:B05B:7861:C66:345E:385C:C20A (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've replied there. Mz7 (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your input and formatting the citation. As a follow up to the issue, I would like some advice on how to engage a user in discussing what he or she disagrees with in regards to content. User:EnergizerConvoy is currently altering cited content within the page as well as related pages with information that is not correctly cited by the sources that were originally provided, Cineplex among them. This is in regards to the character voice work credit of Steven Barr. The user is also citing his alterations with what appears to be a wikia page (user edited content). It appears the user was recently blocked for disruptive editing, including removing comments from talk pages and edit-warring. I do not intended to engage in an edit-war with the user but I am unsure as to how to proceed, considering the user does not appear to intend to discuss the material or edits in question. 2605:E000:AB8A:1600:9842:38EB:2376:B379 (talk) 20:57, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I was cleaning it honestly. I managed to Included a Backup Source just in case. It's insane i know but from the Back-up source. I happen to be an Editor there for 5 Years. I was venting out of Annoyance last weekend. You would not believe the Anger I have. EnergizerConvoy (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Your edits indicate you are altering cited content, removing what was deemed to be a Reliable Source, and replacing it with an outside wikia page [3] that your own userpage claims you edit.2605:E000:AB8A:1600:9842:38EB:2376:B379 (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@2605:E000:AB8A:1600:9842:38EB:2376:B379: When it is clear that you are in a dispute with another editor, the first step should indeed be to try to discuss the issue with the other party. Continuing to revert another editor without being open to discussion is contrary to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, and therefore it is generally considered disruptive editing. If you have made reasonable and civil attempts to communicate without response, asking for an uninvolved administrator to intervene is typically the next step. Consider also the advice at Wikipedia:Responding to a failure to discuss. Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
My apologies again for the trouble over a seemingly minor issue. Thank you kindly for your attention on the matter as well as the advice.2600:1012:B067:3C6:511B:59B3:C04E:5CB1 (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@EnergizerConvoy: I understand how frustrating it is to be involved in a disagreement with another editor. In a collaborative project like Wikipedia, disagreements are inevitable, and I think it's healthy to realize that just because another editor disagrees with your edit does not necessarily negate the usefulness of your participation here as a whole. I don't think the anonymous editor here ever meant to push you out of Wikipedia; rather, like you, they wanted to make Wikipedia better. I hope you change your mind about leaving.
In this case, the anonymous editor is right that "tfwiki.net" is not a reliable enough source for the purpose of Wikipedia because it consists largely of user-generated content. As a result, moving forward I would refrain from citing it at all on Wikipedia. The fact that you've been an editor there for 5 years does not change the fact that it has very little editorial oversight. Mz7 (talk) 22:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'm newish to editing Wikipedia articles. I primarily am a fan of Movie pages. I noticed a bunch of movies were missing awards they had won, so I started adding them in. Some editor claimed that the award I was adding wasn't legit, but it's on IMDb, it's televised, and has been around for over 25 years. He keeps reverting my work, and I'm not sure what to do about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenKayser (talk • contribs) 19:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi BenKayser. IMDB is not typically considered a reliable source for verifying information on Wikipedia because the majority of its content is user-generated with little editorial oversight. Is there another source available that verifies that the movie earned the award you want to add, such a newspaper article, a press release, or the official website of the organization that presents the award, perhaps? If you can cite this source, then you should be able to reinsert it into the article without problems. Mz7 (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for everything :-)

Hi,
When I look back at our previous conversations (metaphorically. I have a very strong memory), i realise I have been sort of annoying, silly, weird, and a problem user for you. But even after all that, you always communicated with me politely. Thank you very much for kindness. Above everything, thanks a lot for showing faith in me. I never want to be an admin, but I do want to contribute to wikipedia. Your suggestion regarding AfD was great, but I didnt like there much. But NPP/R is just the right thing for me. Even though I never visit AfD directly, I have been coming across nominated articles through other reasons and participating there. I have observed some odd behaviour from editors there, editors who want to be admins. I even used the term "wannabe admins" in conversation with you previously lol. I am sorry I got off the topic again. The point: you always gave me good advices for circumstantial issues, and good advices in general. And no, I am not saying this for formality, I mean every word.

Oh, one more question. You dont have to answer it if you want, or you dont have to answer it precisely either: whats your age (or age-group)?
Thanks a lot again. I hope everything is fine in your personal life. See you around.
—usernamekiran(talk) 03:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: Thank you for the kind words. I try to uphold the "old-fashioned Wikipedian values" as much as I can, and part of that is being charitable to others to the farthest extent that is reasonable ("within a whisker of absurdity"). So there's no need to thank me. I think it's certainly plausible that some editors who participate at AfD do so because "it'll look good at RfA", and to a certain extent, they're not wrong: strong AfD stats are a plus in many RfA participants' eyes, and those who oppose RfAs will often make a point to recommend more AfD work. Applying my naive "old-fashioned Wikipedian values" approach, however, I would typically assume the other editor is here genuinely to help the project, as opposed to solely wanting to become an admin, and those who solely want to be an admin almost never do. As for my age, my vague answer will be that I am still in the education system. Cheers, Mz7 (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
hmm.
are you under or over 30? —usernamekiran(talk) 04:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Under. Mz7 (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Recently, I was thinking you were above 50! —usernamekiran(talk) 05:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
PS: I am unable to find SPI case page of Tyler Durden, would you please give me the link to it? Thanks. —usernamekiran(talk)
@Usernamekiran: Tyler Durden was blocked based on evidence in contributions and in CheckUser information, but without a sockpuppet investigation page. Mz7 (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Are you under 25 or over? Also, are you a student of computer science? —usernamekiran(talk) 15:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll have to cut this line of inquiry off here. If, by chance, we ever meet each other in person, e.g. at a meetup or a conference, I'd be happy to share more about myself. On-wiki, however, I'm a little leery of providing too much personal information publicly. If you are curious, however, you can find out what my name is by going through my talk page archives prior to February 2014. Mz7 (talk) 16:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: List of former Special Air Service personnel - Thanks

More specifically, re: your edit and your edit comment: "probably not necessary - I've protected the page"

  • Yes, you're right
    • a) I really didn't want to make that edit, but ... I'm getting really tired of user talk:Eddiebow, and his socks, and their disruptive edits ...
    • b) "Protecting the page" is an "obvious" solution I hadn't thought of. (I'm glad you DID think of that alternative.)
  • No, I hadn't realised that you had protected the page. (and BTW: Thank the Lord that you have!)

So getting to the point:
* 1) How would I know/determine that you had protected the page?
* 2) How could I know/determine for how long you had protected the page?
Thanks! Pdfpdf (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, I have to tell you, I'm somewhat confused.
  • The answer to 1) is very obviously: "Look at the page's edit history".
  • However, I find that the answer to 2) is less obvious / slightly confusing. The options are:
    • a) Protected "List of former Special Air Service personnel": Persistent sock puppetry ([Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 04:06, 5 July 2017 (UTC))))
    • b) Configured pending changes settings for List of former Special Air Service personnel: Persistent sock puppetry [Auto-accept: require "autoconfirmed" permission] (expires 04:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)))
I'm not sure of the relationship between a) and b).
  • If a) & b) are dependent, that implies to me that "the date" is 28 September 2017.
  • If they are not, then I'm confused.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
P.S. What's the significance of adding "{{pp-sock}}"? (Thanks in advance.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pdfpdf. Sorry about all the confusion. Wikipedians that have been here before I joined have sometimes said that "things were simpler back then", when there was only one kind of protection: the kind that prevents anyone expect administrators from editing it. Nowadays, Wikipedia has myriad levels of protection that restrict different users from editing in different ways.

In the case of List of former Special Air Service personnel, I have applied two forms of protection that are different and independent of each other.

  • The first is semi-protection, which disables all editing from unregistered users (i.e. IP addresses), as well as all editing from registered accounts that are less than 4 days old or have less than 10 edits. This protection will expire on 5 July 2017, but it can be extended if the disruptive editing persists thereafter.
  • The second form of protection I applied is pending changes protection, which still allows editing from anyone, but holds back the publication of edits from unregistered users or accounts with less than 4 days and 10 edits until they are accepted by a pending changes reviewer. In this sense, while pending changes won't stop vandalism from being submitted, in most cases it will prevent our readers from seeing it because it will usually be reverted before it goes live. Because pending changes protection is deliberately more lightweight than semi-protection, I have applied it for a longer duration on this article – until 28 September 2017.
  • At the moment, the article is semi-protected, and note that semi-protection disables all editing from the group of users that pending changes would affect. When the semi-protection expires on 5 July 2017, the pending changes protection will take over and remain in place until 28 September, after which the page will return to being unprotected. Pending changes is unique in the sense that it can be applied simultaneously to any of the other editing protection levels.
  • The significance of {{pp-sock}} is that it adds a small silver padlock in the upper right-hand corner of the article. It looks like this: . If you hover your mouse over this padlock on the article, it will pop up with text that says something along the lines of "this article is semi-protected to prevent the sock puppets of blocked or banned users from editing it".

I hope this information is helpful. If you are still confused, please let me know, and I would be happy to clarify. Mz7 (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes it's helpful. (i.e. I am not longer confused!) Thank you very much for the effort you have gone to explain things. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:37, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Request to look again at a block

You blocked EXaline as a sockpuppet. The editor has made several unblock requests, one of which I declined, as it looked like a DUCK to me. However, the latest unblock request has cast doubts in my mind. The editor's explanation of the editing is possible, and his or her unlock requests are very different in character from talk page messages from the sockmaster and known sockpuppets in at least two ways. Firstly, this editor's grasp of English is not in the same league as that of the master and other socks, and secondly there is none of the rabid right wing conspiracy theories, racism, attacks on other editors, and such like stuff that has always been the hallmark of the sockpuppeteer. Having thought very carefully about it, I have decided that this is probably in fact an innocent new editor after all. I am inclined to unblock, but I would be grateful if you could have a look at it and see what you think. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:52, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi JamesBWatson. Thank you for the note. I can definitely see what you mean. Reading over the unblock requests, the editor's statements are inconsistent with the mannerisms of Aryan121. I also noticed the longevity of the account – it was created long before Aryan121 became active. At first I thought it was a long abandoned account of the same editor, but given the new information, I'm inclined to agree with you that the block was in error here. Feel free to unblock, and I'll be drafting an apology presently. In the meantime, I'll also be thinking about a compromise solution to somehow link to Turkey in the list of European mobile network operators and avoid future mistakes. Mz7 (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Revdel?

Hello, Does this edit require some sort of revdel action? Thanks, Eagleash (talk) 20:00, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eagleash. The edit was definitely inappropriate, but as of now, it doesn't look like this rises to the level where revision deletion is necessary. In case the user repeats this behavior, leaving it undeleted will allow the community to scrutinize the edit and possibly impose sanctions. Mz7 (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Right. Got it. Thanks. Eagleash (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

A move...

Hi, can you please implement the closure of the move request in accordance with this edit.Thanks!Winged Blades Godric 10:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Winged Blades of Godric. Sure thing –  Done. Please let me know if I've missed anything. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks!Every-thing is perfect!Winged Blades Godric 17:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Mess up during round robin move

Hi,
This was my first attempt to move a page with round robin move, and I messed up. The discussion can be found here. In the process, I did some mistake. The page has been successfully moved from Wilson's Heart to Wilson's Heart (House), but it ended up with a redirect page: Wilson's Heart (House) temp. Not sure where I went wrong. Could you please elaborate? And also, how to clean-up my mess? Sorry for messing up. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:44, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for handling it. So, how bad had I messed up? —usernamekiran(talk) 21:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran: On a technical level, you didn't mess up too badly. It looks like you correctly moved the redirect that was blocking the requested move to a temporary page, then performed the requested move, but forgot to move the temporary page to Wilson's Heart, where it could be turned into a disambiguation page as the discussion called for. In other words, if you look at WP:PMR#Round-robin page moves, it looks like you did steps 1 and 2, but forgot steps 3 and 4. I went ahead and moved Wilson's Heart (House) temp to Wilson's Heart, then turned the page into a disambiuation page. I believe this should resolve the issue. If you have any questions, let me know. Mz7 (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
I tried to perform step 3, but I was getting an error. Thanks a lot for the help though. (btw, Gregory House, and Wilson are from my most favourite characters. )
Also, I didn't realise you had replied me earlier. I always thought Mz7 was just a username, and not initials. And no, I don't think I will ever leave India. So unless you attend a meetup in India, the chances of us meeting are very thin. :-|
—usernamekiran(talk) 21:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
Usernamekiran, it might be worth checking out User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap if you're intending on doing any other pageswaps. It removes most of the mess from the process (other than fixing redirects and other minor cleanup stuff). I don't have to use it often, but it's super-nice to have when I do. Primefac (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Thanks for your answers

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much. This helps a lot. I will make these corrections and resubmit the article.

1. I will remove promotional language.

2. I will point to articles on Kannada language newspapers.

3. I will point to articles those are no more available and Web. But I will provide bibliographical material for those.

4. I will avoid sourcing articles on blog site.--Nagaraj Kolara (talk) 11:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC) --Nagaraj Kolara (talk) 11:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Henry Abner

Henry Abner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Hi,
Please can you take a look at this page? As a result of a question at the help desk here and some work by other editors (see the TP) it seems likely that this page is a fairly elaborate hoax. Not sure if it is suitable for CSD or whether it would have to go via AfD? Thanks. Best, Eagleash (talk) 13:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Eagleash. Following the advice at WP:HOAX#Dealing with hoaxes, I think this should be nominated at AfD instead of CSD, since the hoax isn't blatant. It could benefit from more eyes, who may be able to locate the sources cited in the article, if they do exist. I went ahead and added a {{hoax}} tag to the article as our investigation continues. I'm finding that my search for "Abner" in Google Books agree with the findings of Landscape repton for that Robert Sampson book. Mz7 (talk) 23:49, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. I too have not been able to find anything to back up the info. on the page. Eagleash (talk) 12:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Mz7, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for having the right judgment *not* to listen to me on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vamsiraj. :)

Sro23 (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Sro23: Cross-checking what we're all paid for!* Mz7 (talk) 06:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC) *in kittens

I want to be your student in Counter Vandalism Academy.

Good day. I'm a five year Wikipedia editor. I am editing happily for about 5 years, then suddenly I saw some users vandalising an article. Honestly, I don't know if it is a Vandalism or a Good faith, so I want to learn from you. Thank you so much and have a nice day. Mark Jhomel (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mark Jhomel. Thank you for contacting me. I would be happy to train you! I am about to go to work, so please give me until the end of the day to set up the course page. In the meantime, I wanted to let you know that I edited your user page to remove the {{Rollback topicon}} and {{Pending changes reviewer topicon}} templates because you do not have either rollback or pending changes reviewer permissions. I apologize for messing with your page, but those templates are only for identifying what permissions you do or do not have, and using those templates when you haven't been granted the associated permission can be misleading to editors. If are confused by this, or have any other questions, feel free to ask. I will also cover these permissions and what they do during the Counter Vandalism Academy course. Best, Mz7 (talk) 12:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you so much sir. It is okay that you corrected my user page. I really appreciated that, however, I am currently rebuilding my user page right now so don't worry. Anyway, for the course, I will wait for the time that you are not busy. I want to learn more about vandalism because I really hate it. I also want to be a recent changes patroller and rollbacker soon. So I am expecting something about us. Thank you so much and have a nice day sir. Mark Jhomel (talk) 12:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mark Jhomel: There are a few other things on your user page that are misleading, which you should fix or clarify. You state in a userbox that you have made over 17,000 contributions to Wikipedia articles, yet your edit counter states that you've only made 362 edits to the "main" namespace (where articles are). That's not nearly the same number, and I suggest you either clarify this or remove the template. Also, you state that you've been editing Wikipedia for five years (since 17 March 2012), yet your account was only created on 15 July 2014, only a little over 3 years ago. Is "Mark Jhomel" your first account? Did you contribute to Wikipedia prior to creating this account? I would like to get to know you and how much experience you have as well as possible if I am to train you. Mz7 (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes sir. I believe that I reached more than 17,000 edits since I came in Wikipedia. Let me explain those things for you sir. First, I created my account on the year 2009. I am new to Wikipedia that's why at first, I only edit grammars, punctuations, adding citations and removing red links. As far as I remember sir, I have about 30 edits per day from the year of 2009 to 2011. But I lost that account because my e-mail was not working. So by 2011, I created a new account again, the account name is Jhianne. I lost again the password and e-mail. I am editing about 60 per day except Saturdays and Sundays because I was studying in my high school. It was up to 2014. Then on 2014, I created a new account, this account. And it says that I only edited approximately 700 articles, however, I want to tell you that I lost a thousand of edits because I am editing trough just an IP address, more than I edit via Username. Sir, I do edit on IP and disregard my edit counts because I believe that edit count is nothing, and I believe numbers can only lead edit-countitis, which I suffered about 4 years ago. But sir, if you will tell me not consider those IP edits and the edit count of my two old accounts, it's okay. I will remove it if you want because I only want to learn something from you. I want to fight vandalism. That's all sir. Mark Jhomel (talk) 00:19, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mark Jhomel: Fair enough. In order to avoid problems in the future, I think you should either 1) declare on your user page exactly what the usernames of your past accounts were, or 2) remove the edit count and "editor for five years" templates entirely, or 3) modify them to reflect your edit counts for your current account ("Mark Jhomel"). Please also make sure you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, which is our policy on the use of multiple accounts. In particular, if you have ever been sanctioned or blocked on a previous account, I would declare the names of your previous accounts so that you are not accused of trying to evade scrutiny. Note that it appears Jhianne (talk · contribs) is not a registered account – are you sure you spelled that correctly?
... Now, with that aside, I've gone ahead and created your course page at User:Mz7/CVUA/Mark Jhomel. There, I've published your first assignment. Please read it carefully and let me know once you have completed it. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I removed the two templates you mentioned sir. Thank you. Mark Jhomel (talk) 02:24, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mark Jhomel: I'm sorry, I forgot to mention, you also write at the top of your user-page that you are a "5-year" Wikipedia editor. I would either remove this too or declare what your past accounts were. Also, you can stop calling me "sir". Although conversations on Wikipedia are usually serious, we don't need to be so formal. Don't forget to do your assignments at User:Mz7/CVUA/Mark Jhomel. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to let me know. Mz7 (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


cirrus sr22 crash

Hello! Thank you for reviewing my article. My main case for even writing the article is that the likely cause of the accident is hypoxia which is a relatively rare and interesting cause of a plane crash. I was worried about the notability since there are few news articles about it, and though the pilot involved was a very influential person at Harley Davidson, he does not have his own Wikipedia article.

I have added a few more secondary sources. Ferret25 (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Ferret25, I apologize for my delay in getting back to you. I too think it's an interesting cause of a plane crash, but what matters more is whether reliable, secondary sources also agree that it was an interesting cause through significant and persistent coverage of the event. I think our strongest bet to providing the kind of high-quality evidence required to support an encyclopedia article is to try to find coverage of the crash that lasted beyond one or two days after the event. I noticed you added a few new secondary sources, which are good: [4][5][6]. However, if I were to play the devil's advocate and argue that this topic is not worthy of being in an encyclopedia, I would point out the fact that all of these news stories were released within 3 days after the event in question. If there is little to no coverage outside of this short news cycle, it may not the kind of duration of coverage we need to justify an encyclopedia article.
Are there any news articles or other scholarly analysis of the crash written several weeks (or maybe even months or years) after the event? If the hypoxia cause was truly significant, shouldn't we expect to see more persistent coverage? While we don't expect to see persistent coverage on the subject forever, there should be enough to show that the subject is "more than merely newsworthy". Again, I find this topic interesting too and want to see it published, but I wanted to try to bring up an alternative point of view that I think we will have to prepare to defend against if we are to publish the article now. Mz7 (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate your help! I found one article written about 8 months later, but that is all I have been able to find for now. I also found the air safety alert issued afterward.
I have a question for you: I have interest in editing the 2014 SOCATA TBM crash article because I think it is a much more interesting story than the wiki would have one believe! And it has great coverage. The article I have written is related very closely to that accident not only in similarity of the event, but they are also within five days of each other. In articles about the crash I focused on, the TBM crash is mentioned, and vice versa. Would it be worth adding/more appropriate to add a section about the Cirrus accident within the Socata article? Ferret25 (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret25: If the reliable sources have discussed the two incidents in connection with each other, then yes, it would be appropriate to add information about the Cirrus accident in the Socata article. As for whether the Cirrus crash should have an article of its own, it's still not clear, but if you want to go for it, we can publish the article into the mainspace and see what other editors think. You may have to defend it against deletion. Mz7 (talk) 21:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Mz7: Hello again. I would like to publish it and potentially defend against deletion! Is resubnmission the proper way to go about it? Ferret25 (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Ferret25: Sure thing. I've gone ahead and accepted the draft into mainspace – you can find it now at 2014 Cirrus SR22 crash. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 16:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Some thanks and concern.

Hello, I wish you have a good day. First of all, I want to thank you for noticing my mistakes regarding those speedy deletion tags I placed in the new article. I thought they were test pages because of the 'trial-codes' I saw left on the article's main space. Next, I contacted you to ask for your notes regarding on my performance here as a contributor. Your reaction will help me a lot to improve myself and to be on the right track, not only in the vandalism-related issues, but as well as on the other natures of Wikipedia. Just to tell you something, my brother has an assignment earlier. He was so glad that most of his concerns are provided by Wikipedia. I then felt to be more determined in contributing here. But, I can't do that without your help. I am learning a lot from you and I wish that there will be more. I want to thank you for taking time teaching me about vandalism, and I will expect for more. That's all, and again, thank you and have a nice day. :) Mark Jhomel (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mark Jhomel. You should only nominate a page for speedy deletion as WP:G2 (a "test page") if it is clear that the page created to test Wikipedia's editing functions, as opposed to attempting to submit a legitimate article. If the page looks like a legitimate attempt to create an article, G2 does not apply. As for your overall performance on Wikipedia, I think, despite what you initially claimed to me, that you are a relatively inexperienced editor compared to other editors who have been around as long as you. That's not intended to discourage you, of course – experience is something that can be gained. However, with respect to counter-vandalism and tagging pages for speedy deletion, my biggest advice to you would be: slow down. In several cases, you tagged articles for speedy deletion, sometimes incorrectly, within a couple minutes of article creation.
Imagine if you are a brand new editor, interested in submitting an article to Wikipedia. You type something up, submit it, then, just a few seconds later, get a message from another editor telling you that the page you submitted is up for deletion because it is a "test page". That's discouraging, and it can drive potential contributors away. That's why it is critical that you patrol new pages correctly and cautiously. If you slow down and allow yourself time to observe how other editors patrol new pages, I think you will gain a lot of experience. Every single edit made to Wikipedia is logged, and if you want, you can see how any undeleted page on Wikipedia looked at any particular point in time. Much of my own knowledge of how Wikipedia works has come from spending hours just reading about Wikipedia's processes, as well as reading through the history of internal discussion pages.
If you are interested, one area of Wikipedia I recommend to gain more experience in policies and guidelines, particularly revolving around deletion, is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, which is where the community gathers to discuss whether articles should be deleted or kept. Through reading and participating in these discussions, I think you'll get a better sense of how Wikipedians communicate with each other and how Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are applied. Wikipedia:Guide to deletion has more information. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 17:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Apology Brownie

I brought this brownie to tell you that I am very sorry for overlinking. I just want to give articles more information. I will make sure to link appropriately. Do you accept my apology brownie? Tallahassle (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Tallahassle: Your apology is accepted, but please ensure your actions reflect your words. I also noticed you've been distributing lots of barnstars across Wikipedia. There's nothing procedurally wrong with this behavior, but typically barnstars are awarded for particularly fine, extraordinary contributions to Wikipedia – in other words, they should be rewarded sparingly. I'm afraid it looks like you've been dedicating a lot of time to treating Wikipedia like a social network . Please ensure that moving forward, your actions reflect that you are here to build an encyclopedia, not for other purposes. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Friendship Request

The Smiley Cookie
Can we be friends? Tallahassle (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Thankful Cheeseburger

Thank you for making me feel more careful about myself (about the overlinking). Tallahassle (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

49.150.252.175

This IP has continued to vandalize after your previous 1 week block. Would you mind re-blocking them once again? Thanks. 172.58.43.50 (talk) 04:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for letting me know! Mz7 (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment

I don't usually comment on random stuff, but this was particularly well written. Cheers. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Thank you, Mz7 (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the invite! I'm still learning how to navigate, so this is very much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaeluj (talk • contribs) 20:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

IP Harassment

I've opened a case at ANI about an IP that is harassing me over my simple mistakes. If you have the time, please review it. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Responded there. Mz7 (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Continuing violations by SeththeGreat

Hi Mz7. This is fyi, that a new IP duck has appeared. Please see my report at AIV. Dr. K. 02:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dr.K.: Thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the IP temporarily. Mz7 (talk) 06:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

I'd like to let you know that the CSD A7 category is getting close to being backlogged. I have a candidate already nominated that has been sitting in the category for over a day now. Someone might want to have a look at it. The page in question is on my Talk page under my reasons for discouragement. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: Looks like I was too late. PSA Tour (Fifth Harmony tour) was speedily deleted already. CSD does get backlogged occasionally. Like all backlogs on Wikipedia, they require users who are both interested and have time in order to be cleared, and sometimes we don't have enough of these kinds of administrators. If you ever need more immediate help from an administrator, one thing you could try is WP:IRC. Our main chat channel for the English Wikipedia is #wikipedia-en connect. Simply connect to the channel and ask if there are any administrators around. There's typically one around that will respond after a few minutes. If it's urgent, you can also type !admin followed by your request and that should draw our attention sooner. Mz7 (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

24 August 2017

i know this is a mistake. His kids go to my school and i see him around all of the time signing autographs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.244.152.200 (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia cannot publish material based on personal experiences – see Wikipedia:No original research for our policy on this. Information in Wikipedia needs to have a citation to a published, reliable source, especially if they relate to living people, so that our readers are able to check whether content written is true. If you have questions, please feel free to ask. Mz7 (talk) 01:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Mz7, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Confirmed

Hi - thanks for the Confirmed. I checked FARotBot's global account status and the Confirmed applies to enwiki but I really need it on meta.wikipedia.org .. do you know how -- is it a separate request somewhere or does it propagate with time, or something else? Thanks -- GreenC 01:21, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@GreenC: Hmm, I'm afraid I'm not sure. For global rights, I think you'll have to talk to the stewards. meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous has a place where you can "request approval of OAuth consumers", if that helps. As far as I know, there's no global confirmed right. Mz7 (talk) 02:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
That worked and fast thanks! -- GreenC 04:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Excellent. Glad that it was helpful. Mz7 (talk) 04:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

a separate account for automated edits

Hi. Long time. I hope you are well.
Few hours ago, I created another account (Usernamekiran (AWB)), for adding project banners of WP:MAFIA, and WP:SPY. So far, it is going well. I was wondering, if I should get rollback rights to the new account as well, so that I can perform all the "irrelevant" edits from it; I mean the random edits (Huggle/STiki). Do you think I should do this? Doing that would keep all of my edits categorised. —usernamekiran(talk) 11:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

What do you think Gerda? —usernamekiran(talk) 11:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Usernamekiran: I am peripherally aware that this practice has been done before. I don't think you should feel that it is necessary or even recommended to separate your Huggle/STiki edits by creating multiple accouts. I don't see them as "irrelevant"; maintenance contributions are still valid and important contributions to Wikipedia. However, if you would like to do this, policy does allow me to assign rollback rights to your declared alternative accounts. Mz7 (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, the other account has been granted rollback flag.
I meant, I already have another a/c for AWB, I thought it would be a good idea to do the edits which dont need to be tracked. I am not sure if I am putting my thoughts in words correctly. Like, if a vandal adds literally "bla blah bla yada yada dooby doo" to an article which is not in my area of interest, it would be better to revert such edits though the alt a/c. I mean, most of the edits from Huggle feed are from such random articles. Thanks a lot for the reply. :)
See you around. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

CVUA

Hello sir @Mz7:. Good day. How are you? I just to say that I'm opting out in the academy because I can't balance my life in my job and here in Wikipedia right now. My apologies. But please, retain the user CVUA page so I can continue my lessons as long as my schedule became spacious. Thank you so much for your appreciation. I also want to tell you that you are a really good teacher. See you soon. Mark Jhomel (talk) 11:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mark Jhomel: Sure thing. I'll put your course on hold until you get back. Best of luck in your work life! Mz7 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello!

Hope you are fine. Can you please look at the contributions of 1000maex? He has been adding same chunk of information in different pages related to Assam. The information is written from a particular POV with sources from opinion pieces. From his edit history, it seems he's not a new editor but using this account to do these edits. Any thoughts? Thank you. --45.123.13.164 (talk) 15:21, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mz7/June–August_2017&oldid=1084133444"