This is an archive of past discussions about User:NTox. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for asking. According to article Pithecellobium dulce (par. 2), jungle jalebi is the Hindi name for the plant that produces the fruit that u:Chinchan2000 appeared to be referring to with the "jangaljalebe" name (note the absence of that exact term in a Google search, and his mention of "fruit"). Naturally, then, it would probably fall under the usual purposes of redirects as a likely misspelling. NTox · talk07:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Yes, it may be possible to make a case for its inclusion if it is made clear that it comes from the advertising campaign. I would, however, be inclined to leave it out unless any particular nugget has attracted the attention of other sources. This seems like one of those cases where the stuff is interesting, but trifling. I'll let you respond how you wish; however, if you choose to include it, I'd recommend providing substantive sources and making a case for its longevity on the article's talk page. NTox · talk23:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
New Page Patrolling
Thank you for your excellent work on vandal fighting and patrolling new pages - two essential tasks. Please note however that the most important advice and tutorial pages and/or essays have been written by experienced editors; unless you are correcting vandalism there is no need to modify the text unnecessarily as you did with your recent edit(s) to WP:NPP. Keep up the good work, and if anything is not clear, don't hesitate to ask. -Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate your comments. Had to go back in time for that one; it was awhile ago. I suppose I quite respectfully disagree with you, although not vociferously so. In my mind, the avoidance of 'weasal words' (a term I use outside of Wikipedia) is generally good writing practice. My intention was not to specifically invoke the guidance of WP:MOS, but to signify the equivocation of the statement. The comment, "Research has shown that writers unfamiliar with Wikipedia guidelines should have 10 to 15 minutes ..." (my emphasis) struck me as odd; I am not sure how 'research' can reveal how something 'should' be; rather, is it trying to say that the retention of new editors increases when we give them 10-15 minutes time with new articles? I am not sure. My impression is that it hinges on sketchy reasoning; i.e., that the statement is attempting to make more forceful a directive to wait with SD tagging by (injudiciously) citing 'research' to substantiate a subjective claim. I suppose, in the spirit of critical reading, I would be more comfortable if there was information provided about this research, mainspace or not. Plus, it would probably offer great insights for new page patrollers. NTox · talk04:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Actually, far from sketchy, it is indeed based on research - a lot of it - much of which I led myself until the 2-year work of our Wikipedia NPP research team was taken over at great cost (and some time wasting) by the Wikimedia Foundation themselves under false offers of help. At least it inspired their equally slow and probably 'show' process of development of the New Page Triage system. Once one understands that around 80% of all newly created pages each day are nonsense and get correctly deleted, those that have the possible makings of an article should be given a few extra minutes to see what the creator is really up to. There is probably far more to NPP that you might still be aware. You can help, and there will be a lot of reading to do, but I warn you, untill NPP becomes the domain of experienced editors, getting people to patrol pages properly is like herding cats. It's like RfA - every newbie here wants to be a 'moderator' and start their Wiki career by managing the project. You may find this short essay I wrote interesting. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. While I do not doubt your credentials, and I cannot proclaim to be a cognoscente of modern thinking about WP:NPP, I have merely noticed what appears to be a borderline-indefensible assertion. Don't get me wrong; I absolutely agree that new page patrollers should be waiting a minimum of 10-15 minutes before posting speedy deletion tags (save the egregious cases), but I think it is dubious to suggest that 'research' (a term that usually signifies systematic investigation of facts) can directly support a normative statement like this one. Even if we unpack the statement more loosely—to say that research 'informs' the directive—I am not finding a lot of evidence to support this. I have now reviewed the relevant research pages; I was unable to find information about the 10-15 minute particular on the old New Page WikiProject; moreover, the talk page discussions at Meta-Wiki reveal only one comment [1]—an opinion—which does not appear to be any new insight rooted in the conclusions of the Foundation's research. I understand that there have been discussions about trigger-happy patrolling, and that a 10-15 minute respite is supported by a consensus, but it is the effort to justify it with 'research' that gives me pause. While there may be no policy that strictly requires us to provide any more information than that, I believe it to be a thoughtful service to editors. Best, NTox · talk08:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I retired from academia 6 years ago, so I'll put this in plain language: we were so disgusted with the way the Foundation handled things at the time, and continues to do so ,under the guise of a new project they claim to be their own, that I and the original team have not only lost interest in that project, but much of our enthusiasm for Wikipedia as a whole. You're welcome to pick up the threads, but please try to be objective and less critical of those volunteers who did structured, detailed, in-depth analytical research of NPP only to have it stolen from them by salaried rank amateurs at the WMF. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Understood. I can only sympathize. You have an admirable sensibility here; sincerely, I have no doubts that your work was, and continues to be, appreciated. Thank you for taking this time to talk. NTox · talk09:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't make a joke
You made a mistake. You said I will be blocked if I make another improperly placed joke, but I didn't make any jokes.--71.72.151.150 (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I'm sorry about that automated message. Your revision came up with vandalism on my console; it was not until two minutes later that I realized it was someone else's vandalism that you were trying to revert. Obviously, your intentions were in good faith. I would ask, however, that you be careful with Huggle and Rollback. In just a quick look at your recent reversions, I have already seen three times in which it should not have been used. Remember that Rollback should not be used for all 'bad' entries. Only the ones that are clearly attempts to disrupt the encyclopedia. Best, NTox · talk16:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
Hello NTox. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User:Mr. Sako/sandbox, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: no reason to delete - user can do what he likes in his sandbox. I see he is blocked, but nothing is gained by deleting this. JohnCD (talk) 08:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Greetings. I hereby confirm my interest in assisting with the account creation interface. My identification diff is here. NTox · talk16:42, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Done NTox, thank you for interest in the account creation process. I have verified your Identificationoldid=3799470 and I have approved your request, welcome to the team. You may now access the interface here. Before you do so, please read the account creation guide and our username policythoroughly to familiarize yourself with the process. You should also join us on IRC#wikipedia-en-accountsconnect on where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and to get any advice on requests as well as the mailing list. Please note that we have implemented a policy of zero tolerance on mishandled requests, and that failure to assess correctly will result in suspension. I would like to emphasize that it is not a race to complete a request, and each one should be handled diligently and thoroughly. Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day, although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed" by the bot and "Flagged user needed" on the interface. However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM/ACC. Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse will result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! Mlpearc (powwow) 05:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Mlpearc. It was a pleasure briefly meeting you tonight. I will re-read those instructions a few times before I begin any work. Have a good one. NTox · talk05:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
You're welcome. Re-reading is always a good idea, these pages (the guide mostly) gets updated / changes every now and then. The above is a form letter :P so I know you're already familiar with IRC, I would subscribe to the mailing list (I'll approve that as soon as I see it) we use the list to have discussions and such, also a link to the list is posted all over the new user side of account creations so we also create accounts and help users via this list also. Again welcome to the team and ASK QUESTIONS Mlpearc (powwow) 18:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, NTox, for !voting at my successful RFA; I am humbled that you put your trust in me. I grant you this flower, which, if tended to properly, will grow to be the fruit of Wikipedia's labours. I'll try and keep conservative. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Page blocked
[13:38] <ryanfolster> Hi my page has been blocked from publication
Hi, Ryan. Thanks for writing to me. When it comes to copyright, Wikipedia is only sometimes allowed to reuse content from external sources - most of the time, it is not allowed. It is usually only okay when the external content is released under very specific licenses. Our Copyright FAQ lays it all out for you. Your submission was declined because the website's content did not appear to be released under one of these licenses. If you believe that you can accomplish a submission without conflicting with copyright, I would advise you to write a new one via the Article Wizard. NTox · talk16:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
+accountcreator
After reviewing your request for the account creator right, I have enabled the flag on your account. Keep in mind these things:
The account creator right removes the limit on the maximum number of new accounts that can be created in a 24-hour period.
The account creator right is not a status symbol. If it remains unused, it is likely to be removed. Abuse of the account creator right will result in its removal by an administrator.
If you no longer require the right, let me know, or ask any other administrator. Drop a note if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of the account creator right. Happy editing! [stwalkerster|talk]19:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Username policy
Regarding your comment at WP:UAA: Usernames that bear the name of a company, organization, website, product, or group are only blocked if the user has made promotional edits about that entity.
That is not true. Wikipedia:Username policy prohibits usernames that represent a corporation, group, band, role account, or other non-person entity. Violation of that policy is grounds for blocking the account, even if the account has made no promotional edits.
If such an account hasn't made any promotional edits, administrators issue a "soft block" that doesn't auto-block the IP address and doesn't block account creation, so that the user can create a new account with a different name. See the template {{softerblock}} as an example of a block message used for corporate name accounts that haven't made promotional edits.
One exception we've allowed over the past year or so are accounts that clearly belong to a person but are still associated with a corporation. Mark at Alcoa (talk·contribs) is the first example of this that I know of. The debate on his talk page includes some admins and a bureaucrat who found the name acceptable. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Greetings. I do agree that there are problems even in the absence of promotional edits, but as far as blockable violations go, I was trying to follow the username policy and the UAA guide as closely as possible. Specifically, the bullet points at ORGNAME and this section of the guide. Let me know if I have misunderstood. NTox · talk20:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
"Unambiguous use of a name or URL of a company, group or product as a username is generally not permitted." The "not permitted" part seems pretty clear. The point I was trying to make earlier was that you answered[2] the UAA report with the 'nao' template that said the username was not a serious violation of the username policy, when it clearly was, blatant and obvious. Whether it was a blockable violation is another question to be decided by the administrator who acts upon the report to UAA. Admins have a wide latitude of responses. The action can range from a warning to the user, to a soft block, to a hard block, depending on what the user did.
My own actions on a UAA report of a company name varies. If a company-name account makes constructive edits unrelated to the company, they get a warning encouraging a change of username. If they edit their COI article in a constructive way, they get a soft block with a message to create a new account. If they promote themselves, they get a hard block with revoked editing and account creation rights on the IP address. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I've just re-read the username policy and UAA guide to make sure I have everything straight - I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on our understandings of them. I should say, however, that I don't have a problem with your decision in this case or your philosophy on username blocks in general. In fact, the method you described in the second paragraph above is something I'd likely support as formal practice. My argument is simply that the method is not consistent with two separate instructions pages. I am not sure there is much ambiguity: "Users who adopt such usernames, but who are not editing problematically in related articles, should not be blocked." (bold in original). Since that directive is part of the username policy, and the user did not edit problematically in related articles, I said it was not a serious violation of username policy. The same idea is in the UAA guide. Of course, we are all free to make IAR decisions, but I am not sure you can justify your opinion on the basis that it is consistent with policy. But again, I have no inherent problems with your thinking on the matter; I'm more concerned about new editors who would be confused about the apparent double standard between an administrator's decision and written policy. NTox · talk22:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
I would like to thank everyone for your questions and comments. If appointed I will strive to do the best job possible for the community and the project I will also keep in mind that according to this log I will be the only non-admin in the group and the best I could hope for is to pave a strong smooth path for future non-admins, again I appreciate your interest, concerns and support. Mlpearc (powwow) 14:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
As a clerk, I don't see any issues that would forbid your request. The one thing I would say is that the process would require usurpation, since the target name is in fact technically registered (even if by yourself). There may have been some delay since your request is listed on the simple rename page. In any case, what I would advise doing is making a confirmation edit on your Mohamed CJ account that you wish to be renamed back to it; that way, you have verified that you own both accounts, and the normal hold period normally required to get consent of usurpation from the target user is obviously waived. I can go ahead and move your request to the usurpation page once I see that confirmation. Remember, however, that as a clerk I merely assist, so the final decisions always depend on the bureaucrat. NTox · talk07:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good. I've transferred the request to CHU/U and noted the confirmation here. Let me know if you think something didn't move over correctly. Good luck - I hope everything checks out with the bureaucrat. NTox · talk08:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Now that he's reduced himself to personal attacks against me, I really do not appreciate that. I do not see why he shouldn't be reported for personal attacks against myself. ViriiK (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I certainly do not condone those attacks, and they are not acceptable. My opinion about the initial incident remains unchanged, but obviously he has engaged in additional disruption. You are free to respond as you desire, as always, but my advice at this point would be to forgive and forget before this escalates further. Difficult, certainly . . but keep cool, take the high road, and then report to ANI or the relevant location if this continues. You may think of it as a WP:DENY situation. I'm sorry you went through that. NTox · talk01:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Done 
Mlpearc (powwow) 18:20, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
