User talk:Nick/Archive16

This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia. (verify)

This user is an administrator on Wikimedia Commons. (verify)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Signpost exit poll

Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?

  If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.

  All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian

The questionnaire

Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.

quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes

Q#0. Will you be responding to the questions in this exit poll? Why or why not? Your Answer: Your Comments: Q#1. Arbs must have at least 0k / 2k / 4k / 8k / 16k / 32k+ edits to Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: Your Comments: Q#2. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years editing Wikipedia. Your Numeric Answer: Your Comments: Q#3. Arbs... A: should not be an admin B: should preferably not be an admin C: can be but need not be an admin D: should preferably be an admin E: must be or have been an admin F: must currently be an admin Your Single-Letter Answer: Your Comments: Q#4. Arbs must have at least 0 / 1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6 / 7+ years of experience as an admin. Your Numeric Answer: Your Comments: Q#5. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you support this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Supported: Your Comments: The Quick&Easy End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: General Comments:

the extended exit poll, estimated time required: depends

Q#6. Completely optional, as all these questions are completely optional: which candidates did you oppose this year, and why? Your List-Of-Usernames You Opposed: Your Comments: Q#7. Are there any Wikipedians you would like to see run for ArbCom, in the December 2016 election, twelve months from now? Who? Your List-Of-Usernames As Potential Future Candidates: Your Comments: Q#8. Why did you vote in the 2015 ArbCom elections? In particular, how did you learn about the election, and what motivated you to participate this year? Your Answer: Your Comments: Q#9. For potential arbs, good indicators of the right kind of contributions outside noticeboard activity, would be: A: discussions on the talkpages of articles which ARE subject to ArbCom sanctions B: discussions on the talkpages of articles NOT subject to ArbCom restrictions C: sending talkpage notifications e.g. with Twinkle, sticking to formal language D: sending talkpage notifications manually, and explaining with informal English E: working on policies/guidelines F: working on essays/helpdocs G: working on GA/FA/DYK/similar content H: working on copyedits/infoboxes/pictures/similar content I: working on categorization e.g. with HotCat J: working on autofixes e.g. with AWB or REFILL K: working with other Wikipedians via wikiprojects e.g. with MILHIST L: working with other Wikipedians via IRC e.g. with #wikipedia-en-help connect or informally M: working with other Wikipedians via email e.g. with UTRS or informally N: working with other Wikipedians in person e.g. at edit-a-thons / Wikipedian-in-residence / Wikimania / etc O: other types of contribution, please specify in your comments Please specify a comma-separated list of the types of contributions you see as positive indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#10. Arbs who make many well-informed comments at these noticeboards (please specify which!) have the right kind of background, or experience, for ArbCom. Options: A: AE, B: arbCases, C: LTA, D: OTRS, E: AN, continued: F: OS/REVDEL, G: CU/SPI, H: AN/I, I: pageprot, J: NAC, continued: K: RfC, L: RM, M: DRN, N: EA, O: 3o, continued: P: NPOVN, Q: BLPN, R: RSN, S: NORN, T: FTN, continued: U: teahouse, V: helpdesk, W: AfC, X: NPP, Y: AfD, continued: 1: UAA, 2: COIN, 3: antiSpam, 4: AIV, 5: 3RR, continued: 6: CCI, 7: NFCC, 8: abusefilter, 9: BAG, 0: VPT, continued: Z: Other_noticeboard_not_listed_here_please_wikilink_your_answer Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as important background-experience for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#11. Arbs who make many comments at these noticeboards (please specify!) have the wrong kind of temperament, or personality, for ArbCom. Options: (same as previous question -- please see above) Please specify a comma-separated list of the noticeboards you see as worrisome personality-indicators for arb-candidates to have. Your List-Of-Letters Answer: Your Comments: Q#12. Anything else we ought to know? Your Custom-Designed Question(s): Your Custom-Designed Answer(s): The Extended-Answers End. Thank you for your answers. Please sign with your Wikipedia username here, especially important if you are emailing your answers, so we can avoid double-counting and similar confusion. Your Wikipedia Username: General Comments:

Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).

how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes

If you wish to answer via usertalk, go ahead and fill in the blanks by editing this subsection. Once you have completed the usertalk-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published. If you wish to answer via email, create a new email to the Signpost column-editor by clicking Special:EmailUser/GamerPro64, and then paste the *plaintext* of the questions therein. Once you have completed the email-based exit poll answers, , leave a short usertalk note specifying the *time* you sent the email, and click save. The point of leaving the usertalk note, is to make sure your answers are processed and published (not stuck in the spam-folder). Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry!  :-)

We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. GamerPro64 14:33, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Today

enlightenment

thank you

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

GS E&C

Hi, Nick. Back in March you deleted GS E&C which was created by violation copyrights. I think it would be better to redirect this page to GS Group, a parent company of GS E&C. However, it seems that the page creation is protected. Maybe you could create the redirect and protect the redirect then, if necessary? Thank you. Beagel (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.

The Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

May our mouth be full of laughter, a comment from a psalm, with music 290 years old today, Forget arbcom (I didn't keep that on my talk), and celebrate Christmas! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Nick/monobook.css

User:Nick/monobook.css, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Nick/monobook.css and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Nick/monobook.css during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't Take It Personally edit

Nick, thanks for your kind info, I've read the policy and understand, you will have seen the edits to my talk page over Christmas and realise how unacceptable that was, particularly the veiled threats, the problem is I have not had the best experience with support from admin and decided to track the offending editors down myself with a view to pass-on the details to admin in the new year, I now realise that the best thing is to just report it and wait for a response, regards. Twobells (talk) 14:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Update. A quick question, any reason why this particular edit was reverted by you? I had already edited the section and removed that much earlier yet it was reverted and now someone called DrMargi is having a go at me, best wishes. Twobells (talk) 15:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't directly involved in the diff you link to. I left the page as it was before just one of your edits [1]. Nick (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Patience-Agbabi.jpg

You are invited to join the discussion at commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Patience-Agbabi.jpg. I opened a DR on commons about this file, which you've previously removed from the article for the same reason I nominated it. :) Thanks. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 06:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello

I am an idiot named User:See_Pioneer_Run. Please block me and my idiotic comment on ANI! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laredo Maine (talk • contribs) 22:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Garden Bridge - London - Arup Image.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Garden Bridge - London - Arup Image.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Three years ago ...

clarification
... you were recipient no. 531 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ria

Template:Ria has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Revision deletion

Would you mind hiding this edit, criterion RD2. Thanks. Sro23 (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Nick. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Same people and pattern from WB21 page on Michael Gastauer page

Thank you for locking the WB21 page so it cannot be used to promote the business while wiping out all doubts raised in news reports! Unfortunately the same dynamic has taken place on the Michael Gastauer page. As you can see from the edit history, all of the news reports raising doubts that he is a billionaire business tycoon who has sold a company for $480m have been removed, as is the article about his arrest in relation to securities fraud. Any chance that page can be reverted to have a neutral assessment of the situation, and similarly locked? Turns out he's trying to raise 200 million euros right now based on these claims! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fin3999 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Fin3999, administrators don't generally get involved with the content of the page when we're protecting the page, so I won't restore the information which was removed from the Michael Gastauer page, but you're free to do so if you think it's appropriate to do so. I have, however restored the COI maintenance template on the WB21 page, but that's a maintenance item rather than content. Nick (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Biographies of living persons noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Michael Gastauer.The discussion is about the topic Michael Gastauer. Thank you. Murph9000 (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

AirPod -> AirPods move

Hi, I just noticed you deleted AirPods. I'll go ahead and move AirPod to AirPods now, if you don't mind :-) Cheers, Bonomont (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Nick.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Də rats

You just deleted that page while I was multi db tagging it so I didn't get a chance to record who the user was. It was the same as Woomoo! so was almost certainly created by a sock of User:The Suix. Valenciano (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester

Hi. I'm struggling to follow this series of edits:

• 21:37, 26 June 2013‎ Scott . . (31 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (Scott Martin moved page Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester to Alexander Montagu: Government records do not indicate this individual as a Duke of Manchester.)
• 16:58, 28 June 2013‎ Nick m . . (31 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Nick moved page Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester to 13th Duke of Manchester without leaving a redirect)
• 16:59, 28 June 2013‎ Nick‎ . . (32 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (Nick edited page 13th Duke of Manchester: fix redirect after AfD)
• 20:40, 30 June 2013‎ Nick‎ . . (32 bytes) (+32)‎ . . (Nick created page Alexander Montagu: create redirect)

I gather there was an AfD but can't make out the purpose of your page move on 28 June. The page itself seems to have been deleted, but under what name? I can't find the AfD, could you please give me a link to it? Moonraker (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Montagu,_13th_Duke_of_Manchester. The page movements are complicated because the page was moved by Scott (during the AfD) and at the end of the AfD, the article was deleted by myself, the redirect left by Scott's page move was itself then moved (to try and stop the in-use succession boxes and templates from showing up with a red link) and an additional re-direct was created by myself to deal with another broken link. The 'full' article was at Alexander Montagu when it was deleted, as you can see from the log entry.

Sorry it's so terribly complicated. It should be noted, that there are links to the AfD in the page history of Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester and at Talk:Duke of Manchester. Nick (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nick. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Location map Russia

Can you lower protection to either semi-protection or ECP? The template is transcluded by 500+ pages. --George Ho (talk) 07:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@George Ho: why do you believe semi-protection is more suitable than template editor protection for this template ? It was protected using template editor protection because it's used on a number of highly visible, sensitive pages, including Russia and a number of articles on the Second World War. Vandalism of the page would be of significant concern. The use of extended confirmed protection is detailed in User_talk:Nick#Extended_confirmed_protection and at Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Extended_confirmed_protection - the use of ECP on this template doesn't appear to be appropriate, but again, if you can explain why it would be acceptable, I'm open to considering it. Thanks, Nick (talk) 10:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The Template:Overly detailed was upgraded from semiprotection to ECP. Amount of transclusion is nearly 2,000, yet I requested ECP upgrade. Nowadays, maybe 2,000 is becoming too low for "template-protection". Also, the amount of template editors is very low per WP:UAL#Template editor, mostly less than 1% of EC users or 0.01% of autoconfirmed users. I don't see many people willing to be template editors just for this template. If semi-protection is too low, then ECP might be enough. Even if there might be anti-Russian sentiment, those who edited 500 times in 30 days or more are more trustworthy than many autoconfirmed ones to make good changes to the template. --George Ho (talk) 11:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection is not for templates, that's what the template editor protection is for. If other administrators are using ECP on templates, that should be brought to the Administrators Noticeboard for discussion and ultimately, rectification. Nick (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

You do it. I'm awaiting responses to my requests at WP:RPP. If you can't do it, can you let me request downgrade at WP:RPP? --George Ho (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It's currently not policy to use ECP on templates, so I'm posting at WP:AN now for clarification. Please also note that administrators review the type of usage, risk and visibility not just of the template but also of the articles which use a template before deciding on the appropriate protection level. A template on a user page with 2,000 transclusions might well suit semi-protection, whereas a template on some high traffic articles with only a handful of transclusions might suit template editor protection. Transclusions don't dictate the protection level involved.

For the record, I am refusing to downgrade the protection on Template:Location map Russia to semi-protection as that's insufficient, and I'm refusing ECP as that's not permitted by policy (as yet). You can request away at WP:RPP but you will need to note your request has previously been refused. Nick (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:PP does not discourage ECP on templates per wording of the policy... not yet. Actually, the wording looks vague, especially WP:PTPROT. Would trying to interfere with protective levels, i.e. upgrading protection from ECP to template-protection, violate the "Wikipedia is not bureaucracy" rule? If not, can you reconsider ANI and find alternatives? I asked about templates at WT:RPP, but one told me to be cautious. Where is explicit (not implicit) proof that ECP is not for templates? The links you gave me doesn't prove anything about templates. George Ho (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The message sent to administrators (which is still on my talk page at User_talk:Nick#Extended_confirmed_protection) says Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort. and the policy itself says In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic.. I don't see how it can be used as first line of defence on templates, given those restrictions. I don't disagree with you that it would be suitable for templates, but that's not the (current) will of the community, and whilst I respect Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, the community has only just finished discussing Extended Confirmed protection and the time to argue for it to apply to templates was July and August 2016. Nick (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Re-reading WP:ECP2016, the conclusion doesn't mention whether ECP applies to templates; it was silent on the issue. Can you rebuke my word? George Ho (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I would assume it could be applied to templates subject to vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc. where semi-protection is insufficient, but would not apply to templates (as with all other namespaces) for pre-emptive protection. Nick (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy zoppi

He's worked on Pokémon since 1998. How can u agree with some who is real stubborn to listen to users edit summaries when they explain it! Are you really that stupid to agree with him!!!! (no offense)????? 2600:1000:B029:965E:7122:D52C:4A9:32C8 (talk) 00:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Wait...

Wait... you're NotASpy...? --JustBerry (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: Nice to see you again! --JustBerry (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

You deleted a stub I was working on for Mary Sherwood... This is part of a class project - it was going to serve as another link to my main article. I was working on inline citations, references, links to other pages. I am also new to Wikipedia, so I am unsure as to why this occurred and also do not want to have any issues! RingoMad67 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@RingoMad67: Don't panic, I deleted a duplicate which had somehow made it into the encyclopedia before it was ready, the primary draft you were working on is still at User:RingoMad67/sandbox2. Nick (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

THANK YOU haha this is all still so confusing! RingoMad67 (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Quick question since I'm already here - can I create a link from a stub I am working on in one of my sandboxes to an article that isn't published yet in another sandbox? Thnx. RingoMad67 (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@RingoMad67: yes, that's allowed/encouraged. You would want to link, using the [[and]] brackets, to the future/final location of the article, rather than the sandbox (the links won't update automatically when making your sandbox draft goes 'live'). Nick (talk) 19:37, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

So I just put those brackets around the word in my full article sandbox? RingoMad67 (talk) 19:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

@RingoMad67: yeah, and as I say, rather than linking to [[User:Example/sandbox]] you would want to link to [[intended article title]] if that makes sense. Nick (talk) 19:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

yes that makes sense thank you! RingoMad67 (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Hm...

[2]... time to re-evaluate the IP's contributions as potentially legitimate? --JustBerry (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Help

Since you recently deleted an article by an editor by under the username Shihabalabed, I think you could help me. This is a promotional account, but I don't know who to notify and what to do. Can you help? Thanks! RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I've blocked the account for being a promotional only account. Nick (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! May I ask how I would report a person like this? I already use Twinkle, mind you. RileyBugz^{Yell at me} | _Edits 23:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what buttons to press on Twinkle to report this, but the reports should be made to WP:AIV, the noticeboard for requesting administrator assistance for dealing with vandals and persistent spammers, less obvious issues would go to WP:ANI for discussion first. Nick (talk) 00:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Not reviewed

Hello Nick,

I just created 4 recent articles Pandavam, Ramapuram Sree Rama Temple, Manakkattu Bhadra Temple, Sarvopari Palakkaran and they aren't reviewed yet. Please could you review it?Jayabilla (talk) 06:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)