User talk:Tallen90

Welcome!

Hello, Tallen90, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Beeblebrox (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Hey, thanks! Could I just ask - if you've checked a page in the 'Recent Changes' section and it's all OK, do you need to do anything (like, adding a tag to say it's fine), or just leave it as it is?

If it is a newly created page, and has not yet been patrolled, you can mark it is a such. Otherwise you needn't do anything. ∙ AJCham^(talk) 17:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for deletion

Thank you for your work on tagging vandalism articles for deletion. Just for your information, Lucie williams should not have been tagged as G1 (nonsense), because it wasn't incomprehensible--it was clearly about a person (possibly an attack page), so it should have been tagged as A7 (article about a person, without saying why they're notable) or G10 (attack page). Best, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster Mall

Please do not remove valid maintenance templates without giving a reason for doing so. I believe the tags are still valid, and have restored them. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of 2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who)

An article that you have been involved in editing, 2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Christmas special (Doctor Who). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Maccy69 (talk) 14:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meta?

{{helpme}} Hi. On my user page there is a box which displays my number of contributions. When clicked, it takes me to a site that summarizes all my edits. If I want to see this represented as a graph, the website tells me to "create meta:User:Tallen90/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js". What exactly does it mean by "create"? Thanks, Tallen90 (talk) 14:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC).[reply]

User:Tallen90/EditCounterOptIn.js Click that link, write "opt in" or something and hit save page. That should do the trick.

"Create" means that (as you can see now) the link is red, because it doesn't exist. When you make it, it will link blue, because it does exist. 930913(Congratulate) 14:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just need to create a page, to 'prove' that you wish to 'opt-in' to the system, allowing yourself and others to see the detailed statistics about your edits.

To prove that you want it, you have to make a page.

You can either make User:Tallen90/EditCounterOptIn.js, or meta:User:Tallen90/EditCounterGlobalOptIn.js. Both will allow you to see the extended stats.

It does not matter what you put on that page - you could create it with just the word 'hello' or something. Just that, the page must exist, for stats to work. Chzz ► 14:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou - TALL^eN ^talk 15:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feuding.

I bet your pardon? Why does it sound like a personal feud? I am trying to resolve an issue. Jayy008 (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only say so because it sounds like you have a problem with one user, and he in turn has a problem with you. It's more an argument than trying to resolve an issue. No offense intended. - TALL^eN ^talk 13:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it sounds a lot like that, but I'm trying to follow guidelines as in the end I want to nominate the page for a Wikipedia Good article. However, based on how he thinks it should be he keeps changing it and because it looks like a personal issue, admins won't block. Any suggestions? Jayy008 (talk) 13:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the admins won't help, it's difficult to suggest anything else. Maybe you could get him blocked temporarily on grounds of WP:HOUNDING? Otherwise you'd have to submit a report for persistent vandalism here. - TALL^eN ^talk 15:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that, but they said the same thing as you, it's a disagreement. Oh well, I'll wait for him to break the 3 revert rule. Jayy008 (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good luck :) - TALL^eN ^talk 15:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and thanks for your help :). Jayy008 (talk) 16:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I screw up...

...I really do it good. Damn. I'm incredibly glad that you found a source for that kid's story. Two red links, no references and the claim of "fewer than 50 copies" mad it suspect; no Google hits for "The Amazing Vacation," either. Should've Googled the author instead. I've left a big slice of humble pie on that poor editor's talk page. Thank you very, very much for correcting my stupidity. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, glad I could help :) - TALL^eN ^talk 15:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gay in Federal Way

Why does the article Gay in Federal Way have a speedy delete on it? I just created it a few minutes ago, give me a chance to work on it before judgement. And I have tons of references from legit newspapers and a local news tv station that are already on there, why is it up for deletion? ElmerBront (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't indicated what makes the group notable. Therefore, I have determined the group to be non-notable and nominated it for deletion. If you have issues they should be raised on the article's talk page for an administrator's consideration. - TALL^eN ^talk 02:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You never gave me a chance, I'm working on the article right now, but saving as I go because I don't want to lose everything. ElmerBront (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are working on the article, add a 'hangon' tag underneath the deletion template and explain why you think the article should be kept on its talk page. In my opinion the group is not notable, and so I will not be removing the deletion request. Regards, TALL^eN ^talk 02:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Gay in Federal Way

Hello Tallen90. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gay in Federal Way, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:37, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Languages

Last month, you left a message on Talk:E.K. Aboobacker Musliar asking that contributors not cite sources which are not in English because "this is, after all, the English Wikipedia".

Although I fully accept that you had only the best of intentions, you are in error. To restrict ourselves only to sources which exist in English would be to limit our scope drastically; a great many topics have been written about in (for example) Albanian, Bulgarian, Croatian, and Danish, but not English. English sources may be preferable for unilingual readers, but they are not essential: there are many translation tools available online, and some readers are able to read more than one language. For a source in a language other than English to be acceptable, what is necessary is that someone else be able to read it: thus, sources in Etruscan, Rongorongo, and Sentinelese are not acceptable, but sources in French, German, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Khmer, and Latvian are. DS (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Tallen90! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:30, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New deal for page patrollers

Hi Tallen90,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tallen90. 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)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]