Jump to content

User talk:Tyrol5/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Check your Wikipedia email:

  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
  • 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.
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 00:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

American Samoa Republican caucuses, 2012

Hey Tyrol.
I wonder if we should just dispense with the results table on the American Samoa Republican caucuses, 2012 page, seeing that the exact vote distribution of the 70 attending party members will never be known? Thanks.--Misha Atreides (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Misha. I'd go ahead and remove it and, leaving the results header, perhaps replace the table with a paragraph (with a reliable source, of course) specifying that the exact results will never be published. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Done, sir. Thanks. --Misha Atreides (talk) 01:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely. Thanks for your work. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:50, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Request

I've been active for 7 years especially on history articles and have been doing a lot of rollback work so I would like to request rollback privileges. Thanks. Rjensen (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done Everything checks out. A quick review of Wikipedia:Vandalism and Wikipedia:Rollback (old ground for you, no doubt) before taking the new buttons out for a spin never hurts. Keep up the great work! Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
hey thanks! Rjensen (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Absolutely—and don't forget to warn editors when you revert their edits (Twinkle is especially useful for this). Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:43, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gerald Mullery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page King's College (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Med

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new non-profit organization we're forming at m:WikiMed. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Agriculture and Consumer Protection Act of 1973 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Georgia
Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Georgia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

relisting at WP:RM

Hi

I may have this wrong but I think this relisting is ineffective... the new sig needs to be the first in the section or the bot won't find it. Andrewa (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! You're correct; that was a complete accident. I'll remove my misplaced comment. Thanks for sorting it out. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Non-obvious aspect

It's not written in any rulebook and you'll probably find crats who don't know it exists, but I usually don't do the realname warning for people who already have all or most of their real name in their username because I figure it's already out there for all to see, so why bother warning them about it when they're getting a capitalization correction or the like. Feel free to keep leaving it though if you prefer. MBisanz talk 04:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by and letting me know. I figure leaving the realname warning gives them a chance (If they'd like) to at least change his/her present username to something less revealing, even if their name is still available in the logs (not to mention people aware of the rename). If you prefer, I could simply add a non-template note asking the user if they'd like to use the opportunity to change his/her username to something other than a real name. So perhaps it's just a misunderstanding. But, at any rate, thanks for the feedback, and apologies for my incessant abuse of "singular they." Tyrol5 [Talk] 04:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Nah, I don't have a preference for how you should do it in either way. Whatever you prefer. I'm just glad to see more hands at CHU. Most of what I think of as "how things are done" is a function of this lonely edit distribution. MBisanz talk 04:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hey, I'm more than happy to help out. BTW, if my activity begins to taper off at CHU at any time, please don't hesitate to give me a nudge here. But I should be able to check in regularly. Thanks again for stopping by and, again, let me know if you need anything. Keep up the good work. Tyrol5 [Talk] 04:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed title change from "Public choice theory" to "Public choice"

Thank you for relisting Talk:Public choice theory#Proposed title change from "Public choice theory" to "Public choice" on WP:REQMOVE. It already produced an added response. If the matter is not settled in another week, should I relist again? --14:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Glad to help out. I would strongly advise against making that judgement call, since you're the original proposer. But it will be relisted by someone else in due time (which, as you suggest, would be a week from now when the bot over at WP:RM lists it in the backlog section) should a consensus not be reached yet. Of course, it is also the prerogative of a reviewing administrator to simply close the discussion as "consensus not reached to move" or something of the like. Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to your question regarding my rename request

To: Tyrol5, I'm OK with real name. Is this the right way to respond to your question regarding my rename request? Cooterhu (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I see you also left a message on the page itself, which is the way it is customarily done (so you're fine). I'm not a bureaucrat, so I can't actually perform the rename, but one will see your message there and take care of it soon. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Vǎmbel

Hi, on 10th January 2013, you relisted the discussion [1] about the renaming of the article Vambel to "Moschochori". Could you, if it is ok, close the discussion and move the article to Moschochori, Florina ? Τhanks, --Vagrand (talk) 02:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tyrol

Your username is very similar to my real one. Thanks for reviewing my request! Teammm talk
email 03:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's a small world indeed! You're very welcome and keep up the good work. Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 04:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your thoughtful support; I really appreciate it. All the best, Miniapolis 00:04, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You very much deserved it. The admin corps is always in need of thoughtful people like yourself. I'm convinced that your caution and gnomish tendencies will serve you well as a sysop and more than balance out the concerns in the oppose section. You'll do just fine. If you ever have any questions or need any advice, you know where to find me. And, before I forget, congratulations on your shiny new mop! Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tyrol5. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer.
Message added 22:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cmckain14 (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Not sure why you pinged me, but it seems someone else has reviewed your request (FWIW, I agree with User:Rschen7754's advice). Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

early close

Probably not a good idea. You should let an RM get to its seventh day before closing. This early close (after 1 day?) leaves solid grounds for anyone to reopen the issue despite the apparent strong consensus in favor. It could be argued that the early participants are probably mostly page watchers and biased in favor of seeing this topic be primary. I won't reverse it because I don't believe in taking action based only on procedural grounds, and that's what this would be for me, since I support the move. --B2C 23:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You're correct. I wouldn't do it again, but it seemed (to me, at least, and many of those commenting) to be an uncontroversial move that probably could have been done per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC if there hadn't been another page in the way of the move (the disambig page), requiring an administrator to move it. I'll post a note under the discussion welcoming another administrator or editor to revert the move if they've any objection and reopen the discussion accordingly in good faith without any hurt feelings on my part. Thanks for letting me know. Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, just a head's up, really. BTW, given the contrary result of the previous proposal discussion, there is no way this should have been judged uncontroversial. And that discussion was linked in this one. But between you and me, shows how much can change if one person retires from WP... --B2C 23:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I've posted a message there to the extent that any editor in good standing with any opposition is welcome to revert without any hard feelings. I appreciate you bringing this to my attention. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
It is a complete fallacy that RM's need to go seven days, and I fully support this close, and even suggested it. Many people open RM's when they think it might be controversial, which is completely correct, but also sometimes people forget that they can just move articles without even asking anyone also. I often find RM's in the first day that have no reason to be there, and convert them to TR's or just move them if I can. When RM's have gone a day or two and have half a dozen or a dozen support votes and no opposition, they can safely be closed without waiting seven days. Snow rules always apply. However, if anyone questions the close, as happened here, what was done is correct - post a notice that the close was questioned, and allow anyone to reopen the RM if they think warranted, even though this is not likely. Basically what I am saying is in understanding how WP:RM works, the idea is that a consensus should be obtained before seven days, if it has not, the discussion is relisted. If a consensus has been obtained at any time before the seven days, the RM can be closed. RM's are not like RfC's, which have to wait 30 days under normal circumstances. RM's are expected to follow WP:Article titles policy, which should be able to figure out the best title to use during that seven day window. With an RfC, there is a known dispute, that to allow proper resolution is given a full 30 days to hear all sides. In some cases an RM can be converted to an RfC if it is clear that there is no resolution possible within a week or two. Relisting an RM three times is from a time standpoint about the same as an RfC, but an RfC has the advantage that it can be more widely advertised than an RM. RM's are only advertised at WP:RM, and tend only to attract specialists in naming conventions (in addition to anyone watching the page). We chose seven days because that is what is used at WP:AFD, but page moves are not as final as deletions - nothing disappears, it just uses a different title, and since there are extensive guidelines on choosing that title, it is not similar to deciding notability, for example, which is a more one dimensional decision. We do not decide whether a page should be kept, just what that page should be named. Apteva (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate your support, but it was and is my utmost responsibility as an administrator to be held accountable and address any concerns an editor may have about my close, as I've done at Talk:Adele inviting anyone with objections to revert in the spirit of consensus and accountability. I wouldn't do it again (since I generally tend to err on the side of caution), but you raise some very valid points here that might even merit a discussion at WT:RM. Again, thank you for stopping by and offering your thoughts. I appreciate it. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
I am just summarizing the discussions over the last several years at WT:RM, which are in the archives. You did everything exactly correctly, especially your response. Right now the more important issue at WP:RM is clearing out the backlog, but it is very true that admins are simply servants. Apteva (talk) 01:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been doing what I can to chip away at the backlog (albeit very slowly) at RM, but there's only so much one administrator can do (especially since I tend to shy away from the more controversial or dramatic discussions). At any rate, thanks again for stopping by. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Apteva, I certainly agree that when someone posts something on RM that should obviously be a TR, that there is no problem closing it and treating it as a TR. I also agree SNOW rules always apply. However, in this case we have a proposal that failed to achieve consensus last time. And, while it appeared consensus did now support it, given the history, no way was this a non-controversial TR. And after only 24 hours, unless people who previously opposed were now in support, I suggest it was too early to call SNOW.

That said, my main purpose was to call attention to such action in general, not to reverse anything in this particular case. --B2C 17:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing it, I'm in agreement with you, which is why I've posed a standing invitation to reopen the discussion and revert should any objections arise; and, like I said, I wouldn't do it again. I apologize for any inconvenience. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the barnstar! The real problem here is the lack of clarity in the rules that are supposed to guide us in these decisions. I mean, nothing significant in the rules or reality has changed since the previous attempts to move this article to Adele, yet they failed, and this one succeeded, resoundingly. One side can argue WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the other side can argue "common terms should not be primary topics", and which side prevails depends largely on whoever happens to be participating. The same basic issue was key in the recent discussion at Talk:Big (film), and it went the other way. The closer there found the arguments saying common terms should not be used for primary topics (e.g., "big"), even if they have no article on WP, to be "strong" (never mind that it's not based in policy).

It's all too arbitrary. My attempts to tighten up the rules to reduce this kind of ambiguity in the rules are often rejected because people feel they want to "weigh" the various factors on a case-by-case basis. But weigh them based on what? Ambiguous rules that give no clear guidance? How can anyone make an objective decision? Why not just toss a coin? Well, that's my rant. And thanks again for the barnstar! --B2C 22:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You're quite welcome and thank you for voicing your concern! I won't make an excuse for myself here, but I wonder if a perceived ambiguity in the policy scares some away from helping clear the immense backlog over at RM, which isn't a glamorous place by any measure. I don't disagree with you necessarily on principle, but I would submit that a certain degree of case-by-case analysis is required in determining consensus (which includes the application of SNOW; which, admittedly, mine was most certainly not the best). I wonder if policy should be amended to address scenarios like this. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

RFA parameter

I've made a small change ot the admin userback [2], if you don't like it you can revert it of course. –BuickCenturyDriver 13:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Nah, doesn't really bother me at all (this is a wiki, of course). I saw you added an RFA parameter. What exactly does it do, though, since there's no aesthetic change to the userbox? Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
"This user" links to your nomination. –BuickCenturyDriver 13:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, ok. I didn't see the dark blue link (already clicked link, of course), since it blended into the black text a little bit. But, yeah, that's fine. In fact, I rather like the change. Thanks! Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Maicon (footballer born 1981)

Hey dude, I don't understand your closing of the above RM, the supporting arguments were weak to non-existent. My argument, to move to Maicon was the only credible outcome.

"Support. He's not Pelé. As demonstrated, the name Maicon is ambiguous, and its use here as anything but a DAB page is a disservice to readers. The subject has a last name, and there's no reason why this 'mononymic tradition' should be perpetuated here on WP." - To me this seems like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument.

The only person who put forward some statistics was me (please review the talk history), which put the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Maicon at an obvious ratio of 3:1. Zarcadia (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! In reviewing the discussion on that page, I've had to analyze the general course and consensus of discussion. In that analysis I had determined the consensus was that "Maicon," since it refers to multiple subjects, was an ambiguous title. Consensus of the discussion also appeared to be that since "Maicon" is an ambiguous title (meriting a disambiguation page), his surname ought to disambiguate. While it's true that this article has received more views than other articles including a topic by the name of "Maicon," my job as a closer is not to take into account my own interpretation of data, but an interpretation of consensus. And, in my judgement, consensus on the talk page seemed to be in favor of moving the page to "Maicon Sisenando." "IDONTLIKEIT" appeared only to apply to maybe the last sentence of that comment, while the rest of the comment argued in favor of keeping the dab page at "Maicon," an opinion that editor is entitled to and which I must take into account. I hope this explanation satisfies your concerns and you're most certainly welcome to ask me further questions here. A last resort, if you really don't agree with my closure, is to file a request at Wikipedia:Move review, in which other, unaffiliated editors offer their thoughts. Another option is to open another requested move discussion (instructions here) and present your research to move the article to "Maicon." Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Username

I'm fine with it--Oh Look, and (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for responding! A bureaucrat will come along and perform the rename. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 03:11, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I am ok to use my real name :) thanks! Anna Ava Smith EducationDynamics (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying! I'll notify the bureaucrats on the page. Your request should be processed when one sees it. Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with the username change. Michaelwlei (talk) 05:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll let the bureaucrats know. One of them will get around to it. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:43, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers

Hi! I see your fairly active at requests for reviewer rights so I thought you would be the appropriate person to ask, is it appropriate to give someone with less than 80 mainspace edits reviewer rights? I don't see how someone with so few edits could have possibly demonstrated the required understanding of policy/responsibiltiy, just wondering what your opinion on things like this was. Thanks! ★★RetroLord★★ 07:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Retrolord! I usually tend to evaluate these requests based on their merits on a case-by-case basis. However, I usually look for several hundred edits in the mainspace before I set the reviewer bit. Generally speaking, a low mainspace edit count usually indicates a young account age and, thus, an enthusiastic newcomer. What I usually do in these cases is to decline the request but encourage them to stick around, contribute for a while, and re-apply for the rights when they feel ready and have made a few hundred more good, solid contributions in the mainspace. In older accounts, a low mainspace count is indicative of low activity, in which case I would still decline the request. So the short answer to your question is no, but I still give editors with low edit counts the evaluation everyone else gets for the sake of fairness. Hope that answers your question! Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 12:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Move requests with no response

I noticed that you relisted Starz Entertainment → Starz, LLC instead of moving it. There was no response after seven days. Normally since the proposer is a proponent, if there is no response it is acceptable to just make the move. Normally relisting is not done to try to gain more responses, but to gain consensus. From wp:RMCI#Determining consensus "Unlike articles for deletion, where lack of participation requires relisting, no minimum participation is required for requested moves because for most moves there is no need to make a request at all; the need arises only because of a technical limitation resulting from the target article name existing as a redirect with more than one edit. Thus, if no one has objected, go ahead and perform the move as requested unless it is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy. Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it." In summary all RMs that have no responses get closed, either by moving if they meet guidelines or closed by not moving if they do not meet guidelines. Apteva (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! I remember now reading that at one time, but relisted out of subconscious habit I suppose. I'll be sure to keep in mind for the future. Thanks for stopping by, Apteva. I appreciate it. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

[Untitled]

Tyrol

I am attempting to change the name of the page Assistanceleague to Assistance League. It has been flagged for deletion. We are a non profit similar to Red Cross, Saint Vincent De Paul, Big Brother Big Sister, etc. all of whom have Wikipedia pages. Please advise on how I should move forward. I do not want this page deleted. If I need to start over in a different manor, please advise. Please respond via email if possible.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Assistanceleague (talk • contribs) 17:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I've sent you an e-mail. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I've replied again. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on the matter discussed at the bottom of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Changing name

(WikiGames1 23:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)) So shall i keep my username as it is then do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigames1 (talk • contribs)

It's completely up to you. If you're comfortable with the potential implications of using a real name (see this page), feel free to proceed by posting a message at your request saying so. If you aren't, then you're welcome to either keep your current name or make a new request for a new pseudonym. It's up to you. Let me know if you have any questions. Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
(WikiGames1 00:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC))
I think i shall keep my current username after review. Thank you for all the help you have given me :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikigames1 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Feel welcome to file a new request at WP:CHU/S if you change your mind. Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello Tyrol5, I will be celebrating my birthday on 19 March. So, I would like to give you a treat. If you decide to "eat" the cookie, please reply by placing {{subst:munch}} on my talk page. I hope this cookie has made your day better. Cheers! Arctic Kangaroo 16:17, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Tyrol5 for your advise. But I am comfortable with the new name chosen. TCAssociates (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll post a note at your request letting the bureaucrats know that you're comfortable with it. You should be renamed when one sees the request, barring any concerns from him/her. Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:00, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Responded

Hi, I responded your query regarding using my real name as user name in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Changing_username/Simple#Kechanna_.E2.86.92_Keshava_G_N Please go ahead changing my UN. Kechanna (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Only bureaucrats are able to change usernames, so you'll have to wait until one sees your request since I'm not a 'crat. Thanks for your patience, Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hello Sir! The request is for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer! I have done enough edits and have awesome editing and anti-vandalizing experience and therefore I request you to have a look on my request! You can also have a view of my contributions. Faizan (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! I've replied at your request on that page. I'll add to it here by saying that it's not an assessment of the value of your work—you're a very valued and productive editor—just some suggestions for improvement. Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Well thank you very much! I will really try to learn from your comments and others about fighting vandalism, and will improve my contributions at Wikipedia! But for this edit diff (mislabeling an edit), I had said that "provide references for that", Anyway Sir, Thanks for your precious time! I will come back with better experience. Thanks again! Faizan (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi! You're very welcome! Just to clarify, it was still inappropriate to label that edit as unconstructive; it doesn't matter that you specified that it wasn't sourced, as it was not a deliberate (or obvious) attempt to detract from the encyclopedia (and therefore not inherently unconstructive). But, at any rate, you're a good editor and have the right attitude. With a little work and care, I'm sure your request would be granted in the future. Good luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Well Thanks for good wish! Just pray for me! Faizan (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
You bet. Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Sure! Faizan (talk) 14:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

[Untitled]

Hi Tyrol5. I am new to Wikipedia and I am trying to get the content to be published. However, everytime I edit, when I check back it is gone. I think that people keep flagging it, but I don't understand why. I am not trying to market any company or anything. I am trying to change my name as well. Thanks, Jenni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mivamerchant (talk • contribs) 22:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Have you tried contacting the editor that removed your edits? He/she would be able to provide a more specific reasoning than I could. But, it appears the editor thought you had a conflict of interest. If you don't, you should probably clarify that with them. Also, you have been renamed and should be able to log-in with your new name, "JenniMiva01". Until then, check out the links I've posted on your talk page to get a feel for the policies of Wikipedia. Good luck. The people at at Help Desk and Tea House would be happy to answer any questions, as would I. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on a photo in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Tyrol5. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/RileyBot 10.
Message added 21:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Cheers, Riley 21:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sweet for you!

Bal Sweet
My reviewer request has been accepted, and this was not possible without your support, guidance and tips. So I bought Pakistani "Bal Sweet" for you! Come to Pakistan if you like it, We will welcome you! Faizan (talk) 19:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Faizan! Those look tasty! I'm glad you found my advice useful and knew that you'd get the reviewer right eventually. Keep up the terrific work and feel welcome to stop by if you need help with anything else. Best wishes, Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much Tyrol! Faizan (talk) 13:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Project for RfA nominators

As one of the supporters of the proposal in the 2013 RfC on RfA reform, you are invited to join the new WikiProject for RfA nominators. Please come and help shape this initiative. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, Espresso Addict. I've joined and look forward to collaborating on this initiative. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Goldwater-Miller 1964.jpg missing description details

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 01:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 Done Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Robert Cawthome

Hello Sir! I need your help and valuable comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Cawthome. Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 08:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Sir! Faizan Al-Badri -Let's talk! 05:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Rename of Oafp

Thank you for your comments about upper and lower case. Now that you've explained that, what do I have to do to get the change actually made to Qp1995, as the policy demands? I'm keen to get back to posting, so any assistance would be most appreciated.Oafp (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I've posted under your request that you'd like to proceed with the rename tp "Qp1995". A bureaucrat will stop by and rename. Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 23:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
You were far from the only editor to leave me a kind note when I announced my retirement, but I have to say that your comments were probably the most appreciated. Your words were very kind, and they meant a lot seeing as I don't believe we have interacted much during my time here. To discover that you have a positive impression of me was quite a pleasant surprise. Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 02:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar! I've found, in my experience, that a few kind words go a long way; and I'm always willing to pay it forward and lend some encouraging words to someone else. I'm glad they've had their intended effect. At any rate, take care and best of luck. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Your signature... it hurts me  — TORTOISEWRATH 02:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize. I've had this signature for about four years now (really no reason to change it) without any complaint and purposefully chose a dark burgundy rather than a bright red. I used to have a bright orange signature but thought better of it for that exact reason. There are worse signatures out there, I'm sure. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ramseymediaworks (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Username Change Approval

Thank you, I am comfortable with the username change and aware.Ramseymediaworks (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I'll let the bureaucrats know and one should attend to the request. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pennsylvania gubernatorial election, 1851, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Elder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

[Untitled]

Instead of real name please instead use 'sushifan35' TosohWebManager (talk) 01:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)May 21, 2013

Yeah, no problem I'll go ahead and place a new request on your behalf. Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jake Wheatley, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Wagner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done Faizan 11:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Faizan! Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Faizan 13:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Message delivery

Heya Tyrol! How do you do? Saw you at the access list of Edwards Bot. Actually I need to distribute a template regarding Wiki Loves Monuments. We want to distribute it to Wikiproject Pakistan members. Can aid with that? Faizan 15:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out. But, before I do set it up, are you guys certain of the image you wish to use on the right of the message? I'd suggest considering File:Flag of Pakistan.svg since moving .gif images tend to annoy some people. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Tyrol! I have fixed the image, as suggested. The other user will not object, he's agreed. We want to distribute it to the links given below the invitation template. Thanking you in advance. Faizan 05:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much Tyrol! Faizan 14:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
You're very welcome, Faizan! Delivery to all WikiProject Pakistan members has completed successfully, but delivery to members of a category is not possible with EdwardsBot to my knowledge. Besides, it's probably not worth it since there's likely a fair bit of duplication anyway–and the WikiProject has plenty of members so I'm certain you'll receive a good response. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem Tyrol, Thanks again! Faizan 15:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

  • Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
  • Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
  • If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Quecreek Mine Rescue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Guard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Phil Mickelson

Can you please take the page protection off?...William 16:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done by another administrator. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I do lots of golf edits. The other administrator was wrong to put it on in the first place. Then he dragged his behind to take it off. I was almost expecting him to leave it on until Phil Mickelson received the winner's check in his bank account. The lockdown on the page was unnecessary....William 17:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not going to get involved in any dispute and would much rather watch the presentation of the Claret Jug (which I did, and hope you had a chance to as well) rather than get fired up about something on Wikipedia. Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Photo consensus discussion at Talk:Rick Remender

Hi. Can you offer your opinion regarding the Infobox photo discussion here? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You are a Golden Editor!

Good as gold!
In considering possible recipients for my Golden Editor Award, I remembered you. Specifically, I recalled the kind words you posted on my talk page several months ago. As noted in a section higher up on this page, the message you left for me at that time was very much appreciated. While the Golden Editor Award is a kind of lifetime achievement award that would not necessarily be awarded for a single act of kindness, your userpage shows that you have a respectable resume of content work. Based on my observations and my prior interaction with you, I happy to present you with this award. Happy editing! AutomaticStrikeout  ?  19:40, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, AutomaticStrikeout. It's always nice to see one's work is appreciated. But it's even nicer to have been able make a positive impact on someone. I'm very glad to see that's the case. Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 04:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

[Untitled 2]

Hi, Tyrol5

This is re. a user name for The Case Centre. I'm not sure what user name should be used? Perhaps not my own as I just requested? I didn't realise it would be public, and thought it would be just used for 'behind-the-scenes' editing. Could you help? Thank you for querying my request! Deborah The Case Centre (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Deborah! You have two options. You can either elect to go forward with using your real name as your username or you could select a pseudonym to use. Your username will be public and will be visible in your signature, as well as page histories and a number of other things. It's up to you. Tyrol5 [Talk] 15:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

2013 Cincinnati Reds season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Jorge De Leon
2013 New York Yankees season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Javier Lopez

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tyrol5/Archive_4&oldid=1144429892"