User talk:Stikkyy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Stikkyy, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

your requested explanation

Primarily it is because your edit summary was very lacking, good faith communication is the foundation of avoiding edit warring. The removal of my edit without a logical consensus based reason is similar to other cases that have been considered battleground behavior and has lead to several editors being put on a 0RR "ban", meaning they were no longer allowed to revert other editors edits. The lack of communication was really the connecting feature to edit warring. Whenever I go to 1RR I insure that I provide a portion my reasoning, I typically will not go above a 1RR except in cases like yours where the other editor does not provide and reasoning for their actions or in cases of blatant vandalism. Endercase (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please don't bite the newcomers

Hello! I'm Cameron11598. I saw you recently tagged an article for CSD A7 almost immediately after it was created. While it may look like an article isn't notable (and in this case it was actually deleted) its generally considered bitey. Wait a bit come back to the article after a while. Obviously tag COPY VIO's (G12), Attack Pages (G10) immediately, but A7's can afford to wait a bit. Thanks for editing and improving the project. Keep up the good editing :D --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Camero11598: What are you talking about? The only article I tagged for A7 was Si Chava Transken, and that was about a schoolteacher. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 02:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cameron11598:Grrr.... Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 02:45, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

There was one that I saw that you tagged about minute after it was created, and shame on me for not writing down the article name, mid terms made my brain fuzzy. Its no big deal but it isn't the most collegiate thing to do. That being said, happy editing! :D --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Found it the page was Metador --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: I can't find it in my CSD log. Are you sure it was me that tagged the article? Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I just double checked with an administrator (Oshwah), and he confirmed you did nom it for A7 --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

the edit was done via huggle which is why its not in the log --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 05:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can confirm. The "CSD Log" is a Twinkle feature that creates and maintains it for you. Since you used Huggle to do it, it won't add anything to that log. No worries on the quick tagging; I've had to tell myself many times to hold off. It's easy to do if you're recent changes patrolling and see a new article pop up in the list. It's something that I still catch myself doing to this day. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 05:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

?????????

Um, regarding this edit-summary: the source wasn't from the Syria Civil Defence Forces, it was from the Syria Civil Defence. I'm really hoping you know the difference between these two organizations because, well, it kinda matters. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

@EtienneDolet: Eh. Should've opened another tab, but I do know the difference. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 03:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Stikkyy. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Swarm ♠ 05:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

23:31:40, 30 May 2017 review of submission by NiuktKlaw

• NiuktKlaw (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Polo Piatti (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I have removed the promotional content. NiuktKlaw (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@NiuktKlaw: Good. Now you should resubmit the draft for review so another editor can assess it. Stikkyy t/c 23:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking

Hi, please note that months are not usually linked; nor are years or commonly known country names, or common terms. Tony (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

HELP

Pls dear,

help to review the page Nung Ikot Clan for me pls...

Its just a matter of mobile phone device and it is not a copy edit work. I' d appreciate ur personal contribution if neccessary, thanks Visionjohnny (talk) 11:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Stikkyy, thank you for your comments at my RfA. Your support is much appreciated! ansh666 21:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Called out as "Edit Warrior"

It seems Toboyof called you an edit warrior and warned me of spreading lies.Kurt R. (Zirukurt01)✉ 14:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

William T. Rowe?

Thanks for the review of William T. Rowe – I appreciate your quick work. But the “multiple issues” template goes beyond policy. The publication of a CV on a university website is subject to inspection by university associates, and is used by the Guggenheim listing here. It is higher (OK, only by a little bit), than the acceptable standard at WP:SELFPUB, which says “Living persons may publish material about themselves,” as long as the material is not contentious or libelous etc., which none of the Rowe material is. Likwise his memoir article. Rowe is clearly WP:PROF (named chair, Guggenheim), but academics don’t get the level of newspaper and magazine attention that Hollywood starlets do. I can’t find more sources and do not want to wait for his obit, so the “multiple issues” template also doesn’t serve a useful purpose (In passing, it is also not accurate to say that there are “multiple issues,” only one, but let it pass). If the (very welcome) idea is to attract editors to fill the article out, then the “start” ranking should do the trick. Cheers and thanks again in any case ch (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@CWH: Alright, admittedly I have relatively little knowledge of WP:PROF, it's not my main subject area. I tagged the article based on a quick scan of the references, and I might have been a bit hasty in doing so. I also saw some minor parallels with the references in this discussion. I've removed the selfpub tag. Stikkyy t/c 17:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I learned a lot from the discussion you linked. I've wondered for a long time why an Australian lower level cricket player is Notable simply by being a member of the league, but a widely published and reviewed academic is not. But that's a question for another day, so meanwhile just thanks again for your understanding.ch (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Asking assistance for Wiki editing

Could you assist me with some information? 1. Dispute Resolution Noticeboard: Since the parties are not obligated to comply with the advise of DRN moderator, what's the solution when someone is sure that the other parties are not going to agree with him anyway and a ruling from a judge is essential. I am sure DRN is not an option in this case. Could "Mediation" be an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Mediation Committee? If not, then is "Arbitration" an option? Is any user, even an administrator obligated to comply with the advise of Arbitration Committee? 2. What’s the difference between Dispute Resolution Noticeboard and a specialized noticeboard such as “Fringe theory noticeboard”? I know specialized noticeboards are subject specific. But my question is that whether the moderators in “Fringe theory noticeboard” are only administrators or general users as well? If there are general users as well, how can I become a fringe theory noticeboard volunteer? Do I need to list my username anywhere and/or add any template in my user page? 3. When I am in a dispute with a couple of admins in a Wikipedia page, what’s the process of reporting those abusive admins. Let’s say, the admins are reverting any edit that is against their personal views and beliefs. And those admins need to be removed from the page. The Wikipedia manual says as admins can be removed through a dispute resolution process. But it doesn’t explain how. Because DRN moderator or Mediation committee may not be able to remove an administrator. So, if an user is in dispute with administrators, should he directly file a case to Arbitration Committee? 4. How can I add a new section and subsection to a Wiki article and remove an existing section from a Wiki article in visual editor? 5. I found that some contributions are deleted from “History” page of an article. So how to delete a contribution and who can do it? 6. Wiki policy states as I should not copy contents from other websites and should rather write my own contents. But what if the contents are open source contents? Can I directly copy those in Wikipedia? Are online news posts open source, including the images in the news? Can I use these texts and images in Wikipedia without editing? Can I copy and paste statements of medical national and international organizations in Wikipedia without editing? 7. Where to find images for a Wikiedia article if the image is not already available in Wikimedia? Are the images collected from news posts open source? And many sites don't have their images copyrighted. Do those images qualify as open source? When I upload an image, Wikipedia asks for copyright information. I have no idea what information to provide? What info should I provide if the image is in open source? And if the image is owned by me? Wikipedia asks me to contact the copyright holder and ask them for copyright information for the image. But some websites don't have "Contact us" section, some other sites are unresponsive when they are contacted, and even when I contact a website owner, he may not be able to provide me copyright information as the images are not copyrighted. So what information to provide Wikipedia in such a case? How do Wikipedia verify if the images are already copyrighted or not. If I claim to be granted permission for reuse from the copyright holder, how does Wikipedia verify the copyright holder has actually granted me permission for reuse of the copyrighted content? 8. How to add videos to a Wikipedia article? Do I need to provide copyright information for a video available in Youtube? Are there other policies on videos such as policies for graphic videos? 9. When I create a new article, how do I save my private draft for the article. If I click on "Save", the draft will become public and will be accessible for anyone. But I like it to be private. Is it possible. Furthermore, when I edit on an existing article, is there a way I can save my edits as a draft before publishing? It is an essential function. Because some posts may be very long and will take a long time to write. So, my unsaved works can be lost if browser tab is closed or if the texts are accidentally selected and deleted. So saving draft is essential. 10. Where can I save the usernames of my co-writers in my Wikipedia account like a phone book? I can't memorize the usernames of every persons. Thus, I need to have a phone book when the usernames will be saved in the respective categories. 11. How can I be connected with the community to improve each Wikipedia article? I know each important article is being monitored by some administrators. But how do I know which administrators is monitoring a page so that I can discuss with them about improving the article? How to get connected with the community for editing articles? I heard that communication is important here. But how? Everyone is stranger here. Whom to contact among these random people? 12. What’s the use of pending changes reviewing by administrators and “pending change reviewers”? As much as I know anyone can revert another user’s edit. In that case, what will change if an edit is approved by an administrator or a “Pending changes reviewer”? Will other users be unable to revert the edit back then? If not, then what’s the use of pending changes reviewing? Furthermore, how do the users know an edit has been approved by a administrator or a pending changes reviewers? Will the approval appear anywhere such as in the “History” page? 13. What’s the requirement and process for becoming a pending changes reviewer? Can anyone become a pending changes reviewer? Abir Babu (talk) 12:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI - I've already answered all of his questions on my user talk page. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:52, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

TS Rina

Hi and I want to know why you removed the infobox for Tropical Storm Rina and also changed the image? I just want to know, thanks. Typhoon2013 (talk) 09:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

@Typhoon2013: Since the infobox wasn’t being displayed, it seemed a bit redundant. The current storm infobox isn’t removed automatically, I assume, so another editor could just add it back in when the storm dissipates. The image corresponds with the rest of the article, and it doesn’t have any notable disadvantages to the other image as far as I’m aware. Are there some guidelines I’m unaware about? Stikkyy t/c 17:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Stikkyy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Shadow of the Colossus page

Hi, I received your message. I had made https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_of_the_Colossus_(2018_Video_Game) on another user name because I couldn't figure out what my password was for this one. I thought it was strange that I had to make a draft because I also created the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Rush_2 page and never had to submit a draft. I fortunately found my password after submitting the draft and was able to publish the article as planned ahead of the game's February release. I wasn't trying to create any issues for any administrators. Frightwolf (talk)

@Frightwolf: No problem. You should probably tag User:Pullingthings as an abandoned alternative account though. The WP:AFC process isn't required for the creation of articles, it's just encouraged for new accounts and accounts with possible COIs. History merges between the draft and the article are simply for the reader's convenience. Stikkyy t/c 21:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Will do. How do I tag it, though? Frightwolf (talk)

I've done it for you. Stikkyy t/c 21:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated! I look forward to continuing to refine the article into its release. Frightwolf (talk)

Ranks in taxonomy templates

Just to note that in taxonomy templates (e.g. Template:Taxonomy/Brachypauropodidae), the rank must be given using the Latin name – it may appear to work with English names, but not all features of the automated taxobox system will operate correctly. There's a list of accepted ranks at Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/taxonomy templates#rank. Keep up the good work! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh, alright, thanks. As you can see, it's been quite a while since I've set once of those up. Stikkyy t/c 06:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

No problem. The system has been tightened up in the last year or so to check more carefully that the correct conventions are being followed. I'm always happy to help if you have any problems or queries concerning the automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:SCAREQUOTES

As I would have thought you already knew, use of WP:SCAREQUOTES and expressions of doubt are discouraged re [1]. VQuakr (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

White Helments

Hi Stikky,

I feel that your involvement with this article may be unhelpful. I myself have disengaged from the article, having been accused for the first time ever of a bad-faith edit.

It is clearly untrue that the White Helmets are 'not controversial', as you asserted in this revert summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=White_Helmets_(Syrian_Civil_War)&curid=48435750&diff=842089140&oldid=842087746. Also, a cursory inspection of the talk page for that article shows very clearly that a significant proportion of contributors regard the article as hopelessly biased. I think you should revert your revert, and then consider re-reverting using a summary that doesn't claim the WH are uncontroversial. MrDemeanour (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Controversial, according to RT and Al-Masdar. Stikkyy t/c 20:47, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Stikkyy

I have to agree with MrDemeanour here. Obviously it's not just RT and Al-Masdar who think the White Helmets are controversial.

Undoing a revision of mine, you explained, “if the sources call it a volunteer organization, its a volunteer organization”. Fine.

However, you also seem to think that if a source from the article calls the White Helmets ‘controversial’, they are "not controversial". The source in question is (6) Lucas, Scott. "Who are Syria's White Helmets, and why are they so controversial?". The Conversation. Retrieved 2017-01-24.

Scott Lucas is a Professor of International Politics at Birmingham University, founder editor of EA WorldView and a staunch supporter of the White Helmets. As far as I am aware he has not appeared on RT or written for Al-Masdar, but he plainly accepts that the White Helmets are controversial because he asks "why are they so controversial?" in the title of his article.

You may think the White Helmets are wonderful, but to continue to argue that they are "not controversial" is untenable.

Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Said source describes the White Helmets as a victim of an Assad-Russia disinformation campaign. Again, controversial according to Russian and Syrian state-run media. Not by reliable sources, which have refuted all claims of the White Helmets being "terrorists" or whatever. Stikkyy t/c 04:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe the UK Independent is considered a RS. This article from that newspaper portrays the WH as at least being unreliable witnesses. Why is this WP article not being allowed to ventilate those questions? MrDemeanour (talk) 13:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Being discussed at Talk:Douma chemical attack. Stikkyy t/c 14:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

The Independent certainly is an RS, as are highly experienced foreign correspondents and multiple award-winning journalists like Robert Fisk, Patrick Coburn and Peter Hitchens in their own right.

I made the point that Scott Lucas is a WH supporter to demonstrate that it is not only opponents of the White Helmets that regard them as controversial. Naturally he believes they are victims of a disinformation campaign, but he very specifically describes the WH as “controversial.” Ergo, according to Stikkyy's own principle, they are controversial.

This is a bizarre thread given that even a section in the article is entitled - "Controversies".

Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 19:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

By strapping the label in the lead, you're applying a blanket term where there is none. Stikkyy t/c 04:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Tags on articles

Do not remove tags inserted by admins as you did on White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). It was pointed out in summary so you cannot pretend you did it accidentally and now I warn you officially on your talk page. If you remove it again, it is ANI. --Coldtrack (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Coldtrack:Well, you're the one who violated WP:1RR. Also, the tag wasn't added by an admin, so your point is moot. Anyways, you're more than welcome to bring it to ANI. Stikkyy t/c 04:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

That's if you restore it. Tag removing is a general behaviour issue akin to vandalism. 1RR normally implies what an article is reporting. --Coldtrack (talk) 05:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@Coldtrack: I would like to see the policy page to back that statement up. Stikkyy t/c 05:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Funny but I'd like to see the policy page that says such and such sources are unreliable, but it is the same situation. Neither exists. So I have admitted my error and now what happens happens with regards admin action and my account. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Consensus Required

You restored challenged edits to Khan Shaykhun chemical attack [2]. From the talk page

Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). This includes making edits similar to the ones that have been challenged. If in doubt, don't make the edit.

Please keep that in mind. Thanks. 199.127.56.88 (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you tell me where on WP:GS/SCW that clause can be found, IP editor? Stikkyy t/c 04:59, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Lunga Point

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Lunga Point you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 15:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Lunga Point

The article USS Lunga Point you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:USS Lunga Point for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 18:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Lunga Point

The article USS Lunga Point you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Lunga Point for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CPA-5 -- CPA-5 (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Bismarck Sea

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Bismarck Sea you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)