User talk:Ninney/Archive 3: Difference between revisions

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

• where every known, used fact is listed, referenced and discussed
• where everyone can add facts, that others might eventually use, to change, expand an article,

    This as I see it is one of the big conceptual weaknesses of wikipedia,

if there will ever be a successful competitor of Wikipedia, it will be a facts first, text later INCARNATION ... Quessler (talk) 17:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Kindly browse Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not & Wikipedia:Verifiability

Thanks! Happy Editing!! - Ninney (talk) 18:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for the tips and support for my recent page edit. As for the summary field, can I go back and edit that somehow? Thanks. Willdela (talk) 18:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

After you save the page, you cannot change the edit summary, so be careful with it. Refer Help:Edit summary & Help:Page history.

Thank You ! Happy Editing !! - Ninney (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Border town, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bordertown. 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) 09:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thank You DPL bot! - Ninney (talk) 12:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not permitted to empty categories as part of the process to delete them. Commenters in the discussion need to see what was in the categories to begin with. Mangoe (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree Will take care the next time. Thanks! - Ninney (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For your edits to Estoril Open article pages. WP:CFD reads "Unless a change to a category is non-controversial – e.g. prompted by vandalism or duplication – please do not amend or remove the category from pages before a decision has been made."...William 14:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree Will take care the next time. Had already mentioned this in above talk message. Thanks! - Ninney (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see that till after I made my post. Oh and I'm open to trout slapping too if I do something silly at Wikipedia. Cheers!...William 14:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ninney, I see you inserting "field=government" tag in your article tagging. Is that valid? Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@@Kautilya3:, Refer Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Navigation >> Workgroups >> Government >> Politics.

All article should be categorised in one of the workgroup. Also, their are few workgroups not mentioned in the list such as, Architecture, Sports.

• For Field parameter ---> |field=Government |field-importance=Low
• For Wikiproject specific parameters ---> |politics=yes |politics-importance=Low (if the article is supported by Politics of India)

Do let me know, if its a concern, so that I may not use the particular Government workgroup.

Thanks! - Ninney (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The second option you mention politics=yes is what we are supposed to use. I don't know of a "field" paramater. Pinging @Ugog Nizdast: for clarification. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If I understood correctly on what's going on, there isn't any "|field=" parameter in the Project template. There are only individual workgroups; all can be viewed at Template:WPINDIA. How it's categorised at /Navigation (Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Workgroups) seems to be arbitrary, and only the existing workgroups are linked there. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Template Template:WikiProject India clearly mentions of a parameter called as Field parameter.

Described as: field(...field1, field2, field3) - allows for setting up statistics for subject areas even if a taskforce for the subject does not exist. The articles can be moved to the taskforce once it has been setup. For projects using the field parameter, see Category:India articles using field parameter.

Lets further take the discussion on the template talk page itself.

Thanks! - Ninney (talk) 08:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

You may not be aware of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Notes and references which says: Title: Editors may use any section title that they choose. One reason this guide does not standardize section headings for citations and explanatory notes is that Wikipedia draws editors from many disciplines (history, English, science, etc.), each with its own note and reference section naming convention (or conventions). For more, see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Changes to standard appendices, Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Establish a house citation style and Template:Cnote2/example. --Bejnar (talk) 04:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay! - Ninney (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a matter of historical record that McDivitt, Scott, Schweickart were the crew of Apollo 9. The rest of the article states as much. John Young was not a member of Apollo 9 - now were the rest of the crew that you reverted. Rgonzale6 (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)Rgonzale6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgonzale6 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks!! - Ninney (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Why deleting Vada Pav info?

The info I had added was very basic and useful. Wondering why it was deleted. Because Vada Pav has much more description than this.

(````) Drashti — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drashtibuch (talk • contribs) 19:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

An edit that you recently made to Vada pav was reverted as per WP:NOTADVERTISING

BTW, people don't come to Wikipedia to see which top 5 wadapav's are best in Mumbai ? Right ?? - Ninney (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have created another village article Ashti, Jalna. Kindly review it. There are many towns and villages named Ashti. For example Ashti, Beed, Ashti, Wardha, Ashti, Khed, Ashti (Vidhan Sabha constituency) etc. Can you create disambiguation page for these articles. I have little idea about creating disambiguation page. Thank you. --Human3015 talk • 11:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Human3015:  Done as suggested. One small request to check recent 4-5 articles related to Ashti I had edited so that I need not rework on the articles you create, say for e.g., Using Convert template for distances, Adding Portal Maharashtra etc. Thanks for all the good work. - Ninney (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I will check your work, I'm still in learning phase and I'm leaning new things day by day. Thanks again for your concern regarding this issue. Cheers. --Human3015 talk • 16:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Government and Politics

Hi again, I found it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian cities. We should use section name "Government and Politics" instead of just "Politics" or "Administration". read here.--Human3015 talk • 04:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree - Ninney (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Just FYI, {{WikiProject Film}} does not cover biography articles such as actors and filmmakers, those articles are covered by adding |filmbio-work-group=yes to {{WikiProject Biography}} instead. This applies to all of the film task forces as well, which means that the Indian cinema task force does not include articles about Indian actors, directors and filmmakers, and consequently should not have the |cinema=yes parameter on the {{WikiProject India}} banner. Thanks! Fortdj33 (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Fortdj33: Agreed, I tagged it only to differentiate it between |cinema=yes and |Television=yes. Thanks! - Ninney (talk) 15:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

		WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2014 Second Place
		To Ninney, who came second place in WikiProject India Tag & Assess 2014! Thank you and do participate in the next drive in the following years. ‑Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:06, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

PS: The results can be viewed here -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I would like to have your opinion on my proposed branching of the Template:Rocket engines. Please see the Template TalkPage Baldusi (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hi, Meet-up for Mumbai Wikipedians has been scheduled on 21 Nov 2015 (Meet-up: Mumbai 21 Nov 2015). I request you to register for the meet. All details can be found on the meet-up page. Many thanks and hope to meet you on 21st Nov. Regards, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 11:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ninney, nice to see you back. I know you were largely inactive since June. When you left for Wikibreak at that time I was relatively new user and you used to patrol my new village articles, but now I have autopatrolled right. You helped me lot in those days, thanks for your help. Many times I came to your page to see you are active or not. It is nice that you came back. Hope you will stay. Happy editing. --Human3015^TALK  15:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad to see that your edit counts are more than mine. Keep up the Good Work! - Ninney (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For welcoming a user whose only edits so far are vandalism, Sebastienpig1 (talk · contribs). Even though he self-reverted, that still doesn't make it "good faith". (A kid can claim he was only "testing the spray can", but if he left paint on the building, it's still vandalism.) JustinTime55 (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

@JustinTime55:, I knew he has vandalised the article & I, myself, had reverted 4 of his edits. I just welcomed him so that he may think twice before vandalising again.

Also, their is a provision of welcoming a user who has vandalized a page & I had used the same template:{{subst:Welcome-unconstructive}}

Thanks for calling me Ninny and not Ninney & for the trout slapping.

- Ninney (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 05:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

@SwisterTwister: Thanks for the delicious cup of tea. - Ninney (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

User 162.74.52.147 is doing the WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE violations again check this diff https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blue-water_navy&diff=687739680&oldid=687362789 . He already has a level4 warning by you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standardengineer (talk • contribs) 18:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ω Awaiting: @Standardengineer, BilCat, and ScrapIronIV:: Just Wait & Watch, I had already reported the user in AIV. [Check This Link]. You may also add your thoughts on the link. He was blocked once & now will be blocked the second time. - Ninney (talk) 18:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I Removed that WP:UNDUE reference from Blue Water Navy, and the additional image. All of the other navies were represented by a single image. It is definitely an agenda, my suspicion is state sponsored contributions to the 'pedia - and I know which state (HINT: It ain't Ohio) Scr★pIron^IV 19:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

ANd now similar behavior on Nuclear triad. This editor appears to have a bad case of WP:IDHT Scr★pIron^IV 19:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

______________________________________________________________

I did plenty of research on each page and then edit them. Please see the sources I added, none of them are Chinese, they are all English source including NPI.

As for the blue water navy part, I already removed the other image, because aircraft carriers are better representation of a blue water navy. I also added material to the Indian blue water section because this guy Standardengineer was spreading Indian propaganda on the INS Vishal page. He removed sources not in favor of India and then added new source in favor in favor of India. When I caught the source and added the important part of it (the reason why India wants a better carrier). He keep removing them !

--162.74.52.147 (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. But why are you so reluctant so as to not listen to three other editors. Writing Stuff like -

• The Indian fleet is grossly inadequate to match China...

• India is technologically inferior and incapable to design and develop its own systems which are crucial for aircraft carriers ...

Your behavior is disruptive to Wikipedia. - Ninney (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

_______________________________

Hello Ninney. I did not even make that up ! The Indian fleet is grossly inadequate to match China... This is the 100% origional quote from the source which Standardengineer added. Here: http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/navy-s-wish-list-6-nuke-subs-n-powered-carrier/77422.html

Please go read that source. It is exactly what it wrote. Also, Standardengineer added another source regarding India getting help from 4 different countries. He added this source: "http://news.usni.org/2015/07/21/india-asks-international-defense-firms-for-help-with-new-aircraft-carrier-design" Again, the point of this source is that India needed help which points out India's inability to do it on its own. Standardengineer keeps spreading his propaganda and he even removed sources. Please go take a look.

I then added these materials on the blue water page to state the reason why India wants a better navy with more SSN and a better carrier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.74.52.147 (talk) 19:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I see you tagged my new article. I don't disagree with the tags, but thought you might want to know why I made such a stubbish article. I encountered the term in Very long instruction word and didn't know what it meant. Having googled it, I decided that the next reader of Very long instruction word might also not know, so I added a short explanation and links in the articles that use the term. Not being an expert in this particular field, I'd love it if someone more knowledgeable were to flesh it out.--Wcoole (talk) 00:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Wcoole: - First of all, thanks for the article. I had Tagged it so that improvements could be made easily on the article & hence would never be marked for deletion. - Ninney (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, there was content that was published on the Diwali page but has been removed by Uthaya3 (talk · contribs). The information that was removed has been sent as an edit request on the talk page of the article. The information has been properly sourced but was removed by this user without any explanation. I don't think this is fair now that the page has been protected there are still users that can cause disruption. Could you please reinstate it, thank you. (121.219.234.96 (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC))

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) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of List of state leaders in 2016, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: List of state leaders in 2015. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, List of state leaders in 2016. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – List of state leaders in 2015. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at List of state leaders in 2015 – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Neve-selbert 23:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The article List of state leaders in 2016 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This list is half-accurate and half not. It is not yet the year 2016 in all of Oceania yet. If the Governor of American Samoa were to resign or die in the next few hours, this list would be factually incorrect and therefore misleading. I propose we delete this article until all of the state leaders have reached to see in the New Year. Also: the United States has not seen 2016 yet; this page would seem very odd to most American users, of which are the majority of editors on this site.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Neve-selbert 00:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of state leaders in 2016 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state leaders in 2016 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Neve-selbert 01:04, 1 January 2016 (UTC) Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give List of state leaders in 2016 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Neve-selbert 03:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

If there is any such thing as an understatement, here it is. You created this article shortly after midnight on New Years' Eve. Why, exactly? Since when has 31 December ever been 1 January of a year? Did you honestly believe it was in-fact January 0, 2016? This is absolutely ludicrous, not to mention shocking and indiscriminate. I have been deeply hurt and affected by what you had done. I had no idea at all that you created the article until a mere few minutes before Midnight UTC. There, rushing against time, I tried to get the article speedily deleted; January 0 is not an official date. I had asked an admin to delete it quickly before the clock struck twelve, but this did not happen. As the admin immediately reverted my request for deletion at precisely 12:00 sharp. I am extremely angry, agitated, irate and furious at this situation. The article should only have been created at Midnight UTC at the earliest. I had it all planned. Unlike what you had done, simply removing any mentions of –2015, I had carefully proofread the article; e.g. the distinction between the designations of Head of State – and President – and the succession of the Swiss presidency, et al. It is not yet 2016 in all of the world until 12 PM (UTC), and I have been desperately trying to delete the article before this time, although it seems likely that I will tragically fail. This had meant a lot for me, you have no idea at all. I was looking forward to creating that article. Now, it seems, I would have to wait until 2017 comes and attempt this again. I am extremely upset at this, and I am looking to file a complaint against your prior actions (and perhaps an investigation at WP:DRN) to find out why exactly this had to happen and how to prevent it in future. If you would like to apologise on behalf of yourself, that should be welcome. Although I must say, this is not a Happy New Year—in any way, shape, or form—for me. If I am driven out of despair from Wikipedia for a year because of this, then so be it. Neve-selbert 09:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• Drop the stick now, Neve-selbert. It's you who has the problem if you're so upset by someone creating an article; Wikipedia isn't a fight to see who can create as many year articles as possible. It's a wiki, that's how it happens, go edit the article if you see mistakes in it. BethNaught (talk) 09:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • @Neve-selbert First of all, I had created this article only keeping good faith & was unaware of some ones ambitious eager intentions of creating this article at first place. Honestly, If I knew I would have never thought of creating the article myself. It would have been so easy If their was a draft version already created. Wikipedia needs editors like you, my humble request, please dont be driven for a year. Hoping that you will have the generosity to accept my sincere apologies. Also, Thank You @BethNaught.

What is done is done—I overreacted. We all make mistakes, and I hold no grudges. Thanks for the barnstar. Neve-selbert 05:12, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of List of sovereign states in 2016, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: List of sovereign states in 2015. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Prem Khan (actor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Washim Rahman (talk • contribs) 2016-01-05T07:42:52?

@Washim Rahman: Because It is a page that was previously deleted or is substantially identical to the deleted version. Refer Washim Rahman and Prem Khan. My humble request not to remove deletion tag else you would be blocked from editing, wait for the deletion discussion. See the fifth paragraph of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. - Ninney (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Can I know why you want to delete the page Prem Washim Rahman (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Refer my previous comment on your question -Ninney (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I keep getting people saying that they've reviewed my (sometimes small, incipient) articles and then not removing the "unreviewed" tag. Other editors seem to be saying that this cannot happen, but I would like to know where a record is kept of "reviewed your article" notices, and why you didn't remove the "unreviewed" tags after the two reviewed tags with your name on them that I received?Jzsj (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Please be kind to provide me the name of the two articles - Ninney (talk) 01:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jzsj: I had removed the tag from the article Loyola High School, KD Peta.

Regarding other articles, below where the users -

User:Jaywardhan009 marked article Loyola Academy, Chennai as reviewed, tag not removed.

User:DGG marked article Arrupe College, Harare as reviewed, tag not removed.

User:DGG marked article Cristo Rey Dallas College Prep as reviewed, tag not removed.

User:SwisterTwister marked article Loyola Jesuit Secondary School, Malawi as reviewed, tag not removed.

For a list of "reviewed your article" notices, check [[1]]

- Ninney (talk) 13:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

2 reviewed articles with tag not removed: Loyola Academy, Chennai & St. Xavier's School, Behror. Thanks for help with this. Jzsj (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm writing Puritan biographies fairly regularly and trying to fill out women's contribution to the English Revolution wherever possible, so it's great to get such a prompt review. Thanks. Sjwells53 (talk) 20:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Sjwells53: You are indeed doing a great work. Keep it up!! - Ninney (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I had left my comments on the article's talk page -

Palestine should always be a stand alone state. It has a President, Prime Minister, Flag, Coat of Arms, Anthem of its own. Almost, every other nation has some form of Territorial dispute and hence should not be considered while discussing the identity of a state. Let it be the headache of the two region & not the world problem. Let the dispute be solved sooner in peace. PALESTINE - A Stand Alone State & not sub state of ISRAEL. - Ninney (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Could you take another look at Ground segment? Both the quality and importance evaluations seem too low. In what areas is the article "weak", "lacking key elements", or "in need of serious cleanup"? I would also suggest that ground segments are an important topic in both WikiProjects' purviews. —swpb^T 21:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@swpb: First of all, very thanks for such a good article. I do not understand how such an important topic had no article in Wikipedia before 2015. The reason of giving basic assessment was the article is not covering the entire topic, only Elements & Costs are discussed.

The 'Lead' section is too small, just a one liner. It is not actually cultivating the reader's interest in reading more of the article. You may write about GS provides applications & services to different kind of users having individually separate and distinct needs & many different Networks. GS is a central point of Mgmt & Control & also a means to connect distant users. Each network within the ground segment serves a particular group of users (say Government, Corporate etc) or type of application (say Telephone, Data Communication).

There are six primary 'Elements' listed but only three had been covered as sub section.

The 'Cost' section is not a topic to be discussed in GS since it wont at a given time be shown as a range of amount & no reader would be interested in knowing the cost of establishment & operation. The cost of a GS setup is highly unpredictable & the section itself is not a usable content for reading in point of Readers interest.

The 'Image gallery', 'See Also' & 'References' are perfectly done.

In the end, You may change the assessment at any given time even though you are the creator of the article & you may always "Requests for Assessment".

Do keep writing such good articles. Thank you! - Ninney (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You yourself told me I could change the assessment myself; well, that seemed like a COI, but at the same time, I disagree with your assessment on both counts. I believe your interpretation of the assessment criteria and the article content is flawed (particularly with regard to the "Costs" section), and I would like someone else to assess the article; I saw no better way to get to that than by removing your assessment, and I can find no rule or guideline suggesting that is improper. —swpb^T 17:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I said to change the assessment & not remove the assessment. - Ninney (talk) 18:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Please see my proposal to rename/upmerge: Hugo999 (talk)

• Category:Marathi film music composers to Category:Marathi film score composers

Category:Malayalam film composers to Category:Malayalam film score composers

@Hugo999: Thank you for renaming the Category. -Ninney (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:2013 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pppery (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pppery: Thank you. The template was no longer needed. -Ninney (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

You say nearly three months later ... Pppery 19:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to request that New Page Patrollers be suitably experienced for patrolling new pages. Your comments at New pages patrol/RfC for patroller right are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Thank You! -Ninney (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The NPP backlog now stands at 13,158 total unreviewed pages.

Just to recap:

• 13 July 2016: 7,000
• 1 August 2016: 9,000
• 7 August 2016: 10,472
• 16 August 2016: 11,500
• 28 August 2016: 13,158

You naturally don't have to feel obliged, but if there's anything you can do it would be most appreciated. I've spent 40 hours on it this week but it's only a drop in the ocean.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:41, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Had started working on NPP Backlog since yesterday. Do reply, If you have any suggestions to make. -Ninney (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

If you have been accorded the New Page Reviewer right, please do help out as much as you can, and by using the Page Curation system. We only have 90 days to get the backlog down to an acceptable level, which is perhaps three or four days of new traffic. If you have any questions, the place to go now is here. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ninney. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages 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.

• 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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:08, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for reviewing Andy Dulin. Once North Carolina House of Representatives is updated to reflect this week's election, the article will be not so much an orphan any longer. Eric Cable  !  Talk  15:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@EricCable: Thank you. Had removed the maintenance tag. -Ninney (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

I added a reference from the frwiki article for Julien_Benedetto

Endo999 (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Endo999: Thank you. Add more References, if possible. Also article should be fully written in English and needs translations at few places. -Ninney (talk) 10:30 pm, 16 November 2016, last Wednesday (6 days ago) (UTC+5.5)

To avoid speedy deletion of Rock My Religion I rewrote it. Sorry - I just saw your request not to remove the speedy deletion tag from the top, but I already did. I beg your pardon. --Valueyou (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The creator of a page may not remove a speedy deletion tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. -Ninney (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ninney.

Based on the patrols you made of new pages during a qualifying period in 2016, 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.

• 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank You! -Ninney (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Ninney. 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)

Hi there, I saw that you patrolled Leader-1 after I added some tags to it. Any advice on what more I could do to help uphold standards with respect to WP:NPP. Getting back into the habit of reviewing new creations prior to putting in a bid for the user permission. Hasteur (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hasteur: The NPP backlog continues to grow on daily basis & you can help by getting the backlog down. Use the Curation Toolbar to quickly review the article & adding tags for maintenance.

• Check if the Article title is as per Wikipedia Stds.
• If you do not believe the subject is notable based on having looked outside the article for the existence of sources, then prodding the article, or taking it to AfD may be warranted.
• Add tags, If -
  • Lead is not written properly, or too short or too long.
  • Article requires sections.
  • Article requires updation.
• Add tags, If the article is without source {{unreferenced}} or if insufficient {{refimprove}} (for articles on living person, {{BLP unsourced}} and {{BLP sources}}). Other common tags include {{no footnotes}}, {{more footnotes}}, {{primary sources}}, ({{BLP primary sources}}), {{one source}}, {{self-published}}, {{citation style}}, {{cleanup-bare URLs}} and others.
• Stub tagging
• Check that the article has been assigned to one or more useful categories, and if not, either tag it with {{uncat}} or try to find a category for it.
• Orphaned articles or Dead End articles.

Lastly, if the article is marked with 'The New unreviewed article' banner then it must be manually removed when finished.

Thank You - Ninney (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand. I previously was a very strong currator of AFC, so I know all those aspects. Hasteur (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

@Hasteur: Sorry about that, but then what advice do you need? - Ninney (talk) 20:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing so many of my pages on South India. Regards, Prof TPMS (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prof tpms: You’re welcome - I was happy to do it & I know you’ll do the same for someone else. - Ninney (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

How the hell did that suffer from "linkrot" exactly? ST1849 (talk) 02:02, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

@ST1849: Please do check for the changes made after the page was tagged as {{Linkrot}}. Few useful descriptions, information were missing & is now being added. Thank You - Ninney (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I did had you bothered look. That guy made some dumb typos so I fixed them. Is that English you just typed? How is it "linkrot" if neither of the refs link to anything? And don't send me some stupid wikilove trash. Answer my question yourself (in plain English). ST1849 (talk) 20:35, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Ninney,

Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have 810 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Hello Ninney,

Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

• Improve the tools: Vote here.
• Reduce your review load: Vote here

---

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.