User talk:Zawl

Speedy deletion nomination of Gene Noble

Hello Rizhopper,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Gene Noble for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Ueutyi (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Hello, I'm SummerPhDv2.0. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Daft Punk, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD^v2.0 16:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

INDEX and NOEDITSECTION

You gave no edit summary on your revert here. __INDEX__ has no effect in article space, and __NOEDITSECTION__ is rather abnormal in an article. Was there some reason for the revert? Alsee (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee: Hey there! I reverted your edits because you enabled the "edit section" on the articles. If that is enabled, there will be more vandalism because it'll make them notice the edit buttons. It is not encouraged to allow potential IP vandalism on high importance articles like Martin Garrix. One can click on the edit source button on the top if they want to edit so "edit section" will not be necessary. Do not take it the wrong way but I think "edit section" should remain disabled to reduce vandalism. I do not see the importance of it being enabled as it doesn't bother anyone so why do you mess with it? -Rizhopper^{(Talk to me!)} 13:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I certainly enjoy his music, but I hope you'll forgive me (grin) for not considering it a "high importance article" compared to articles like United States, Malaysia and Barack Obama. (All of which do have section edit links).

If the idea is that it would reduce vandalism then an RFC could be opened at Village pump (proposals) to have all articles default to NOEDITSECTION mode. If it got consensus then we'd submit a Phabricator request for WikimediaFoundation programmers to change the software default. I don't think it would get consensus though. Most editors find it helpful to be able to open a single section in the editor, and we explicitly do want to encourage people to notice and try the edit links. That's how we get new editors.

Individual pages generally shouldn't have non-default settings unless there's some reason specific to that page. It can be confusing when someone tries to click the link and it's strangely missing. Alsee (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I waited for a reply from you, but now I see you're adding even more NOEDITSECTION[1] after I explained why it was inappropriate. Please stop. You can see here that it does create confusion, and you can see here an entire discussion objecting to Visual Editor having any option at all to add these unwanted changes. Alsee (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee: I still think that without the edit links on each section, it will cause lesser vandalism. As these EDM stars have lots of fans of very young age they might not act wisely and start to vandalize. So if they don't see the edit buttons then it's likely that they don't edit. I suggest you stop worrying about this as it's all for the goodness. Those buttons will not be any disturbance to you. Agree to disagree. -Rizhopper^{(Talk to me!)} 05:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

if they don't see the edit buttons then it's likely that they don't edit - that goes completely against the wiki concept. We want people to edit. The expectation is that most people will edit to improve the article. If someone does vandalize it's just a quick click of the undo button to fix it.

In any case, it should be clear that having random articles one way and random articles the opposite way makes no sense. Aside from Wikipedia's Main Page, there are currently 124[2] mainspace pages with nosectionedit out of 5,219,317[3] articles on Enwiki. That is 99.998% of pages having section edit links. It's clear that Community Consensus is that NOEDITSECTION does not belong in normal articles. Almost all articles that do have NOEDITSECTION also have nonfunctional or erroneous INDEX/TOC/NEWSECTION keywords as well, because they were all added by new users playing with a Visual Editor menu they didn't understand. (That's what my edits were cleaning up.) Please abide by clear community consensus. I'd rather not waste people's time establishing a formal consensus to firmly resolve ths. Perhaps a random Wikipedia:Third_opinion will help. I'll post a request there and see what they say. Alsee (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Alsee: When vandalism takes place there needs to be active editors to revert the changes and if it slides through without getting reverted, the data will be invalid and that's not what we need in Wikipedia. Yes, I agree that we should encourage people to edit but having few extra edit links isn't called encouragement. They can easily get into edit mode by clicking the button on the top. If the potential Wiki contributor is not a vandaliser then they should be smart enough to get into edit mode without the edit section links. Also, is there some kind of tradition, that all articles are required to have the edit section links? I don't think so. There's no harm in having the edit links disabled and it's for the best as it potentially prevents vandalism rather than to discourage potential contributors. -Rizhopper^{(Talk to me!)} 15:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

After my misunderstanding on In the Name of Love (Martin Garrix and Bebe Rexha song), I was going to leave you a message, Rizhopper, but instead saw this. Having edited several of the pages you have done this to, it has really bugged me. In my over 10 years on Wikipedia, I have not seen use of the NOEDITSECTION very often at all. The pages you're talking about have had hardly the amount of vandalism that would necessitate disabling section edit links. My opinion probably won't dissuade you, so personally I wish @Alsee: would get a formal opinion because it doesn't help the majority of users to have section edit links disabled. It's like you're trying to do this as a form of edit control, and to be blunt, that's not up to you to decide. If you're worried, request page protection so IPs cannot edit it or watch the pages so you can monitor changes to it and revert quickly if it's obvious vandalism. Also, your reasons are rather contradictory, as you just said "they can easily get into edit mode without the edit section links", yet your argument for including NOEDITSECTION is it discourages ease of vandalism by IPs. Additionally, it doesn't help on long pages, as by disabling edit section links, you are requiring every user to load all the data on that page even in order to edit one minor thing. For users on slower connections—and as we don't know how many are out there, nobody should be assuming "it's 2016, everybody has an ultra-fast computer"—this slows a lot of things down. Ss112 22:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Rizhopper, I sympathize with your concern about vandalism and desire to save editors the time and effort of reverting it. But at the same time, adding NOEDITSECTION has negative effects on good-faith editors. It can make it harder for them to start editing and, even worse, prevent them from saving time and bandwidth with section editing and throw them off when the edit links they always expect to see are suddenly missing. When faced with balancing acts like this, Wikipedia usually takes the route of making things easier for good-faith editors and trusting that the vandalism is a surmountable problem. I agree with Alsee that this case should be the same, unless there is a strong community consensus for the opposite decision. If vandalism to these pages is a major problem, I agree with Ss112 that page protection is the proper way to address it. —Neil P. Quinn (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your opinions. I have changed mine on this to agree with all of you because as SS112 said, the edit section link doesn't require one to load all the data on that page. I also agree with Neil that good-faith editors should be prioritized over vandalisers. Besides that, I guess Alsee is also right about reverting vandalism quickly. I will not add NOEDITSECTION to any articles again unless it would make a significant positive difference. —Rizzal Hopper (talk) 07:41, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for being flexible, Rizhopper! By the way, is there a reason you've suddenly become Rizzal Hopper? :)—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Edward Maya.png

Thanks for uploading File:Edward Maya.png, which you've attributed to http://wallpaper.zone/edward-maya-wallpaper. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 14:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Martin Garrix, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Usher and John Martin (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) 09:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Fixed it. — Rizzal Hopper (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ryos (DJ)

The article Ryos (DJ) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No indication of meeting notability guidelines. References are either primary, paid for content, or routine listings.

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. noq (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Ryos (DJ) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ryos (DJ) 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/Ryos (DJ) 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. noq (talk) 23:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Multiple speedy deletion nominations

A tag has been placed on multiple images requesting that they be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the files appear to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted content borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page(s) 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.

The above notice applies to the following images:

1. File:Ryos Social Media Image.jpg
2. File:Said the Sky.png
3. File:Riggi & Piros EDM DJs.jpg
4. File:Martin Garrix on set in front of fans.png
5. File:Ookay Photograph.png
6. File:Julian Scanlon Facebook Photo.jpg

Please be aware that all material you find somewhere else on the web is likely to be copyrighted. Please stop uploading copyright violations. Continual violations will result in the revocation of your editing privileges. If you have any questions please feel free to ask me and I will be happy to assist you. --Majora (talk) 04:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)