User talk:Insertcleverphrasehere

Abhilash Pudukad‎;

Hi, Abhilash Pudukad‎ was redirected by Winged Blades of Godric because its is spamming, and misleading spamming at that. The spam about the book has also affected S. Janaki in recent weeks. I've just reinstated the redirect but I'm not really sure what the best route to take may be. Please note that the major contributor prior to your curation has also been vandalising, probably out of frustration. - Sitush (talk) 10:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

​Yes, it isn't the most neutral of submissions. I did see the redirection by Godric, but looking at it, and sources from searching online, notability seems a bit over borderline, and I think the topic makes it over the GNG line, if barely. Could possibly cut it down to a few line stub with a few of the best sources and leave it at that if it gets recreated again. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:30, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I've opened a thread at the article talk page. - Sitush (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I, for one think that he could be covered much better (in a few (~2/3) lines) at Janki's article and that will be much more beneficial to readers.Also, I fail to spot how he independently meets any GNG/SNG.Also, there are too many paid/non-paid opportunistic spammers and we need to put an end to it.Winged Blades^Godric 10:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

​Yeah, I think a few lines over there is a good way to go too, and I'm not in a hurry to recreate it either. As for GNG, there are a few marginal to good sources that cover him, but it is all pretty borderline. Even if he is notable, there isn't any obligation to cover him in a separate article, a couple of lines over there and a redirect works just as well. Time consuming judgement calls indeed... — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing Cold Water Cowboys page

Thank you for reviewing Cold Water Cowboys page. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Patrolling

Hi, Thanks for drawing my attention to New Page Reviewing. I am inclined to apply for this group. However, at the moment I am tied down to getting ready for a holiday trip, planned long ago. I will get back to you in the second week of January. As regards Articles for Creation Reviewing, I don’t want to get involved in too many things at the same time. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

​ Fair enough. Hope to see you over there in the future. Cheers. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

I have working on new page reviewing for the last few days. Please feel free to point out shortcomings you may notice. Cheers. - Chandan Guha (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

​In general, good work. Note that dab pages with only one target should just redirect to the one topic. I would also recommend that you install WP:RATER as it is a useful tool for adding WikiProjects to new pages. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 07:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

NPP, AfC

Thanks for the invite; I consider it a great honor to have been asked, but I'm a bear of very little brain and totally daunted. And no, you didn't inadvertently plant the invite in an Archive. I created the Archive after giving the job long consideration and shuddering at the immensity. Sorry.

Peace and Love. Doug butler (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

No problem Doug butler, have a happy New Year. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

A bit of help

I've been around a long while, but I find myself just dealing with vandalism on my watch list, my online time being limited. I could certainly do some afc reviewing, but don't have the knack yet. I found the flow chart on your user page very helpful. Could you do me a favor, or find someone who has the time to mentor me up? I just performed the flow chart on George Boris Townsend and moved it from draft space, tagging appropriately and eliminating certain tags specific to being a sandbox creation and an afc submission. I did the last bit manually. Could you point out what I could have done better? In addition I'd like to congratulate the page creator, and I'm sure there's an automated way of doing that correctly. BusterD (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

​Yeah I think your review of George Boris Townsend was quite good. I'll point out that the flowchart on my user page is mean to be used for New Page Patrol Reviewing, and contains some stuff that is not appropriate for AfC; in particular many of the CSD criteria do not apply to drafts (G series still apply but A series do not). The flowchart could still be used for AfC I suppose, but all the A series CSD outcomes as well as Redirect/PROD/BLPROD/AfD/Draftify on the chart would just be declines. You are also a good candidate for New page reviewer rights too. So if you want to help out over at NPP as well, you can apply for the user-right over at WP:PERM/NPR.

​ Also, if you are going to be reviewing AfC submissions, you should request to be added to the participants page. You can find a lot of info about reviewing AfC HERE. This allows you access to the AFCH toolset, which much simplifies the process of reviewing AfC drafts. The 'automated way of doing that' is part of the AFCH toolset. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:36, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Insertcleverphrasehere, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1^st and run until January 29^th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

• The total number of reviews completed for the month.
• The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Just a note

Hello, and a very good evening to you. Would you mind, awfully, not doing this again. If you do, I will have to bring it to the attention of the site administrators. Thanks very much and have a wonderful New Year! Cassianto^Talk 22:37, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

​Do you make a habit of seeking out every user who comments on your article to threaten them on their talk page? The passive-aggressiveness in the above comment is palpable. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:28, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for your all of contribution to Wikipedia. — Masum Ibn Musa  Conversation 10:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Invitations

Hi, many thanks for the invitations. I will first study the regulations, etc. and then start. Unfortunately this will take some extra time as this is the busiest time of the year for me. Again, thanks and Happy New Year to you. Denisarona (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Entirely uncalled edit/deletion

2018 in stand-up comedy It was January 1st to a yearly list page. It absolutely doesn't need any more entries than one at that point. People don't contribute as much if they'd have to make a whole new page so someone has to get the page going. Wikipedia has tons of sports pages for example that start with one event/match/result and they don't get deleted, this shouldn't either when it's clearly a continuation to a set of yearly pages. ShadessKB (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted, it was simply redirected until additional content was added. There was a clear notice saying that there was no prejudice for creating into an article. Single item lists like this one run the risk of seeming promotional in a way that a single item list for sports would not (and I actually haven't seen many of those, and have seen a few get deleted). In any case, the article now has a few entries so there is no longer a problem. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 18:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

backlog chart

Hi.
I noticed you created an independent page Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers/Backlog chart to stop cluttering warchlists. But I think, the chart should be updated once in loosely 24 hours. I mean, the pages are reviewed and created throughout the day/24 hours. It is not exactly "balanced" no matter when we take the "reading", if we are taking it for multiple times. But if we do it at one particular time, then I think it would be beneficial for analysis, and for keeping it updated as well. It would be like, "in last 24 hours ABC articles were created, and XYZ articles were deleted. In the 24 hours before that, XYZ articles were reviewed. What I am trying to say is, you/we should decide one particular time (say your midnight, or enwiki's midnight), and then we should update it around midnight every night. But it is just an opinion from me. :) Please do it the way you see fit. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 14:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Usernamekiran. I try to update it when I can, and get a reading as close to 12 noon UTC (3AM where I am though), as this is the time that I use from Nettrom's dataset to fill it in for back dates. Nettrom's dataset is always a bit out of date though, so I try to put in data from the last few days as it comes in on the New Page Feed and then update it later to the 12 noon UTC data points from his dataset. If that makes sense. I probably shouldn't bother, and just update it from Nettrom's a few days late, but it's fun recording the progress and I am not usually far off anyway. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 15:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

ok thats confusing lol. I thought you simply take the reading from special:newpagesfeed and then input it in the chart. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment mod

Yeah on 2nd look I can see how that could have been accidental, and in hindsight I should have worded the editsum differently. Cheers. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

​I don't blame you. The coincidental way that the text got copied over did look kind of like I was modifying his comment. It must have happened while I was copying his username to my clipboard, or copying the "three strikes and your out" bit, though I still can't for the life of me figure out how. So strange, but thanks for catching it. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 19:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Billionaires

I guess RHaworth was willing to take the heat. :-) Regards, Largoplazo (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 00:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Treaty of Waitangi

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Treaty of Waitangi 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 Maunus -- Maunus (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Insertcleverphrasehere, 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 autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

"Boots with Brass" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "Boots with Brass". Since you had some involvement with the "Boots with Brass" redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Olivenza

Could you look at this again? The redirect to the DAB is back, and as far as I can tell the original page is gone. Meters (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

​ Done Yep... he is pretty close to ending up at WP:3RR. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:29, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Yup. I would have just reverted myself but I saw your three-way work and I wasn't sure if soemthing else needed doing again. Meters (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

​Na he won't be able to move the pages again. You can only move over a redirect once, after that you need to do a round robin with the page-mover userright. From now on normal reverts will be all that is needed. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course. I should have known that. Thanks for the reminder. Meters (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

List of unsolved problems in physics

Hi, I made a "mistake" of editing wikipedia again. :/ If you agree with my point of view (which, based on the evidence, I strongly believe to be correct), would you care to support me in the talk page and perhaps let know other interested people about this, so that they also could support these edits, if they wish? Only the discussion of today matters, because only today it became substantive (though opponents so far have not provided with any evidence (no links to sources) to their point of view). Many thanks in advance.Musashi miyamoto (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

​This seems a bit canvassy to me, and I am very busy with other stuff at the moment, so I'm going to decline sorry. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Treaty of Waitangi suggestion

I hope you will consider my suggestion (which you may nt have read yet) to consolidate the effects/legal standing/claims for redress section into a single section about the role of the treaty in NZ public life where the developments can be described chronologically in a way that gives the full context for the developments from the "nullity"-interpretation to the explicit recognition the treaty has to day. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:14, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

​Oh yeah. I'm still thinking about how that can be accomplished, I am just adding information at the moment then I'll look into consolidation. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 09:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, good, just wasn't sure if yo had seen it. I think a chronological presentation may go a long way to avoid the problem Te Karere pointed out with giving undue weight to outdated views.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:49, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

​Yeah, I have a massive edit pending in a tab, joining up all the information. About two-thirds of the way there. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Cassianto behavior, per WP:5P4]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,