User talk:Nauseous Man/Archive 2

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:11, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

Disambiguation link notification for November 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited GoDaddy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Axios. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Sharp image
You said: as an addendum to this, I believe that the image being used is probably copyright abuse. I've looked into this and couldn't see any warning signs. What have I missed; what makes you concerned about the image?  Schwede 66  18:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * hi! I had noticed that there were a couple uploads by the user which didn't seem correct which first got me worried about it. Then, and it could be that I don't know how wikicommons works, when you click on the author of the image "Ruth Gilmour" it takes you back to the 0800cpc user. It seems odd that a wedding photographer with no other wiki commons photos would upload this one photo at the same time that the Wanaka incident was happening. Perhaps I'm just being paranoid, but I'd prefer to think I'm being thorough. Nauseous Man (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * User:0800cpc has uploaded five images to Commons; you can easily check every user's contributions through the link in the left sidebar when you are on either their talk or user page. I've nominated three of those photos for deletion and I'm not concerned about the two other photos; they may well be theirs.  Schwede 66  21:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've had a further look and I can find the two remaining photos on the internet. One of those has "Photography By Woolf" in the EXIF data. So they are not the uploader's photos after all.  Schwede 66  21:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Reverting Edits
You’ve asked me for feedback on your pending changes calls, and I’ll be happy to provide it, to the limited extent of my ability. Perhaps we should make this mutual, i.e. you feedback to me on some of my calls? I often worry I am too harsh (and under have received a complaint about just that in the last day ☹️).

Finding your rejects is easy. Finding your accepts, or the changes you declined to touch, is less obvious. So what I suggest is that you post, here, the next 20 pending changes you look at, whichever if the three outcomes it was. I will consider each one and comment what I would have done.

Ok? Nick Levine (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey, what do you make of what’s going on at Jesse McCartney? I got fed up with this user and tagged them on administrators’ intervention against vandalism but not sure if I did right (or if request will be met). Nick Levine (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes that's a great idea! I'll list them below. Will I just need to provide the pages that I approve/reject?
 * re: the Jesse McCartney edits, yes I've been keeping an eye on it. I'm just gonna go in and make the changes myself, but I think across the board, we were all correct to revert the edits - a source wasn't being provided, sometimes the ref was a primary source, and sometimes the changes made broke the table. It's good to see that the IP address has had a block placed on it.... Nauseous Man (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * yes so long as I have enough info that I can identify the changes you are referring to. Nick Levine (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Michael Plank article
Kia ora for the great changes you made to the layout of the page. It gave that whole section a lot more coherence. You have probably already figured out that I was working on a page for Plank and was just about to get it up, did one last check and there was the page! No problem though, it was a good start and I know that editor is the very best. Anyway, I will carry on a discussion on the Talk page as I have more to add - another section - but it would be good to get feedback. Realitylink (talk) 09:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Kia ora . It's a good looking article, well done! I'll probably keep tinkering with the page, as I'm really invested in the flow of an article. Please sing out if you need me to do anything to it/notdo anything to it, ha. Nauseous Man (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All good, appreciate the support. Realitylink (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I liked what you did in the section on Memberships - I was intending to do something similiar and had rushed that from my draft. It is much tidier now.Realitylink (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Rollback is an anti-vandalism tool
I believe that rollback is an anti-vandalism tool. As you said, my edits were good but I believe your claim that the summaries were misleading is mistaken. Perhaps you could be specific if you believe this. Surely Wikipedia pages on academics or other prominent people should contain as much relevant factual material about the person as we are able to contribute. It is surely a misuse of rollback to make a wholesale removal of verified facts about a person.Popinade (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, and welcome to wikipedia. As a general rule, it's not good practice to make lots of small edits as it's often used to hide vandalism, and it causes issues like this to arise.
 * There are several issues with the edits that were made, no doubt in good faith, but I would urge you to read the talk page. One example, in an edit that you summarised "added reference to Rata's role in Kura Kaupapa movement" didn't just do that, it also removed criticisms made by Leonie Pihama on Rata's works.
 * Another issue with some of the sources provided were not high quality.
 * I'd encourage you to have a thorough read of the discussion on the Talk page, and make all of the edits in one large chunk, then if there is any issues it doesn't need to be reverted to an earlier version of the page.
 * Happy editing! Nauseous Man (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your welcome. I have made a number of minor contributions (not "minor edits") over several years. I appreciate the advice to make edits in one big chunk. Having been advised to re-read the "minor edits" page carefully, I am now better informed on the protocol.
 * I am not sure I understand the issue you are referring to regarding Leonie Pihama's remarks. The paragraph after I edited it read:

While Rata was one of the principal figures in developing the Kura Kaupapa schooling project, [14] her recent criticisms of the direction of Māori immersion education, [15] and of the insertion of mātauranga Māori into New Zealand education, [16] have prompted some highly critical responses. Commenting on Rata's stance on Māori language immersion education, Leonie Pihama (then an academic at the University of Auckland) said: "The recent attack by Elizabeth Rata on Kaupapa Māori developments highlights a disturbing trend of racism being disguised as public debate." [17]


 * I carefully left the sentence exactly as it was. I can see from the discussion on the talk page why you may have thought I removed Pihama's comments, however I believe the edit I made simply added context to her thoughts.
 * Any advice on quality references would be much appreciated. Which ones did you think were low quality?Popinade (talk) 06:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi ,
 * I would like to make a friendly request that you undo your rollback of my edits to this page.
 * As you have not indicated which references were low quality, I assume you were making a rush to judgement, similar to your assumption that I had removed the sentence referring to Pihama.
 * I think you should be satisfied that my multiple small edits (though incorrectly labelled as "minor") were not an attempt to vandalize the page.
 * The rollback removed needed citations and important factual material on the subject (I can provide further references for this).
 * Although some cleanup has been done on this page since your rollback that can easily be repeated after you undo the rollback.
 * Thank you for your help.Popinade (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi . Apologies, I was busy in the real world, just as I was when I rolled back your edits. Sorry about being so hasty, that page has experienced substantial vandalism so I was too hasty in taking action. The edits should be restored.
 * There was actually just one source that I thought was inappropriate, from the blog Why Evolution is True. I've removed it, but there was a number of citations in that sentence which still demonstrate the point about extensive debate.
 * I am sorry about all of this. Was far too over eager. Nauseous Man (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)