User talk:Nyook/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Marghilos, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Recent changes patrol
 * Anti-vandalism tools

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. Again, welcome!

aboideautalk 12:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. ''Thanks for your reverts. Howewer, I would like to notify you to use the edit summary and dont yust let the default standing there. This is because in controversial cases it might not be always clear whats your intention'' Victor Schmidt (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you, good to know. Marghilos (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I’m sorry
I’m sorry it was an accident I was going to put something constructive but I published by mistake. I’m terribly sorry. Halo2121 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Revert
Hey, the message you sent wasn't very clear. How was my edit to Grenada not constructive? Kiwifruit0001 (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It might be that I'm wrong, but the sentence is clear enough as it is. Also the birds are free to fly. Anyway, feel free to revert my revert. Marghilos (talk) 12:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * From the way I read it, it seems like that sentence includes lesbianism. Kiwifruit0001 (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems like an awfully big fleet for an airline that went defunct in 2002, eh
I don't delete data unless it's fake, and that was very clearly fake --50.72.215.179 (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Keep up the excellent work
Hi Marghilos! In the week that you've been active on Wikipedia under this account, I see that you've worked hard to patrol recent changes, remove and revert vandalism and disruption, and keep this project clean and free of damage. I just wanted to thank you for doing this, and to help encourage your participation in areas where we could use your help! I see that you've been reverting disruption and leaving warnings to the users who cause them... that's awesome, and I hope that you continue to help in this area! One place that I'll direct you to is Wikipedia's noticeboard for the administrator intervention against vandalism (or WP:AIV, or AIV for short). After a user has been given repeated and sufficient warnings for causing vandalism or disruption (usually up to a "final warning"), if they repeat the same action after this, you can report the user to AIV easily by using Twinkle. While currently on the offending user's talk page or user page, simply click on the "TW" menu tab, and then click on "ARV". A report form will appear and with the AIV page selected by default. Simply tick the relevant corresponding checkboxes that are relevant to the user you're reporting, and click on "submit query". Twinkle will do the rest for you automatically, and will file a report to the AIV noticeboard. By doing this, you'll be performing a key part of your new role as a recent changes patroller and vandal-fighter, and it'll be hugely appreciated!

Again, I thank you very much for taking on the role as a recent changes patroller. It's a very thankless job that typically results in more negative and hateful messages than messages of encouragement and gratitude. Vandals and trolls will typically respond and retaliate to your efforts by unleashing threats, vandalism, and disruption on your user space and user talk page here. If and when that happens, don't fret it, don't give them what they want by giving up, stopping the good things that you're doing, or respond to it in any way... And don't give them a reason that will encourage them to do it more... lol. Just undo the disruption (don't warn them for it - that'll just encourage them to do it more), and let an admin (such as myself) know so that we can look into it.

Keep up the excellent work. If you start to report repeat offenders correctly to AIV, and if you continue to revert and warn users for legitimate disruption and do so correctly, you'll be on your way to be able to request additional user rights and privileges be granted to your account so that you can grow and take on more restricted tasks and perform actions that require experience and trust before being able to do so. Come to my user talk page in a month from now, and if you do what I recommend with AIV and starting today, and if you can show in a month from now that you're doing everything correctly and to policy and have been doing so for that long, I'll make you a rollbacker. ;-) Keep in touch, and please don't hesitate to come to me with any questions or requests for help. I've been patrolling recent changes and handling vandalism and disruption for over 8 years now, and I'm considered a key "go-to person" for questions and requests for input regarding this area... I'll definitely have the ability to help you should you need it. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   08:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Only warnings vs final warnings
Hi again, Marghilos! I hope you don't mind me messaging you again so soon, but I figured I'd take the opportunity to help coach and guide you (assuming you don't mind). :-) In this situation where you left this user an "only warning" for the vandalism they made here to Graveland, this should be a "final warning" instead. If they've been warned previously (such as in this case, the user was warned repeatedly yesterday for the same shenanigans that they were engaging in just now), you're absolutely doing the right thing by leaving them the next level warning instead of starting from a level 1 warning.

You want to reserve "only warnings" for situations where you need to warn a user who hasn't recently been warned (or warned before) for disruption, and where one warning is necessary as opposed to leaving them a level 1 or level 2 warning, and so on... If a user repeats their behavior after an only warning, they can be immediately reported to AIV. Such warnings are used when a user engages in vandalism that's extremely severe, egregious, or offensive - such as adding racist statements or vandalism to articles such as the N-word, or jokes about gassing Jews, edits praising Hitler, or edits to articles that are biographies of living people that add blatantly false, libelous, and defamatory content (such as calling a person a child molester or rapist, or something similar that's extremely serious that could defame them).

Anyways... in a nutshell, save "only warnings" for users that engage in vandalism or behavior that's really bad. For all other situations and where the user was given a level 3 warning (AKA "please stop"), give them a "final warning". ;-) If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to message me on my user talk page, and I'll be happy to answer them. Again, keep up the great work. These messages I've left you are simply informal notes that I'm giving you in order to help you improve what you're doing. You're shining bright with the good work you're doing; I'm simply helping you to shine even brighter. :-) Cheers -  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   09:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, got it. I′m still learning. --Marghilos (talk) 09:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries! This is why I'm leaving you these notes - to informally let you know so that you're aware. :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
Thank you for making a report about on Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. ''Warnings must be recent; the last warning this IP received was 6 days ago. Warn BEFORE bringing to AIV; editors must vandalize after a recent warning. '' Killer Chihuahua 20:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Twinkle, warnings and stuff
Hi - I'd like to add my voice to Oshwah's above and thank you for your great work keeping Wikipedia clean. Just a heads up though about a couple of edit conflicts I've had with you this evening. When you use Twinkle to revert vandalism, sometimes another editor beats you to it while you're reviwing the edit; annoyingly, Twinkle automatically takes you to the offending editor's talk page anyway. A couple of times this evening, I've reverted an edit, and gone to the user's talk page to give them a warning, only to find that you've already put it there! It's not really a problem - the user gets warned either way - it's just a bit of a waste of time both of us going after the same thing. Personally, I try to avoid this by checking the tab with the article on it to ensure my revert went through before I edit the user's talk page - I also generally check the user's contributions before issuing a warning, since sometimes there is other recent vandalism that needs to be reverted, and which might convince me to escalate the warning. I hope this all makes sense, and please don't think for a moment I'm annoyed with you - just trying to give you a friendly hint for future reference. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  20:24, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, it should be a problem of the tool: once checked, it directs me to the user page for warning. On the next step, I'm announce that the vandalism is reverted by other. A conflict I cannot solve. Sorry for wasting your time.Marghilos (talk) 03:47, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes, it takes you to the user's talk page - but it should do that in a new tab, leaving the tab with the article history open (I think it does this by default, otherwise it's in your Twinkle preferences). You can quickly check the history tab to see whether the revert was successful - if all the messages are green, you're good to go, but if they are orange or red then someone has beaten you to it. It only adds about a second to the process, and it's worth doing to allow other users to choose how they want to communicate with the person they've reverted. Let me know if you have difficulty with it. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  12:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding a rollback on Lamborghini Huracan
The edit you removed should be undone, the Lamborghini Huracan IS owned by Lil Kang, and is NOT a test -Joe William Howardberg, Producer, Shekel Records
 * Indeed, it's advertising. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.--Marghilos (talk) 10:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It is NOT advertising, Make Lil Kang a wikipedia page. -Joe William Howardberg, Producer, Shekel Records

/Archive 2019

You are now a pending changes reviewer
Hi Nyook! I've been running into you in recent changes patrolling and I happened to notice that you don't have the pending changes reviewer user rights. I hope you don't mind, but I went through your contributions and I noticed that you're quite active in recent changes patrolling and that you consistently view and undo vandalism and bad faith disruption. I believe that the pending changes reviewer rights would be useful for you to have and that you'd make good use of the tool. Instead of having you formally request the pending changes reviewer right at WP:PERM, I went ahead and just gave it to you. This user right allows you to review edits that are pending approval on pages currently under pending changes protection and either accept the edits to make them viewable by the general public, or decline and revert them.

Keep these things in mind regarding the tool or when you're reviewing any pending changes:


 * A list of articles with pending edits awaiting review can be viewed at Special:PendingChanges.
 * A list of the articles currently under pending changes protection can be viewed at Special:StablePages.
 * Being granted and having these rights does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you (obviously).
 * You'll generally want to accept any pending changes that appear to be legitimate edits and are not blatant vandalism or disruption, and reject edits that are problematic or that you wouldn't accept yourself.
 * Never accept any pending changes that contain obvious and clear vandalism, blatant neutral point of view issues, copyright violations, or BLP violations.

Useful guidelines and pages for you to read:


 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline and tutorial on using the rights and reviewing pending changes.
 * Pending changes, a summary of pending changes protection, the pending changes user right, and how it applies.
 * Protection policy, the policy section on pending changes protection and its appropriate application and use by administrators.

I'm sure you'll do fine with the reviewer rights - it's a pretty straight-forward tool and it doesn't drastically change the interface that you're used to already. Nonetheless, please don't hesitate to leave me a message on my user talk page if you run into any questions, get stuck anywhere, or if you're not sure if you should accept or revert pending changes to a page, and I'll be more than be happy to help you. If you no longer want the pending changes reviewer rights, let me know and I'll be happy to remove it for you. Thank you for helping to patrol recent changes and keep Wikipedia free of disruption and vandalism - it's a very thankless job to perform and I want you to know that it doesn't go unnoticed and that I appreciate it very much. Happy editing! :-D  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep up the excellent work and keep doing what you're doing, and in a few weeks' time, I'll make you a rollbacker! :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   04:33, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop whitewashing history.
These guys were literal nazis, responsible for killing thousands during the blitz against the UK. Despite the fact that the USA smuggled these war criminals to America and disnyfied their images, they were still Nazis... there is no argument there. Please stop trying to whitewash these wikipedia pages, you are responsible for deifying these mass murderers. Educate yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:A601:8300:C974:ACA2:4F6D:9553 (talk) 12:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Bellingcat
Don't attempt disinformation. Bellingcat lists the NED on his own list of funding sources:

https://www.bellingcat.com/about/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.230.187.144 (talk) 06:39, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

User talk:117.196.253.39
Welcome. I see that you have given this unregistered user a level one user warning, for vandalizing Srinivasa Ramanujan. Did you check the history for that article, though? Because before that, what seems to be the same person make similarly destructive edits to that article under a different IP address, such as here. As such, I believe that a level 3 or higher warning would be more appropriate in that instance.

Thanks, ωικιωαrrιor ᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC).

Croatian Revolutionary Brotherhood
You asked for citation for Croatian Revolutionary Brotherhood being terrorist organization but it was already provided - Yonah Alexander, Kenneth Myers: Terrorism in Europe (RLE: Terrorism & Insurgency), Routledge, Apr 17, 2015 page 59 where it cleary stated that CRB belonged to terrorist aggregate that carried out 75 terrorist attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.85.146.224 (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)