User talk:SpacemanSpiff/Archives/2016/November

Clarification
I have seen this. I am not LanguageXpert. If you doubt I am ready to abuse badly to LanguageXpert. Whatever abuse you ask me to. Even If you say me to not edit. Next time I will not edit. OK ? But I just wanted to tell you all that Punjabi dialects articles were introduced to Wikipedia by a user Khalid Mehmood back in 2008-2011. He was an honourable wikipedian who was invited to Wikimania12 in Washgton DC and Wikimania14 in London. He just died. LanguageXpert came in to picture in Nov 2012. He is not a owner of Punjabi dialects. Internet is full with people who mention Punjabi dialects. Are all those socks of LanguageXpert ? Linguists from Grierson to Cardona mention Punjabi dialects. Are they all sock of LanguageXpert? Ironically Khalid Mehmood was also probed as Language Xpert. Even and  were probed as LanguageXpert because they favour Punjabi dialects. I saw about 25 IPs starting from 39.32.... Or 39.47.... were also SPIed as LanguageXpert. My series was never 39.47/ 39.32. Those IPs are specific to Islamabad city. While IP series 39..... represents all north Pakistan. My point is that if some one speaks Pakistani English edits Punjabi dialects then is he sock of LanguageXpert ? No No No. It is wrong perception. Another question LanguageXpert was blocked for 3Rs volitions. Then why not User Uanfala for same violation on Saraiki dialect page? He deserve even more severe punishment when he Forumshops and after failed of talk page discussions / Move requests / Move reviews / Mediation requests / Dispute resolutions starts editing tendentiously and edit wars. He had difference of opinion with many users but he kept on edit wars. If LanguageXpert was blocked in 2012 then why not User Uanfala ? Next time I will not edit. OK ? I am ₯€₠€₯ not F...Xpert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.129.46 (talk) 16:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Littering...
Can littering of the types like Talk:Guru Gobind, Talk:Guru Gobind Singh Ji, Talk:Guru Gobind singh be tagged for CSD under WP:G6? This is just three variations of one type for your example. There are 14 variations of Ganga. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 19:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've deleted these but if all these are created by the same editor just for the sake of adding the Bihar project tag then you may want to educate them on not doing this! &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  00:58, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I would do like to know if some of my creations are wrong and how are they wrong. I've gone through WP:G6, and don't think the Talk pages violate any of its listed points. Please educate. Pratyush (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop randomly creating talk pages for redirects just so that you can spam WP Bihar all around, you've been spamming BIhar everywhere for a while and it is getting disruptive now. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  02:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks SS! Your last comment is education enough. If that doesn't settle in, i doubt i have any better ways to do it. Bihar, Patna and Mithila projects have been spammed on redirects, disambig pages and on file talks too which are actually on Commons. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 02:34, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Talk page creations were not random, every redirect talk page created was redirect of a Bihar -related article. Isn't every page of Category:Redirect-Class articles is a redirect to a article of their wikiproject? Spamming would be called when I put Bihar template on non-Bihar related articles, but that is not the case. You may not like it Sir, but I still don't think there is any guideline violation. Pratyush (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please look at WP:G8, it clearly says it excludes files that exist on Wikipedia Commons. Pratyush (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Now this is ridiculous. You have tagged the redirect talk pages of Ganges and Gandaki River for speedy deletion and in the rationale you have referred to this discussion, but never mentioned here how and why the talk pages should be deleted. I understand you are angry with me but try to do more constructive edits. Your personal attack here is not helpful either. Edit Wikipedia using your brain not based on your emotions. Either provide a logical reason for their deletion or remove those tags. Thanks for understanding. Pratyush (talk) 06:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , you'd be better off following your own advice, any further personal attacks and you will be blocked. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  07:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone is equating my edits to a dog's piss and I am the one getting warned. Great Sir. Block me if I made a mistake by pointing out that someone called me a dog. Maybe Wikipedia is not for me. Pratyush (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you can not understand the nuance then you shouldn't be commenting. As I've mentioned above, I just warned you but if you continue to do this then you will be blocked. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:17, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If my words were personal attack, what would you call his remarks? Pratyush (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * They are not a personal attack. He termed the action of tagging talk pages of non-existing image pages as being equivalent to dog marking. THere's no personal attack there. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  08:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If you bother to re-read the CSD tags, they give G6 as rationale along with this discussion. Our definitions of "constructive" are clearly different. WP:Deletionism is constructive efforts towards WP too. Please be aware that after the current set of CSDs are deleted, more would be nominated. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And how do these talk pages come under WP:G6? Pratyush (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Because G6 covers housekeeping, maintenance, litter-removal and such stuffs. Btw, what is your idea behind creating talk pages of redirects and of files that are on Commons? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised this question is being asked. Look at this. Pratyush (talk) 10:10, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am beyond surprise reading your replies. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of External Link
Hi

I just came to know that you have deleted one of my external links. I want to know the exact reason for this action so that i can improve my work in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amit Baeraly (talk • contribs) 05:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * , the site you've been adding doesn't meet our guidelines. I'll leave a welcome note on your talk page with links to our policies and guidelines. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  06:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

deletion of Todd Anthony Tyler page
HI - My name is Neil Kindness and I work for Todd Anthony Tyler. You have deleted his page under G5 rules and we are not sure why. Can we ask to have a review of this action please as there were a lot of citations that we will have to redo if we have to remake the page. Please take time to reconsider the deletion. My email address is neil@7107digital.com if you wish to contact me. Kind Regards, Neil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.60.130 (talk) 02:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It was created by an editor who was banned for paid WP:COI violation our ToS, implying you hired someone to create the page. This is an obvious violation of our terms of service. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  03:20, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Spaceman - this page was not created by us. but we do want a [age -can you allow us to recreate this page please? I have asked Todd who actually created it and he does not know - he thinks it was fan created in the first instance. Thanking you for your time - which I know must be stretched by your pro bono duties here. Neil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.60.14.14 (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think that the subject meets our notability guidelines then you can create an article through the WP:AFC process. Please provide suitable references to show that the subject meets our notability requirements. Also, be aware of WP:COI and the requirements of our terms of service. cheers. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  04:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Motiva.C3.A7.C3.A3o. Thank you. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Major cricket listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Major cricket. Since you had some involvement with the Major cricket redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Jack | talk page 14:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Request to remove the protection
Hi I request you to remove the protection on Bharath Mall which was removed by you in September 2015. So that this article can be created with fresh content with reliable sources. I'm sure this article meets the notability criteria. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CodePanda (talk • contribs) 14:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

User block
Thanks a lot for block User:Hydloc009. He created a lot of problem in his 3 weeks of editing. Appreciate your effort. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  21:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)