User talk:Tknifton

Vandalism -- or not
Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. Please be more careful in tossing around the term "vandalism", and in reverting good-faith edits and good material. For example, I see no way this edit could be construed as vandalism. WP:VANDALISM describes the subject pretty well. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 18:41, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * In this edit, you could have fixed the problem rather than simply deleting the other editor's work. There was nothing wrong with the URL, but the ref was built wrong. A good faith edit. Maybe you should take a look at the WP:Counter-Vandalism Unit; they have a good training program to help you pick out the distinctions between vandalism and good faith mistakes. And please don't let my comments here discourage you -- we always need vandal fighters (I've been doing it here for some 15 years.) --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 23:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Italics for "et al."
In Wikipedia, we don't necessarily follow styles set out by other organizations – we may choose to do so or not. The italization of "et al." should be based on MOS:FOREIGNITALIC. The term "et al." is not specifically mentioned, but it seems to me to be equivalent to "e.g." or "i.e.", which are. It's certainly more common, I think, than "esprit de corps", which is not to be italicized. The abbreviation "et al." is in Merriam-Webster Online, so no italics agrees with do not italicize words that appear in Merriam-Webster Online. (And yes, Merriam-Webster italicizes it, but it also italicizes all the other words the MoS explicitly says not to.) Peter coxhead (talk) 12:46, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Arisierpeton
Hello Tknifton,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Arisierpeton for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

 SITH   (talk)   15:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I see the article included material from a journal article that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of blank parameters on infobox rockunit
Hi, While I appreciate your work cleaning up refs, removing spaces and such, I don't understand your reasoning for the removal of blank parameters on geological formation infoboxes, they don't clutter the article and just make it much more of a hassle to add new information to the infobox in the future becuase I have to re-copy the parameters into the article. I ask that you desist from removing them in the future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Achillobator italics
Thanks for the corrections, willing to use italics properly. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Revolve NTNU, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NTNU ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Revolve_NTNU check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Revolve_NTNU?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). 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) 07:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Narendra Singh Dhami


A tag has been placed on Narendra Singh Dhami requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page 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 deleted 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. Masum Reza 📞 12:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Not Reliable?
You deleted contents on Koji Nishio and Jonas Neubauer because you doubt that the sources are not reliable. Please note that those sources are absolutely reliable because those videos are uploaded by the official websites of CTWC. Moreover, they are two best players in CTWC, so they deserve a wiki page. Thanks. 120.126.33.178 (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They are not Wikipedia WP:Notable; further WP:RS's have to be independent which the CTWC webiste is not. Unless you can find Significant coverage in unrelated secondary sources then we cannot have articles on them. Tknifton (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Rowspan
Hi Tknifton. I just got a notification saying you had reverted my removal of the "rowspans" from the tables on the Frasnian article. Could you please explain why?

As I'm sure you're aware, what the property does is cause the cell to span the specified number of rows, and currently the value is specified as "99", meaning the cell is being told to be 99 rows tall. However, none of the tables are that tall so the cell "overflows" the bottom of the table. I assume its intended purpose is to make the cell always span all the rows without the need to update it every time, and it does that fine in Chrome and Opera. However, when specified this way Firefox (both mobile and desktop) fails to render the cell's bottom border, leaving it "open" to the rest of the page, presumably because it hasn't got to the end of the 99 rows yet.

I appreciate that it makes the table (marginally) easier to maintain, but given this rendering issue (and discrepancies between browsers) I think it is probably best avoided.

P.S. "rowspan" is a property of the table cell, not a template, not that it really matters.

 Alphathon  /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ ( talk ) 08:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

FYI
. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tithonian genus extinctions


A tag has been placed on Category:Tithonian genus extinctions requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page 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 deleted 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. Liz Read! Talk! 17:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tithonian events


A tag has been placed on Category:Tithonian events requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page 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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

films sourced only to IMDb
I noticed you just nominated a film for procedural deletion. I have noticed we have scores and maybe even hundreds of films sourced only to IMDb. We also have at least as many articles on actresses and actors sourced only in that way. In the recent discussion on Lillian Knight it appears that the IMDb entry had conflated at least two different actresses in one. IMDb is not reliable, not a sign of notability, and Wikipedia is not supposed to be a mirror of it. However any time I try to make progress against these IMDb only sourced articles I get excessive pushback. I am now also getting excessive pushback in favor of keeping huge red link lists on cast lists, even though I have found several cast links that go to the wrong person, which is more likely to happen when huge number of red links are created and the links are never reviewed for accuracy. This whole situation is very frustrating, especially since many of these IMDb only linked articles have existed for over a decade. Any help in getting this situation under control would be appreciated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Blocked
I thought your disruption looked familiar: Special:Diff/846892013, Special:Diff/958386556. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:23, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Unblock

 * Also the diffs provided above are not that convincing as Me and him aren't the only ones who re-add declined unblock requests. Tknifton (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * RE disruption: I have not received any indication that re-adding declined unblock requests that have been improperly removed is disruptive. I can understand disabling secondary unblock requests (which once I was told it was disruptive I stopped doing that). Tknifton (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I am also aware that some people may think the above violates WP:MEAT which is technically abusing multiple accounts/sockpuppetry when used inappropriately. I don't believe that the situation described above is inappropriate. Tknifton (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Further explanation of the overlap: The reason that the overlap in topics exists is because Lavalizard101 gave me advice that reading and commenting on unblock requests could help me understand Wiki policies and how to not violate them. Lavalizard101 is also offering to help anyone he knows both in his class and outside of class to learn how to edit wikipedia, I have just been the first person he has helped (someone else in our class also wants to learn how to edit wikipedia eventually also in the palaeontology area. Tknifton (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

second unblock request with further explanation of similarities
Further I have never hidden that I know Lavalizard101 in real life having disclosed it on my userpage since October 2019 when I created my userpage. So if I was truly abusing multiple accounts and didn't want to get caught, I would have shot myself in the foot by disclosing that I knew Lavalizard101.

Topics
From having a look at the contributions of Lavalizard101 I see the following topics pop up as being edited by both him and me (explanations follow each topic):
 * Palaeontology: I share this topic with him as we are both palaeontology students at the same university in the same classes, so it is obvious that two palaeontology students both edit palaeo articles.
 * Random article tagging/fixing: He gave me advice and said that it would help bolster my editing skills for when I create articles on genera that don't have articles (one of the reasons I wanted an account in the first place) so I was less likely to make mistakes, I took his advice on board as it seemed like a good idea that wasn't disruptive and helped the encyclopaedia at the same time.
 * Unblock request comments: He gave me this idea in the same advice he gave me on random article fixing/tagging as it would help my understanding of rules so I would be less likely to violate them without realising, I again took this on board as it seemed like a good idea that wasn't disruptive and saved admins a bit of time commenting on unblocks with stuff that a non-admin could also comment. I admit the disabling of secondary open unblock requests by a non-admin is disruptive and even stopped doing that after being told it was disruptive. As for the diff above me and him aren't the only non-admins who have re-added improperly removed declines (in fact I was about to re-add an improperly removed decline and was beaten to it by User:Wasell (on User talk:Dardania12))
 * recent changes checking: I thought it would save others time if from time to time I helped to revert vandalism and warn users. I did not realise that Lavalizard101 also checked recent changes and reverted vandalism. I find it hard to believe that me and him would be the only people who edit paleontology who also from time to time deviate from their normal topics to fight vandalism.

Other behavioural similarities
Same as above wrt to explanations:
 * edit summary usage: All of my edit summaries have been explanations of the edit made. I thought it would be common sense that if multiple people do the same edit they would use similar edit summaries.
 * use of speciesbox and automatic taxoboxes: These are found throughout articles on extinct and extant articles, so its not a surprise that I would end up finding out they exist and are easier to maintain than normal taxoboxes, in fact common sense would suggest that if something is easier, that multiple people would use them.
 * spelling/grammar: I use similar spelling and grammar to Lavalizard101 wrt italics, commas in taxon authorities and the word palaeontology itself. The later is down to the fact that the word is spelt that way in British English. The italicising of genera, and et al. and commas in taxon authorities are a basic fact that any palaeontology student learns on day one so the fact that both me and him do it isn't really surprising.

If any other behavioural similarities used to justify the suspicion have been missed, I apologise as I am unaware of exactly what behavioural evidence was used. Tknifton (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked
This user is attempting to mislead us in their unblock request. As such, I am revoking talk page access. Any administrator is welcome to contact me to get additional evidence, beyond the basically complete overlap in editing, that these two accounts belong to the same user, though I don't believe you need it to decline the unblock request. Lavalizard101, note this will count against you, significantly against you, in any future unblock request. --Yamla (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.