User talk:TutterMouse/Archive/2

Johnny Byrne (footballer)
Hi TutterMouse; Noted your edit re duplication of categories on Byrne's page. I wonder if you could clarify? The deleted category (The Football League players) is a common cat. for players who have appeared for any of the English Football League's clubs. Looking back at previous versions of the page, I cannot see that this has been duplicated. I'm wondering if some confusion has arisen with the cat "The Football League representative players" which would be for those players who have been selected (from the League's clubs) for a team to play against a team selected from (for example) The Scottish League? Apologies if I have missed something or misunderstood. Thanks. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There was a duplicated category, I removed the second on line 109 (just above one for "The Football League representative players") but kept the other on line 96 (just above "English footballers"). I can understand the concern over confusion but I did double-check to make sure the deleted category is still in the article. I appreciate your concern and always welcome comments where confusion might arise in my edits and where I can offer guidance. tutterMouse (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks I've figured out what was confusing me now! Regards. Eagleash (talk) 19:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for cleaning up after me on AN3, I'm not familiar with all the templates. — east718  &#124;  talk  &#124; 21:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That's okay, at least you came and helped out which is what counts. It was also at RFPP not AN3 but if you don't clerk those areas frequently you're bound to get lost between them all. tutterMouse (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Appeal of RFPP decline for Douchebag. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Huggle message
Hey TutterMouse! You are receiving this message because you are subscribed at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Huggle/Members#Beta_testers

I have recently launched a new downloads for beta testers that contains nightly builds of huggle, eg. versions that are built every day from our master branch and contains latest huggle. These builds are currently provided only for Windows and Ubuntu. You can find them here: http://huggle.wmflabs.org/builds/

Please keep in mind that these don't have any automatic updates and if you download and start using nightly build, you will need to update it yourself! So don't get yourself to running old version, it's possible to install both stable and nightly huggle, which is what I suggest.

Keep the bug reports coming to phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/create/?projects=Huggle Many thanks! Petrb (talk) 10:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

CHECKWIKI error 81
Error 81 was disactivated in English Wikipedia after consensus against it. Has the consensus changed? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I read the talkpage for the project around the time it was deactivated to see whether or not consensus was reached (courtesy link to discussion) and it looks like there was a consensus to keep it active but it was deactivated by the one person who didn't want it active. According to that I'm reflecting consensus rather than going against it but if a consensus opposing keeping it active was held elsewhere I'd like to read about it. tutterMouse (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just as a followup, I was reverted by who opposed keeping it active when the discussion was had seemingly under the principle "it happens too much" (apparently ISBN errors are fine though equally numerous) so I feel like it's unilateral decision making. I'm okay with being corrected though as long as there's something definite and if we need to reassess consensus I'm fine with that as well. tutterMouse (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not have strong opinion on that. I only know that when my bot tried to fix those I got a lot of complains. Moreover, AWB's logic has been restricted not to work in all cases because of complains. You could start a new discussion about it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If you gain consensus for a bot run, my bot can finish the entire list within a few days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion either, I thought merely that it's an odd task to stop doing because I used to do it before it was deactivated and helped in a small way, it wasn't like the queues were insurmountable for it. It's a task that requires human checking and not all tasks can be automated. Anyway, while AWB cannot handle it, Wiki Cleaner does a good job as it's only semi-automated and you do need to verify anything it suggests. I could go poll folk on the project talk page, see if things have shifted but opinion wasn't exactly against it before, just indifferent to a point. tutterMouse (talk) 01:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: BBK Records
Hello TutterMouse. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of BBK Records, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''Founded by artists notable enough for their own pages is enough of a credible indication of importance at CSD. Take to AfD if required, or possibly just PROD (has a higher standard than CSD).''' Thank you. Ged UK  12:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Huggle 3 icons
Can you upload all Huggle 3 icons on Commons? --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As in the .ico/.icns files or something else? tutterMouse (talk) 09:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean all .png files even though it sounds a little strange:
 * all "toolbar buttons", such as diff-next.png, user-welcome.png etc
 * and all "blob icons", such as blob-anon.png, blob-blank.png etc (if you know who's the author). --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't create them, they were there in Huggle 2 and that was before I was associated with the project, so far all I've done are icons and a new logo. From what I know though, they're all under the GNU license like the software itself so you could upload it yourself, I don't think it'd be a problem but you can ask at Huggle/Feedback if it's okay. tutterMouse (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Further comments from WP:ORCP (and a survey)
Hi, thanks for creating a poll I've left my vote (a middle o' the road 5/10) and a couple of suggestions. I won't go over them again for the sake of redundancy, but I'd expect you to be fully ready in around six months after a bit of non-automated editing. I was also wondering if you would be willing to take a survey about the process? -- samtar whisper 12:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 5/10 is about what I'd grade myself! I'll definitely fill out that survey too, ORCP is a great idea for prospective admins looking to test the waters before diving in with the sharks. tutterMouse (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said in the rating response, there are a couple of little things those lovely sharks will bite on to - get them out the way and I honestly think you're set. Check out my voting criteria for those crazy brave editors who RfA. Thanks for agreeing to fill out the survey, hopefully the data can be used to improve the process - it is, after all, about you wonderful candidates! Also, I've always adored your username :3 -- samtar whisper 12:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that's probably the nicest thing I've ever been told on here and of course thanks for all the help you're giving me here. Personally, I feel the content creation pillar of adminship should be far less of a dealbreaker than it is but I get why editors want that aspect from admins, respect for content and those who build it does go far for some. How long does this mock RfA trial thing run? tutterMouse (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Goodness me I agree, content creation shouldn't be a dealbreaker for adminship however I do understand the argument for it :) urm, I'm not entirely sure, some kind soul has been archiving them once discussion stops. You can normally expect around 5 responses minimum -- samtar whisper 14:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Lifting semi-protection...your request at RFP...
I will not (really) comment on this...but I think that this special case would indeed have to be brought up at the protection policy talk page. That aside.....what came to mind....and I haven't read the RfC completely...but would pending protection perhaps be a way forward? The parties would meet halfway, and it would preserve a certain freedom for IP's to ask their questions. At least technically it would be possible to pending changes protect the refdesks. Lectonar (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't know, I only formatted the request and have no opinion on it but SemanticMantis did request it so they'd be the best person to ask. tutterMouse (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'll move that there then...Lectonar (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * (feel free to remove the thread here...) Lectonar (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Telegram
-- samtar talk or stalk 10:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Revert at RFPP
Not sure why you did this? --Neil N  talk to me 05:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I did it to fix the request and ended up removing your response by accident, remember to readd the pagelinks template so the bot can process it. tutterMouse (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Telegram
-- Samtar talk &middot; contribs 20:06, 13 January 2017 (UTC)