User talk:Tol/Archives/2021/11

@Tol

At ---Twinkle--- preformence table they say at line one : '''boxes checked will not be desplayed'''

does this count for the rest of the table or just the line indecated.

흋ㅎ흋User:Darkdeath-2흋ㅎ흋 02:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Darkdeath-2: I'm sorry; I don't know what the problem is. Could you please let me know on which page you are getting this message, and any other information on what it looks like? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 03:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Tol here is a link ...Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences

you'll see it in the table in colum 1

흋ㅎ흋User:Darkdeath-2흋ㅎ흋 19:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Darkdeath-2: Hmm, I don't see the problem. It looks like you're changing your common.js and your common.css, though. I would recommend removing all the text from both of those pages. Your common.js stores what appears to be MediaWiki API results, and your common.css contains what appears to be JavaScript; both are causing errors (but I don't think that they're related to this problem with Twinkle). Can you take a screenshot and either email it to me or upload it and attach it here? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 19:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

New to NPP, just curious. Is there a reason why, despite AfC accepting this with NPR, that this ended up in the NPP queue? Nothing in the log indicates unreview. I've marked it as reviewed. Sennecaster (Chat) 16:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Sennecaster: Neither I nor the user who created the draft have autopatrol, although I am a new page reviewer. This is probably why. I guess I could new-page patrol accepted AfC submissions. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 23:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would imagine that AfC accepted articles would also be acceptable NP, but I did find it humerous. Sennecaster (Chat) 00:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you had approved the AfC submission for this article. I am not sure if you are aware of this, but the article is largely reliant on a single source that is provided by the university itself. Would it have change your decision to approve the article then? – robertsky (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Robertsky: I didn't know how to evaluate it, as it's from the State Ethnic Affairs Commission, which the university is affiliated with. However, it's still a government commission, so I'm not sure how neutral it is. It looks like much information sourced from it is fine for a primary source (former names, year founded, statistics, location), but some should be sourced to a secondary source (§ Academic programmes and § International cooperation). If you know how to evaluate this better, I defer to your judgement. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:55, 7 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I know what I'm talking about, because I've met the guy. He is my cadre. He literally has the name of someone famous, so I don't see why he can't be mentioned. You know what I'm saying?? Please consider my words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Korinalay101 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Korinalay101: "I know what I'm talking about, because I've met the guy" — original research is not allowed. "He literally has the name of someone famous, so I don't see why he can't be mentioned" — people are not notable because they share names with a famous person. Your addition was unsourced, and "Just go to oycp.com, and schedule an orientation" sounds like advertising. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I have oversighted some material from the history of your common.js file, per a report to the oversight team. Many thanks

,what does tha mean

흋ㅎ흋User:Darkdeath-2흋ㅎ흋 22:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Darkdeath-2: TheresNoTime, an oversighter, used the oversight tool to hide some old revisions of your common.js, so that they cannot be viewed. This was probably done to remove non-public personal information. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you ... is that linked to any violations ?

흋ㅎ흋User:Darkdeath-2흋ㅎ흋 11:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Darkdeath-2: I'm not sure what you mean by "violations", but it won't get you blocked. Just be careful not to do it again. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Are you a real person? --Bingusmannn (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Bingusmannn: Yes, I am a real person. Do you have any questions about Wikipedia? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

how often or how much time do you spend on wikipedia? --Bingusmannn (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Bingusmannn: It depends on the day. I usually spend around an hour per day on Wikipedia, not including off-wiki coding work for my bot. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 00:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Howdy. Request that you keep in mind, that there's also the article List of vice presidents of the United States, not to mention other lists of American officials. Perhaps you should open an RFC covering all those articles, at the appropriate WikiProject. Trying to push such 'big' changes boldly, may only create tension. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

(I've replied to this in various locations on Talk:List of presidents of the United States.) Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

 

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

If you were granted the permission on a temporary basis you will need to re-apply for the permission a few days before it expires including in your request a permalink to the discussion where it was granted and a {{ping}} for the administrator who granted the permission. You can find the permalink in your rights log.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 05:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:08, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks for all your recent work at BOTREQ. The table of contents on that page uses Category:Wikipedia bot operators to determine the "last botop editor" column, and I think you definitely qualify as one. So if you felt like using {{User bot owner}}, {{User wikipedia/Botop}}, or that category directly, I think that might make the table a little more accurate. Happy botting! Enterprisey (talk!) 09:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Enterprisey: I've added the category to my userpage; thanks for asking! Tol (talk | contribs) @ 15:39, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Tol. Hope all is well. :) Just a quick SPI clerk note: Please don't notify people that others have filed SPIs against them. Really even filers shouldn't do that, but if the filer chooses not to (the correct decision 99% of the time), it's best to leave the decision to a clerk, patrolling admin, or CU. Really the only reason we need subjects' participation at SPI is if there's confirmation (by CU or behavior) that someone has engaged in the alleged behavior, but a possible AGF explanation as to why. Otherwise, notifying someone just tends to attract a lot of bluster and turn SPI into mini-ANI. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 16:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Tamzin: Sorry about that; I thought it was general courtesy to leave an alert. I won't do that again. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Draft:Elastic chewing gum was not accepted due to the lack of reliable external sources. May I ask which statements in the article should be backed up with external sources? Peer-18 (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Peer-18: I didn't decline it because it wasn't verifiable (not enough sources); I declined it because it did not demonstrate that the topic is notable. As the message at the top says, the references "do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@talk: Well, elastic chewing gum has recently started to sell, see https://forwardontics.square.site/product/jawpeer/35?cs=true&cst=custom. In a few weeks, they will be available all over the world and probably be copied. A reason why it is important to tell about this invention at this early stage is to prevent patent infringe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peer-18 (talk • contribs) 08:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Peer-18: Neither selling well, being available worldwide, nor being patented establishes notability. Regardless of how important you think it is to inform people about elastic chewing gum, Wikipedia only accepts articles on notable topics. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 04:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@talk: A rare insect can have an article even if it is almost extinct, but obviously not a rare idea/invention. What makes the insect notable but not the idea? Peer-18 (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Peer-18: The difference is that all taxa are presumed notable, because valid taxa "must have been published in a reliable academic publication to be recognized as correct or valid" (from the linked page). If the product also has significant coverage in reliable sources, then it can also have an article. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 22:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)Reply