This is an archive of past discussions with User:RileyBugz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for catching that! That was in fact the wrong page but I didn't realize it. I was working on a bio for someone else and I thought they already put in filler copy on that page.
@Shinethadiva: The reason that I think the page you made should be deleted is because I did not believe it passed the speedy delete criteria A7. Also, I cannot delete articles, an admin has to review the article and see if it should be deleted, the speedy deletion tags are just so that the admins can notice it and get to it faster. Thanks! RileyBugzYell at me|Edits20:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
FAC
I would have advised you to wait a bit before nominating for FAC to have another read through, since the standard is much higher at at FAC. Having said that, it looks pretty good. I suggest that you
Check for word repetitions too close together
check that technical terms (eg superloral) are linked, explained in parentheses or replaced
Check for number agreement and consistency (it/they)
Even I, after dozens of noms, sometimes get long lists of what reviewers think I have done incorrectly or omitted. Usually the issues are trivial, so don't worry about that
This will be sitting at FAC for some time. While you are waiting, I suggest that you look at the sort of comments made in other candidate FACs
The best way to get reviewers for your articles is to comment on other candidates, if you feel confident to do so. That's not so important for a first nom, but obviously if you become a regular, there is an unwritten expectation of quid pro quo
I've made a few changes, please check. Also, I'm not convinced that supercilium is correct link for superloral, the lores are in front of the eye, not above. Either change the link or gloss as "above the base of the bill" or similar Jimfbleak - talk to me?08:15, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! I will check it out. Also, I just saw your edits, and I changed back what you changed in the status section. The reason I did that was because the edit resulted in a grammar error and you removed the information on how large its range is, I'm guessing that was an error though. All the other things look fine. Also, I think that I may need a British spell-checker. Thanks! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits15:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
House of Borgia
I have all sources and these were being placed in their site but as I told your friends in wikipedia I´m tired, it is very tired fighting against ignorance. "Stupidity is sign of fool and ignorants" Publio Emilio Maron.
Thanks to you and your friends for damage all my wiki job.
@Siredejoinville: Hello! It seems that a good deal of your revisions were sourced, so it seems that I might have done this in error. It seems, although, that you were removing content in the process of adding it. I would recommend that you source your edits a bit more, and make sure to not remove content and establish consensus on the article's talk page for possibly controversial edits. I am sorry for this, but I recommend asking for help from some more experienced editors. Why don't you ask for help with the article here or here. Also, you did seem to be edit warring, so keep a close eye on that. Another option, which I think is the best one, is to forget about that article and edit something else. Also, you should keep this in mind. It really helps me avoid controversy. Thanks for informing me! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits21:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
allegation of 'libel' in a revert of two wikilinks
Hi RileyBugz, you prevented an edit of mine, with the summary that said only "Libel" which seems to be an incorrect reason.[1]
18:12, 27 December 2016 RileyBugz (-292) . . (Reverted 1 pending edit by 47.222.203.135 to revision 756923159 by User38479: Libel)
18:04, 27 December 2016 47.222.203.135 (+292) . . (→See also: quasi-informal economic advisors, and also czars (need to add Icahn over there))
I was attempting to add the following see-also entries, at the bottom of Political_appointments_of_Donald_Trump, to roles not covered in the body-prose:
Was your revert a mistake? If not, can you please explain why you think those wikilinks added as see-also-entries, are some form of libel? (See also WP:LIBEL.) There are plenty of good sources which use the phrase 'informal' economic advisors,[2][3] and plenty which use the phrase 'czar' of this-or-that area of policy concern,[4][5][6] specifically when describing Trump's personnel choices. And it is not just Trump, this has been 'standard' terminology since the 1930s or 1940s, in USA politics at least. If you dislike the word 'quasi' which was my own invention, although of course it was only in my edit-summary, I will happily take that part back. :-) Generally speaking though, if the phrases are part of article-titles (such as List of U.S. executive branch czars in this case) then that is a clue that the term is likely to be neutral, or at least, probably uncontroversial. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I make mistakes all the time as well. It's part of wikipedia, there is a lot to learn, and no matter how long you are here, you can never know everything -- but keep on striving for that goal anyways :-) In the future please do be careful in your edit-summaries, because people *do* read them, and if you say something that later turns out to be incorrect there is no way to get rid of that edit-summary short of calling in the content-assassins. Which is not worth doing here, obviously, they have much bigger fish to fry! Also please be aware that political articles are often extremely sensitive, there are a lot of touchy and difficult topic-areas, and Donald Trump is no exception -- the opposite of an exception, in some ways, he is likely to become the exemplar of touchy subjects. I recommend opening a talkpage conversation (either user-talkpage or article-talkpage) if you are going to revert something that MIGHT be legit, and also recommend being extra-cautious in edit-summaries per pillar four. So instead of 'silently' reverting with an edit-summary that turned out to be mistaken, with a time travel machine you could have said something more cautious/neutral such as 'is the word czar really applicable? if so please discuss at talkpage' or something along those lines. And it also helps to leave a user-talkpage note, for the person you revert, explaining that you reverted them (and why), because getting reverted is rarely any fun. In any case, no harm done, I will restore the wikilinks now (and add the SCOTUS folks while I'm at it), happy editing and thanks for your work on wikipedia, keep on trying hard and soon enough you will be more and more of an expert on all the odd nooks and crannies 47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for reviewing the pipit. I haven't forgotten the swallow, but I'm trying to avoid being the first reviewer since I am a non-trivial contributor. Since you are a new nominator, the edit history will be checked to make sure that you are a contributor (we do get drive-by noms from people who just like the look of an article. Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
semi-protected edit request on 01 January 2017
Please change the following sentence on the page "User:RileyBugz"
now: Please, end your posts by singing them. To do so, just add four tildes (~~~~) to your post.
new: Please, end your posts by signing them. To do so, just add four tildes (~~~~) to your post.
Hi. About this: [7], If you didn't notice the whole section is based on Mustaine's interviews, etc. So the YouTube videos are no different. I watched them and I didn't see any reason to revert the changes the IP made. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm sorry about the non-reliable source thing, but I still think it was correct to revert your edits as they were not neutral. Specifically the thing about his questionable Christianity. RileyBugzYell at me | Edits15:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay. These weren't really my edits, look at the article's history, I explained here [8]. Yes, it sounds like Dave expresses his own opinion rather than describes facts. That's why I left the changes for someone else to review. But the general idea to tweak the article based on the interview is good, I think. --Moscow Connection (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Riley Bugz, The edits that I made on my talk page were done because I didn't feel that I needed those messages since they have been resolved. Please write back if you get this, and please don't block me. Thank you. Caiatbra13.0 (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Caiatbra13.0: Ok! I can't block you anyways, I can just warn you. I would suggest getting an archive to solve this problem, but I don't know about removing the warnings. I think that you can remove the "Recent edit to Connecticut Senate" section and place it in an archive, but I am not really sure. I suggest reading Help:Archiving a talk page if you want an archive. Why don't you just leave those alone and just try and put your skills to fixing grammar or something for a while until you get a handle on Wikipedia's policies. Thanks for contacting me! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits15:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I need help making the article about New Wave Feminists neutral. I am not very experienced with writing about topics like this, I usually contribute just to articles about birds. Any contributions would be appreciated. Thanks! RileyBugzYell at me | Edits00:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any neutrality issues. Whether the organization is notable enough to be the subject of an article is another issue entirely; having been thrown off the Women's March seems to be their one claim of significance, and that could just as well be included in the Women's March article. Huon (talk) 11:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Huon: I just did a quick edit to the New Wave Feminists page, and I posted a note on the deletion discussion. I found a source that did an interview with the New Wave Feminists on June 8, 2016, way before the Women's March. Thanks for helping me out! RileyBugzYell at me|Edits22:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Wave Feminists until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Carl Fredrik 💌📧09:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello-I voted "keep" on the article deletion, also changed proanti-abortion to pro-life in one instance. Where you took out 5013C, I think it is not "promotional" but something that establishes notability to a certain extent and also gives readers more info. as 5013C filings are a public matter. I don't want to fool with the article too much in case it is deleted/merged, but there is probably more to the group than recent events.TeeVeeed (talk) 21:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC) edit oops stTeeVeeed (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.
Technical news
When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Just a few comments for these species stubs you've been creating: make note of the presence or absence of parentheses on the taxon authority (they matter). Also, please add relevant stub tags and WikiProject banners.
To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.
Hi RileyBugz. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I declined your speedy deletion nomination of Asfar ibn Shiruya because the article appeared to be credibly linked to several notable historical figures, and a brief online search revealed more potential sources. Please be careful when using CSD, and feel free to nominate the article for AfD if you still believe the subject is not notable. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
PERM
Hi. Thank you for your interest in how we accord minor user rights. However, we recently introduced bots to PERM for the express purpose of making non-admin comments unnecessary. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Riley Bugz. We appreciate your enthusiasm but please do not patrol new pages and/or tag them for maintenance and deletion until you have significantly more experience. As you will see from the tutorial at WP:NPP, the task is not for beginners and generally requires the user right of New Page Reviewer which is not accorded lightly. If you have any questions or need any help, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Happy editing! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
@Kudpung: What do you mean by me needing significantly more experience? I have already read the tutorial, and I have multiple userrights, and thus am not a beginner. Also, I just made one mistake earlier today, but that is the only one in recent history. I also cannot patrol new pages, as I am sure you are aware, and I don't know how one would do it with out WP:NPP. Thanks though! RileyBugzYell at me|Edits19:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
You were only granted Rolbcker 4 days ago, there is more than one recent critcsm about your own page creations, so let's just leave some of the pegs on the hat rack empty for a while, OK? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi -- I just reverted the image/source requests; we try to keep that list for just the FACs that are getting close to promotion and still need one or both. A lot of FACs pick them up on the way, so we save that space for the ones that need it the most. Once you get three supports, or when a coordinator suggests it, go ahead and re-add the request if you still need it. Best of luck with your FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello RileyBugz. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Ronnie Danowska. It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. The article you tagged would also have been more appropriate as an A3 deletion than A1 (it just restated the name.) You can read more about the NPP process in the tutorial at WP:NPPTonyBallioni (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
There is no hard and fast rule, at the same time, if it is an A1/A3 article it is almost certain to get caught, and throwing on additional tags very within two minutes of creation is pretty bitey. The rule I personally follow is that I don't place an A7 tag unless there is a promotion or copyvio issue until 10 minutes have elapsed. If the subject is so obvious to fail the criteria within a minute of creation, it will probably be the same ten minutes later :) TonyBallioni (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@TonyBallioni: Yeah, I was just really asking what you do. Anyways, thanks! I'm gonna wait then a bit before applying an A7 tag unless it is a copyvio or if it falls under G11. I will PROD autobio's (if you think that is ok). RileyBugzYell at me|Edits18:05, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Autobios that are clear and don't assert significance can almost always be handled with G11/A7. If it is G11, there really isn't a need to wait. The important thing with G11 is for there to be no redeemable non-promotional content. If it is promotional, but not beyond recovery, and it asserts significance, PROD or AfD would be the way to go. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:RileyBugz. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
