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.
@Sabine's Sunbird: Thanks! Also, could you add a fa topicon to my user page, following the format of the other fa topicons I have? I'm travelling, and I didn't bring my Mac, and it would likely take like on hour on my mobile. RileyBugz (p)Yell|Edits22:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Need some help with something, I know a book article, the only strongest source of notability present on it has been created by the author of the book which I belive is clear COI. How do I go about pointing it out to other admins?Coxnix (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
@Coxnix: So I will assume here that you are referring to an article already created. Also, I am not an admin as I have not gone through the trial of fire known as RfA. Anyways, the template {{third party}} would be of use. I recommend that you actually use Twinkle, which you can enable from the preferences thing. In preferences, it is in the gadgets tab. When you enable it and go to an article, you will then see a drop down box labeled "TW". If you click on that and then click on tags, then you can easily apply various tags to articles. Hope that helps. (A note, if the only non-trivial (i.e. more than a mention like "Oh he wrote a book called x", then it would likely not pass our notability requirements) RileyBugz (p)Yell|Edits21:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.
Technical news
After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Wrong person. I am trying to find JustEditingtoday. He seems to have broken admin guidelines not on me but on other people for excessive threats on banning and using unfair defacto censorship via "neutral tone" in order to promote his agenda. Ryanfinlayson1 (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
@Ryanfinlayson1: You should use neutral tone—it is a policy.
@Ryanfinlayson1: You just said that it wasn't directed towards me... (FYI, I forgot to sign my last post). Also, I don't think that he is harassing you (I'm on my mobile right now, so I will take a more thorough look later). The editor just seems to be reverting disruptive edits or those that don't conform to policy. RileyBugzYell at me|Edits21:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I added Holodomor to see also and he said it was not related to racism. Holodomor is a genocide just like the Holocost, but with ethnicity of Ukrainians being the target instead of Jews. Ryanfinlayson1 (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, but I can't find anything in the lead saying that they targeted the ethnic Ukrainians. In fact, I find that it might not even be racism (per se) at all. The lead says: "Some scholars believe that the famine was planned by Joseph Stalin to eliminate a Ukrainian independence movement." RileyBugzYell at me|Edits22:17, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi Riley: Yes, I'd be interested in collaborating on black-throated loon. However, I'm in the field for another couple of weeks with only sporadic internet access, so it will be the end of the month before I can contribute at any significant level. I've got plenty of book references, and have a Wikipedia JSTOR for journal articles, so can certainly help there. Can you find something else to work on until May? MeegsC (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I don't know why I have you on my watchlist, but it really makes me happy that there are bird nerds on Wikipedia. I'm not one myself, but had some very nice real life experiences with hardcore ornithologists and birders that means they will always have a special place in my heart. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Article quality required to become autopatrolled and for Wikipedia as a whole?
Hello RileyBugz,
With this comment you are pointing to some severe article issues. Incidentally, I came across this article of the same author earlier today and I found myself wondering, is that level of grammar really something we consider OK, not just for considering the granting of autopatrolled rights but for our articles in general? I ask because I frankly set a higher bar for myself when creating new pages. I don't even feel I am too critical with new pages, instead I made some much needed improvements to this new one, only to have a {{notability}} tag slapped on it (following an unsuccessful {{Proposed deletion/dated}}), which is how I came across our currently ex-autopatrolled editor... Maybe I am just venting some frustration, so don't worry if you don't find the time to offer your opinion. All the best. Lklundin (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I personally think that this editor needs to try and get a better grasp on English, but so far, their contributions don't seem terrible overall. I do think that the editor should also stop CSD tagging for a bit and try and get a better grasp of our speedy deletion policy. Due to this, I do not think that any "extra" rights should be granted unless the editor can get better at English, but since the editor isn't terrible at the language and has a sorta-but-not-really-ok grasp on policy, I would be fine with them continuing to create articles (preferably after fixing the promo issues). Also, I removed the tag on your article, but see the edit summary. Thanks, and feel free to vent your frustration (as long as it isn't a personal attack, of course, but you already know that) here. I'm willing to listen. RileyBugzYell at me|Edits22:55, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Many thanks for taking the time to get back to me. Thanks also for giving Peering.cz a look. It is not really 'my' article (leaving aside for a moment the fact that that concept does not at all exist here), I had just picked it from the list of new articles, to practice my new-pages-reviewing in preparation for applying for the 'patroller' right. But it is true that now that I made some changes to it (e.g. adding the self-published-source), I may want to try and improve it to the point where it can stay out of trouble. Thanks and happy editing. Lklundin (talk) 23:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I just want to make that it's okay for me to list names in that section for vetting by others. Is that the correct procedure? Lepricavark (talk) 02:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: Yeah, that is pretty much the procedure. I actually, though, instead of vetting the candidate by moving them to the next section, and then the next, and so on and so forth, just tried to vet the candidate by moving them to the last vetting thing they could pass, and if they couldn't get to the ready for talk page post section, moving them to the holding pen. It is a bit hard to put into words, but I think that should be at least sorta-understandable. Anyways, I encourage you to keep placing users who you believe may make good admins into the raw list. RileyBugzYell at me|Edits02:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello RileyBugz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Pro-Islamic bias on Wikipedia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: not an applicable subject for A7 and not vandalism. Commentary about problems in Wikipedia as articles is not disallowed. Take it to WP:AFD if you believe this is not a notable problem. Thank you. SoWhy08:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
@SoWhy: Yeah, but I'm like 99% sure it's fake news. That is the only reason I tagged it. I do in fact agree with you that commentary on Wikipedia is not vandalism. But fake news is. Thus, it should be deleted. RileyBugzYell at me|Edits14:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, the article only cites a wiki. Furthermore, if you look at the user's other edits, one can see that they are adding the same information with citations from fake news sources like Brietbart. Thus, I concluded that this is blatant fake news, and thus vandalism. RileyBugzYell at me|Edits14:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I understand your sentiment, however, per WP:VANDTYPES even blatant POV pushing pages are not to be considered vandalism. Not saying the page should exist but speedy deletion is not the correct venue to handle it. Regards SoWhy16:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
CSD and Draft Space Move: Better Cotton Initiative
Hi, can you please expand upon your comments and thoughts for this move and CSD for Better Cotton Initiative? I would argue this is justifiably ready for namespace as I have included a good variety of sources to meet wikipedia notability and sources for Wiki MoS entries. Thanks. Shaded0 (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Riley, I won't be scheduling June, but bear in mind that there isn't any guarantee that golden swallow will run then even if it's ready. I'm running white-rumped this month because Cas had two nominations at WP:TFAR for May, and we don't normally run two FAs involving the same editor in the same month, so I'm scheduling yours instead of the cockatoo. That will still be at TFAR in June. Also running the swallow would give you the monthly bird article in two consecutive months, and there are at least three other dated items associated with 8 June. As I say, it won't be my call, and there's nothing to stop you nominating if it's ready, but it's not automatic that it will be selected Jimfbleak - talk to me?05:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello! A while ago I started putting together this draft article but fell behind with it unfortunately. Now I would like to get it done before the next release (Guilty Gear Xrd Revelator 2) is out. I've left this message on your talk page since you have recently participated in the Guilty Gear Xrd article. Hope you can give me a hand. Thanks in advance. :) Jotamide (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello. There are a couple of issues with your customized signature.
Your user page link fails the minimum contrast recommendation at WP:SIGAPP (see the Note). The tool linked there gives a contrast ratio of 1.6:1 for the color #E4CD00 against white. It's hard for even me to read, and I don't have a vision problem when I have my glasses on, which is pretty much all of the time when I'm awake. Wikipedia strives to make all text easily readable by all readers; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility for more information. Switching to color #930 (for example) would give a ratio of 7.4:1 and this signature: RileyBugzYell at me|Edits
<font>...</font> tags were deprecated in HTML 4.0, meaning that browsers could drop support for them at any time. For this reason, much of the community feels that they should not be used in signatures, as discussions are usually archived and kept forever. You can achieve the same things with <span>...</span> and CSS properties, as: [[User:RileyBugz|<span style="color:#930;">RileyBugz</span>]][[User talk:RileyBugz|<sup><span style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me</span></sup>]] <span style="color:#2D3D67;">|</span> [[Special:Contributions/RileyBugz|<sub><span style="color:#D7000B;">Edits</span></sub>]] But this exceeds the maximum length supported by Preferences, so you would need to look for a way to shorten it. I would eliminate the link to your contribs. Most users feel that a contribs link is not worth the required space, both in the wikitext and on the rendered page. With a little experience, editors learn how to get to contribs quickly enough when they need to. With that change, [[User:RileyBugz|<span style="color:#930;">RileyBugz</span>]][[User talk:RileyBugz|<sup><span style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me</span></sup>]] gives RileyBugzYell at me (your talk page link is disabled because we're on your talk page).
Update: According to this discussion, all of your existing signatures will render as RileyBugzYell at me | Edits when browsers drop support for <font>...</font>. If that's acceptable to you, you can disregard item 2 as far as I'm concerned, although others might disagree. But you would have to switch to <span>...</span> at that time anyway, if you wanted your colors back for new signatures. Item 1 still applies regardless. ―Mandruss☎17:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.
There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Thanks! It works (I think) if you mention me with an interwiki link and if you sign your post. I do have mentions turned on, so all is good. RileyBugz会話投稿記録22:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Requested Removal of Speedy Deletion Tag
Hi RileyBugz, I could not find any promotional content in the article Amity Innovation Incubator. Every single sentence is cited with a source. You can verify all sources. You may explain which word is looking promotional in the whole article.--J.Clark (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
@JohnsonClark: The whole second paragraph is promotional. For example, the first sentence, "Amity Innovation Incubator Incubated 100 + Companies and Employment generated for more than 3500 people," suggests that the company is a force for good. Maybe say that they have incubated about 100 companies instead? Since the employment of those companies incubated is not directly related to the subject, and since employment is seen as a good thing, that sentence is promotional. Hope that helps. RileyBugz会話投稿記録16:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Islam in South Asia
The history information I removed from Islam in South Asia article is in the wrong section which is about Current status. Second it is repeated information from the history section above. Third you removed Infobox ethnic group and bar box that I created. 65.95.136.96 (talk) 19:20, 13 May 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.
