User talk:TeaDrinker/Archive11

Request for contribution on your area of expertise

Dear Tea Drinker

We have been following your activity on Wikipedia and have an interesting project that we are working on which we could use your help. We are building a database of knowledge and case studies (both professional and academic) and with your experience in the fields of math, ecology and statistics, we would like for you to help on the Knexshare project. It is an endeavour to record your professional experiences so people can learn from you. Please visit www.knexshare.com and we would appreciate your help in recording some of your experiences and case studies that will help our database (site is in beta now). We are a bunch of passionate young guys who want to build a community of user experiences to help the community. Please reply here if you have any questions, I would be glad to answer any questions and get your feedback. This is very important and we really appreciate your time on this

Hello TeaDrinker

Thank you for your message, but this is also a community benefit initiative that will help people in your field learn from your experiences. Its similar to how Wikipedia started off a while ago and we are looking for seasoned contributors to do something similar but more focused and based on personal experiences to help the community

Regards Hkmillwala (talk) 16:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Symbiodinium

Check out the second paragraph of the introduction. This should answer your question. I need help with Wikimedia.... I am having a licensing problem with some of my images. Do you know how to fix this? Also, once I have finished editing, I would like to have it reviewed and then submit it to be a featured content. Do you know how to start this process??

Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allisonmlewis (talk • contribs) 21:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Americans Elect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:07, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming controversy

Haven't got a clue how this is supposed to work, but guess this is the method.

I wish to complain about the constant removal of cited entries that I added to the "Global Warming Controversy" article. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. The entries that I've cited are from NASA GISS's website and from Columbia University, both credible sources. I've also explained clearly what to look at within the cited sources. To remove this material and then claim that I'm reverting by re-instating it is purely political, and threatening to block me just because you have an opposing view is disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdey123 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what are you supposed to do, when other people keep removing entries with cited credible sources? You should be taking action against editors who are removing these, rather than threatening to block me. If I had not added cited references then I'd agree with you, but it's clear to anybody who reads my comment and reads the references that what I'm saying is true and is coming from credible sources (in this case Hansen himself). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdey123 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Job!

Good job, TeaDrinker for blocking that 204. IP address. I am going to call the school right now to report it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmallCheez99 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need advice, please

Okay. On the Wild Kratts article, it keeps being edited to reflect the nature of Martin and Aviva's relationship with content that absolutely cannot be confirmed. It says why this information is not allowed in the article on the article's talk page, and the article was once in an edit war with a certain user over this. This user edited the article over 30 times in six months to reflect this information, and now they've come back, and have edited it 3 times today. I personally put on their talk page once about this, and so did another editor. If we revert the edit, they're only going to do it again, and thus the edit war resumes.

Here is the article's talk page: "Wild Kratts Talk Page".

Here is the article's history: "Wild Kratts Edit History".

And here is the user's contribution history: "IP's History".

Should they be blocked, or what do we do? SmallCheez (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry to have put this here, and then gone back, but I found a link on my own page that I put there (WP:DE), and after looking at it, have decided it counts as DE and I'm going to report them to ANI. (I would have removed this completely, if not for the fact that someone talked to me, then removed it, while the "you have messages" template still came up but I didn't find anything, and that confused me, so I decided just to leave it here and let you decide what to do with it.) If you still have something to say about it, feel free to respond. SmallCheez (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Perhaps blocking is necessary, but it doesn't always have the desired effect for long-term problems. Let's try a fourth-level warning first, then a short block if that fails. I'll add the page to my watchlist, but let me know if you see anything amiss. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for turning attention to it anyways; honestly, they're not the only one (just the most prominent). And to think all this is over a stupid shipping war that can't be determined either way. *sigh* It makes you sad when you think about the reality of it... SmallCheez (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have to remind myself that Wikipedia is a quality resource only because we worry about getting the facts properly source, even if it is about a television show. But it is easy to get frustrated. The user came back, and I have blocked him or her for 48 hours. Hopefully that will be enough to bring the user to the article talk page. However if the edits continue after this, we may have to escalate the blocks. Thanks again, --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sex/Gender

Hi! Thanks of offering me help. I have this problem, and I need assistance (or at least a commentary).

I want to edit the article on Poison, a video game character. The controversy with this character in the gaming community is whether that character is a man or a woman, so his is sex brought up prominently in the article. The issue is that "gender" is used instead of "sex" in the article, when it isn't about gender. I corrected this two times, but each time the edit was reverted (retrospectively, my edits have a redundancy of the adjective "biological"). As I'm not interested in edit wars, can you give your opinion on this particular issue? -- Zlatno Pile (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: the same user who removed my edits also removed the edit that puts the appropriate English word "hermaphrodite" instead of a Japanese slang word for it present in the article. -- Zlatno Pile (talk) 21:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rename at Campaign for "santorum" neologism

Hello, since you recently participated in an RfC at Campaign for "santorum" neologism, I thought you might be interested in this proposal for renaming the article, or perhaps another of the rename proposals on the page. Best, Be——Critical 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear TeaDrinker,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 21:39, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Idso

The Guardian article does not make the statement claimed. It reports the statement as being made in "unverified" documents. This is not an adequate basis for including controversial material in the biography of a living person. Qemist (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please Read

Hi "TEADRINKER" I have no asociation with Contours. Firstly the reason why I added the part about Contours is because Contours Jannali is a vital part of Jannali. secondly, Is wikipedia about knowledge? YES it is, Contours Jannali's owner has been in the industry for 30 years (If you did not know thats a long time!) also without people running small businesses there would be no Jannali, would there? There is 30-50 shops and what would happen if there is no local owners? They would all be closed. Once again I have no asociation with Contours so how could it be advertising.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.247.172 (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two Brothers One Mind!!

Hi Teadrinker, thanks for the advice. I'm not trying to create a Two Brothers One Mind article to promote their act. Chad Orr & Jeff Orr are huge contributors to the mentalism community and have done something that no one has ever done before. Can you help restore these pages or help me create it so that it is wiki accurate? (Chadarackster (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Malika Madi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Algerian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lime Pictures

I was going to extend one more chance to the other account. I don't have any particular hope, but I don't see that it will cause significant damage, either.—Kww(talk) 14:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Warning you may be blocked from wikipedia if you continue to break wikipedia's rules of freedom of speech. See main page for more information. Thank you (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Listen

If you have a look at another comment on the Jannali page it says Yep, that looks like advertising. I have removed it. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC) Agreed, TeaDrinker, but perhaps OK to have first line. Am pleased to see you also removed advertising from the Bonnet Bay, Oyster Bay, Kareela and Como pages. Benyoch (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC) I'm not sure the encyclopedic value of mentioning the town has a particular private company. The whole bit looks like advertising. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC) I just reverted the addition of the first line of the sentence and link. The link is a pretty big stretch as a reference, and certainly outside the need described in external links. If you really think it should be included, I would not revert if you added it back. But my sense is that it is simply being added to advertise the company. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Yes, right approach, Teadrinker, although Nathpmc seems to think otherwise.Benyoch (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay so Benyoch says it's alright to have the first line. So I cut out everything else and just have the first line. simple problem solved. 1: It's a fact 2: It's a vital business in Janalli area 3: Such a well known brand makes other shops noticed and gives the area a good referance. You don't live in Jannali by any chance do you?

Thank you, Now go an edit some other pages! :0 Nathpmc (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)NathpmcNathpmc (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insane Clown Posse Gathering Revert

Why was my change reverted by you, I even referenced my information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.252.129 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You sound a little upset my friend, have you been partaking in some of my listed "Juggalo" activities hmm? I think you drink a little bit more than tea, and your use of your "vibrant" vocabulary puts you at around 17, I'm sure it feels great to use thesaurus.com to show off your supreme intellect to those nasty vandals. Carry on now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.252.129 (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The wrecking ball

Re your message: I don't mind at all. He was headed towards a block anyways. Sometimes I think I am too nice by giving out a bunch of warnings instead of blocking right away for socking. I wouldn't be surprised if another sock appears some time soon. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just for some background on this: "The wrecking ball"/"Dr Karl is a con" etc is a user who has been banned from the Self Service Science Forum for abusive behaviour a number of times under various aliases. His campaign to vandalise (and more recently to delete) the Wikipedia article on the SSSF is a retaliation for this. Ordinary Person (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi TeaDrinker,

Thanks for the BarnStar - much appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peetred (talk • contribs)

KILF

Hi TeaDrinker,

I cannot understand why that page was deleted? It conformed and is a real group created. It has had major news stations even talking about it??

ClintWarrior (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PageWriter edits

Thanks very much for the edits on the new page. I have a question about this page though. I created the page because someone created a link with no page attached to it and because I have a lot of knowledge about this particular device. The problem I have is that the official name of the product is the Motorola PageWriter 2000 (followed by the PageWriter 2000x) and the original link named it just the Motorola PageWriter. Should the link and the name of the page be altered to reflect the true name of the product or is what we have now good enough?

My only other question is how do I add pictures of the product to the page and what pictures am I allowed to use? There are a lot of good pictures out there but I do not want to use things I am not supposed to use.

Thewellhidden (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your block on 71.55.202.148 for vandalism: also a block evasion issue

IP 71.55.202.148 was used on 6 March 2012 "(history)". to evade a 3 week block on 71.55.201.191 issued on 27 February 2012. The same section of List of culinary vegetables was blanked 12 times by the .191 IP "(history)". and has been blanked 3 times by the .148 IP (including on 6 March, while the .191 IP was still blocked.) I suggest a longer block on 71.55.202.148 than the 48 hours that you put in place, and maybe another block on 71.55.201.191. Thanks, Meters (talk) 20:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kinyongia dorjeesuni and Dorjee Sun

Hi TeaDrinker,

Unfortunately anyone can call any animal a name that is intended to look like a scientific name and then post a press release about it on their website that can be picked up by obscure news blogs in foreign countries (no different than if I decided to call a chameleon I found a picture of Chamaeleo bullshiti and then posted a press release about it on my website that was picked up by some obscure news blog in Indonesia). These names, however, are not valid scientific names and the animals that they are associated with are not valid species because the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature has standards governing the naming of species that are not met in these instances. These names, designated as nomen nudum, are simply ignored by the scientific community because there is no validity to them and thus there are no primary scientific sources published that even mention them. While completely invalid, they unfortunately create a considerable amount of confusion because uninformed individuals see the name and think it is legitimate.

Unfortunately that leaves a situation where there is bogus press releases announcing a "new species" named for someone as a PR stunt by an NGO trying to encourage donations, but no published sources pointing out that the species and its name are not at this point legitimate. Perhaps to get around the issue of not publishing original research I could restructure the paragraph as follows:


In 2009 the African Rainforest Conservancy named a newly discovered species of blue spotted chameleon from the rainforests of Tanzania after Sun. The species has been called Kinyongia dorjeesuni.[1][2] The validity of this species and its name, however, have been drawn into question due to the lack of a valid scientific description in a peer reviewed journal.[3][4] Lacking a formal species description stating those characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon would fail to conform by Article 13 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, thus designating the species name Kinyongia dorjeesuni as a nomen nudum[5]


I would appreciate your thoughts as it is completely unacceptable that such a bogus mockery of the scientific process is perpetuated.

Best,

Christopher Anderson
Ph.D. Candidate
Department of Integrative Biology
University of South Florida
— Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisAndersonCham (talk • contribs) 15:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ New chameleon species named after carbon conservation pioneer, Mongabay, published on 21 April 2009, accessed on 31 December 2011
  2. ^ Asia 21 Fellows - Class 2011, Asia Society, accessed on 31 December 2011
  3. ^ http://www.chameleonforums.com/kinyongia-dorjeesuni-35173/
  4. ^ http://www.chameleonforums.com/new-species-more-articles-40892/
  5. ^ http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/index.jsp?nfv=true&article=13

Yeah, I understand the necessity of the rule in most circumstances but clearly this is an odd case (how do you provide a source to prove that no source exists). I have emails from the African Rainforest Conservancy (ARC) about the validity of Kinyongia dorjeesuni that confirm the name is a nomen nudum but obviously private emails aren't published sources. In these emails, however, the ARC President copied the scientist who discovered the species in his response to me and that scientist then replied to us both stating that "Kinyongia dorjeesuni is, at present, a nomen nudum." I'll be interested to see what the discussion on the Original Research Noticeboard comes up with, however. ChrisAndersonCham (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

User:Pooping In Reverse

Please revoke talk access here. Thanks. Calabe1992 22:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Bongwarrior. Calabe1992 22:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That IP

Just block this range for a month, since this guy obviously hops around in that range.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you're right. I was hesitant since it is a decent chunk of University of New South Wales (although not many good edits seem to be coming from the range), but it may be necessary. I considered sending it over for investigation to long term abuse and let their technology office deal with it (he's undoubtedly a student or staff, so tracking him down should be easy), but it didn't really seem worth the time. As with so many of these folks, I have no idea what is the bug in his bonnet. In any event, it is done. Thanks! --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can handle a report if you'd like; I wouldn't consider this more than a normal {{schoolblock}}.
One way to reduce the annoyance by IPs is to create an IP talk page, like mine. Abuse response evidently happened before, and I think it can happen again.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Agreed. My talk page is typically unprotected, but if it does have to be, my alternate page allows for others to post if needed. Calabe1992 00:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse report filed.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ah yes, I do remember this chap now. I had forgotten about the abuse report I filed in 2010 about his vandalism on a particular article. He was then a particularly persistent BLP vandal. Never made the connection since this one on my userpage seems much more of the attention-seeking variety. Thanks for filing the report. --TeaDrinker (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Utah roundmouth snail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vulnerable (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 15:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disneyland Opening

Hi TeaDrinker, Just seen your changes to the opening date of Disneyland to July 18, 1955 and comments on the relevant pages. Although July 17, 1955 was only a press/invite only event, it is widely known as Disneyland's official opening day by company officials and fans, rather than July 18. Also as each of the lands were dedicated on the 17th, and therefore opened, it makes sense that it's seen as the official 'opening day'. Many Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlrpfan (talk • contribs) 19:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gastropod question?

Hi TeaDrinker. Just wanted to let you know I had a go at answering your question on the Gastropods Project talk page. Thanks so much for your interest and assistance, Invertzoo (talk) 14:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Hydrobia lineata (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Salt water
Reymondia horei (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Endemic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whiteville Correctional Facility

It is a page that redirects to the only page which links to it, its some type of self referential loop, and pointless, I don't know what category I selected but at the time I thought it was the right one. How would I go about deleting that pointless page? j.reed (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish McLachlan

Hi there, I see that you protected Hamish McLachlan for a couple of days. However, the thread on Bigfooty that started the whole vandalism episode is now one of the most viewed threads in bigfooty history. And there are a few people looking forward to the protection coming off. See this post as an example. Could you please extend the semi-protection until next week, just to hope that people get bored of the idea after the next round of actual games and move onto some other topic by then. Thanks, The-Pope (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

For cleaning up my talk page... Calabe1992 15:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, maybe that should have been a cup of tea, but... ;) Calabe1992 15:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I do love coffee too.

Franz Huber (SS general)

Got confused with Franz Huber (SS general). The author did want it. Can you undo the deletion? Ta. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:56, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Science lovers wanted!

Science lovers wanted!
Hi! I'm serving as the wikipedian-in-residence at the Smithsonian Institution Archives until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Wikipedia about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to participate since you are interested in the sciences! Sign up to participate here and dive into articles needing expansion and creation on our to-do list. Feel free to make a request for images or materials at the request page, and of course, if you share your successes at the outcomes page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation! SarahStierch (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:81.178.38.169

Care to remove his talkpage access, because since you are the blocking admin of this IP, User talk:81.178.38.169 is abusing his talkpage rights and using it for threats an soapboxing. Soviet King :   Talk or Yell  02:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UP proposal

Hi, I've drafted an RfC for a proposed change to WP:UP in my sandbox. Could you take a quick look at it and post any comments you have about it at the sandbox? Thanks. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 17:32, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we permanently protect a Template are we not obliged to Watch the Talk page?

Several days ago I made a request for an edit to be made on a permanently protected template. However, it now seems apparent that no-one watches this Talk page, so I may as well have whistled in the dark.

Can you have a look at Template talk:Infobox former country and either fix the problem, or else temporarily unlock the template so that I can edit it?

Many thanks in advance.--Mais oui! (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is the Infobox itself which must be edited, as it is presenting the Roanoke Colony (and probably many other English colony articles) as being a "British colony", 122 years prior to the establishment of the British state. The actual article text correctly identifies Roanoke as an English colony, so the mis-designation in the Infobox stands out like a sore thumb. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the tip about the {{edit protected}} template! --Mais oui! (talk) 04:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the html on the Roanoke Colony article there is a parameter called:

  • | empire = England

So far, so good! However, if you look at the html of the protected template, it takes parameter | empire = England and translates it into "British colony", instead of "English colony". Big, big clanger. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the problem html:
|United Kingdom |UK |British Empire |England| Britain=[[Evolution of the British Empire|British colony]] |France |First French Empire| French Empire=[[French colonial empires|French colony]] |NL |Netherlands |The Netherlands=[[Dutch Empire|Dutch colony]] |Belgium=[[Belgian colonial empire|Belgian colony]]
We need a new line, something like:
|England=[[English colonial empire|English colony]]
... while removing the "England" criterion from the "British colony" code
--Mais oui! (talk) 04:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now resolved. Once again, thanks for pointing me to the "Edit protected" notification. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:17, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asked for an edit filter

FYI, I've asked for an edit filter to be created for that long-term harasser on your talk page. Creating an IP talk page like I did would minimize annoying yellow boxes.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Asian arowana/GA1

Hi Teadrinker. Individuals GARs are meant to be closed by the person who started them. If you want I can do it for you, unless of cause there is a reason you want it kept open? AIRcorn (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic IP

I found this IP talk page that links to your page but not with the nicest of names, I don't really know whether it violates Wikipedia policy or not but I just wished to inform you. Also it involves you and since your an admin I think you can take care of it.--LoganLopez (talk) 15:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Americans Elect

At Talk:Americans Elect there is a question about whether the {{neutrality}} tag you put on the article still applies. Could you comment there? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC) Good evening to you good sir! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.202.194.1 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi

hi teadrinker — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12sade (talk • contribs) 02:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still active?

I used to edit wikipedia for a little while, about 3 years ago. I randomly remembered you were a great mentor. Are you still around, TeaDrinker? Solo1234 (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of tea for you!

Thank you for talking common sense about the menace of paid advocacy editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nasim Basiri

I thought that it was self-serving, vague and spammy, but I hadn't seen your involvement and I take the point about possible notability, now restored.

On a completely different point, I notice that this page is permanently semi-protected (by another admin). I would have thought that admins should be prepared to take messages from newbies and isps, who are the most likely to run into problems. Alternatively, if you are not happy to do that, you could have a banner saying where they could get help. However, I can't quote any policy on this, so feel free to ignore this comment. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread here to get guidance. It's not aimed at you (you didn't even protect the page yourself), and I've named no names, since I just want to clarify policy. However, I thought I should let you know in case you wanted to present a different view. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:30, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typo?

When you wrote[1] "when a company, politician, or other large public institution is caught editing its own Facebook page", did you mean "when a company, politician, or other large public institution is caught editing its own Wikipedia page"? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:51, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still dislike you gagging order through that MfD, but I have quietly buried the proposal. Not because of your gagging order but due to finding out additional complications making the idea an unforeseen minefield...

But back to now and the future: I find this edit more than worrying, knowing the "qualities" of Jax 0677. I guess you like to keep an eye on that one. The Banner talk 12:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip and discussion. Best wishes! --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice on Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia

Hello, I would like to inform you that a requested move proposal has been started on the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia talk page. I have sent you this message since you are a user who has participated in one or more of these discussions. Thank you for reading this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
good work with the BLP issue at Paul Barresi -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It is greatly appreciated! --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

anon. only

What does it mean? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be enough to make my point, at least as loosely defined. I think that the user knows what he or she is doing, which is being a troll, and is not here to build the encyclopedia. Alternatively, the user doesn't know what he or she is doing, and has competency issues and is not here to build the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:_78.156.109.166

Why do the links on that section not work for me? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Where should I place the question Wikipedia not working in Firefox, the RD or Help Desk? --78.156.109.166 (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mantis species

I see you have reinstated a couple of substubs that I had redirected to the genus articles (e.g. Empusa binotata), giving the edit summary "The species is not the only one in the genus". That's not why they were redirected. They were redirected because they contained no information not already presented at the genus article (in this case, Empusa). In such cases, there is nothing to be gained from having a separate article repeating information already given in an article that the reader will almost certainly have just come from. If you plan to expand these substubs into worthwhile articles, then that's fine, but if not, I think it is better for the readership if we restore the redirects. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stemonitis (talk · contribs), thanks for the clarification. Is there something in the naming conventions or manual of style on this? I thought in general only monotypic genera were redirected to the genus, otherwise, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) they would be an independent (albeit stub) article. You and I probably share a bit of annoyance at the sub-stub level articles containing only taxonomy (and some of that incorrect--that is what I was working to address) that populate the collection of organism articles, but if they are created, I see no reason to make them redirects or delete them under the guidelines. At the very least, we should be consistent. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chlidonoptera werneri may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [[Category:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please userfy an article from last year

Could you please userfy fourth-wave feminism into my userspace? The information about it on the page-creation page is "22:03, 24 March 2012 TeaDrinker (talk | contribs) deleted page Fourth-wave feminism (G3: Blatant hoax (TW))". I am not the original creator but I have written about the subject. Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Levinson: Do feel free to edit under the topic; the deletion was not intended to indicate that the topic itself was a hoax, only that the content that the editor created the article with was a hoax (that fourth wave feminist was the view that women should kill all men). I am eager to see what fourth wave feminism actually is. Be sure to cite reliable sources and let me know if you need any help (or if I have misunderstood something in your request). --TeaDrinker (talk) 03:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a source or even a slight attempt at a hint of a source? If not a citation or pseudo-citation, does the content include a distinct phrasing that might be worth plugging into Google to identify a referent? Similar content did appear in a notable source by a notable author and it's already in Wikipedia. Regarding a possible fourth wave, while I don't think the fourth wave is anything more than little-noticed hype by only a few activists in very few sources (I think blogs) not generally copied, since the other three waves seem to be characterized by relatively substantial numbers of participants, distinct suites of issues, organizations, and tactics, a general agreement by participants that a wave is distinct from the previous wave or that it's first, and a separate starting decade, almost none of which apply to the so-called fourth as far as I know (other than that I may have found a book title that I plan to follow up on), I don't want to miss anything that someone else mght have found, even if the article drafting was unclear or offensive. If userfying is not feasible, please let me know what you found in the deleted article. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 18:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick Levinson: I don't think the material would be particularly useful to you, since it was a hoax/vandalism. I am quite sure the article was not a serious attempt at writing content. The closest thing to a citation was a link to some anti-feminist website (it would not qualify as a reliable source, even if it supported the claims of the article). The article was created on the same day it was deleted. A quick search indicates that some people use fourth wave to refer to feminism on the internet, although I don't have the background to say if this is a common meaning, or if the term is in common enough use to need an article. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:03, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is also an active WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism, which may be interested in collaboration or point you in the right direction. -TeaDrinker (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian item is only a few days old and looks helpful. I assume the WikiProjects do not have the means to userfy and that the non-RS source you referenced didn't mention a source within it. I just don't want to be accused of skipping something other people know about. Thanks for helping. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I was wondering if I could draw your attention to something. You and I both recently commented at the same ANI. Basically, I held (and still do) that a user has a right to edit and post to his own talk page during a short term block, as long as his posts and edits do not violate policy. </obvious caveat> As it is, some people believe this user is a troll, based on his somewhat strange comments. But I had a closer look at his contribs, and I see a possible pattern, as well as a possible alternative explanation, for their odd behaviour. While this edit alone could be considered meaningless, it might give you an idea where I'm going with this. There was another edit he made that led believe he may also be [User:Pubserv] (but I don't know where that edit is now).

Anyhow, there is a problem here. If indeed he is a troll, then he's gotta go. But if there's others issues here affecting his ability to contribute effectively, then that still needs to be addressed, albeit more delicately. I'm not sure if there is a guideline, or policy for this, though I did have a look at WP:CIR, WP:NOTTHERAPY, WP:SHUARI and this. I also across this from the Ref desk, by way of ANI. If something needs to be done, let's make sure it's the right thing. - theWOLFchild 07:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied by email --TeaDrinker (talk) 13:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have received your email, and I emailed a reply to you. Thanks - theWOLFchild 16:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Sorry for butting in, but I have looked at the recent remarks on the IP's talk page, and they give the impression of a seriously disturbed person. He/she made remarks in both Danish and English of a nature that may be eligible for reporting to local authorities. I would do so (I live in Denmark) if I knew what would be the appropriate channels. At any rate, I believe revoking talk page access was the correct decision. Favonian (talk) 16:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Already reported to the Wikimedia Foundation. --TeaDrinker (talk) 16:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Favonian (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Hi again. You're still keeping an eye on this, right? - theWOLFchild 23:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deleting Patriotic Alliance redirect

Hello, TeaDrinker. You have new messages at CHScribbler's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi, just checking that you got my reply to yesterday's question on the redirect?

Possible schedule check for review nom

Hello user:TeaDrinker, Your user page indicated an interest in the evolution of disease. My present interest is to consider making an FA review nom and perhaps to check with you if it might also sound of interest to you for one of the medical wikipages. Any possible interest? BillMoyers (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birds of Ukraine

You may wish to comment on this discussion. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re: El Cata

Hey TeaDrinker, thanks for your quick action on the El Cata article. That user had also created the USER:Elcatamusic account in order to make the same edits. I've tried to leave some nice messages as well as standard warnings so hopefully the editor will reach out to the community and try to do things the Wikipedia-way from here on out. I have absolutely no interest in that article nor do I know who that person is but my "job" on Wikipedia is vandalism patrol and dealing with spammers and the like so I will be keeping an extra eye on that article for the time being and will let you know if things ramp up. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year TeaDrinker!

Happy New Year!
Hello TeaDrinker:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2014}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pallas's tube-nosed bat, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nyctimene (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 3 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Anasigerpes heydeni (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Congo
Anasigerpes nigripes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Congo

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zooxanthellae

For years the article Zooxanthellae redirected to Symbiodinium but I have now created a new article instead, as not all zooxanthellae are in the genus Symbiodinium, and the term zooxanthellae is widely used. I am not a marine biologist and could do with a specialist to check my new article in case I have got anything wrong. I have been aiming to write it in an accessible style. Could you have a look? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 12:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

A cup of hot tea to welcome you!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, although if you wish to acquire additional privileges, simply create an account. It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:

In addition, your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Well shucks, I may be ten years in the saddle on the project, but it is always nice to know I am welcome. Thanks. --TeaDrinker (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, TeaDrinker. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi TeaDrinker.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TeaDrinker. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]