User talk:SpaceGuy32/Archives/2017/January

Active discussions

Talk page warnings

Hi Milo. When you warn a user, as you did on User talk:, don't forget to tell the user what page you are referring to and don't forget to sign your posting. If the user was already warned for the same incident, a second warning is usually not necessary. Thanks for helping to revert vandalism here. Rus793 (talk) 21:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Milo. I see you have been adding warnings—thank you. But apparently you are not using Twinkle to add the warnings since it is not automatically creating a new level 2 heading for the month. So if not using Twinkle—which is OK since it's just a convenience—you need to do this manually. The headings organizes the warnings by month/year and makes it easier for admins and other editors to see what warnings were issued and when. Take a look at the latest one I added for you at User talk: Thanks Rus793 (talk) 14:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Oops, I see you just caught that. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh, I'm really sorry, I'm relatively new here and I haven't heard of Twinkle. Would you mind explaining how to use it? Thanks MiloDenn (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Welcoming new users

Hi, Milo. I noticed that you welcomed user Sayo24555. You probably didn't know, but we prefer to wait until we see that a user is making good changes before welcoming them. That user has not made any changes here. Please keep this in mind when you think of welcoming a user. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The bee movie

Hi Milo. I added a QD template over yours and wanted to explain why. The information was copied from a copyrighted source which made it a copyright violation. When looking over a new page, if the text seems fairly well written and punctuated, you could suspect it was copied from another Wikipedia such as Enwiki, in which case it is QD:A3 (Article that exists on another Wikimedia project). It can and often is a QD:G12 (Obviously breaking copyright law). Try copying the first line or so—just stay under 32 words—then search Google (or whichever search engine you use) for matching text. Check the page to see if it claims copyright. Under copyright laws the page does not have to use a © (copyright symbol) but most do. If the copy only changes a word or two here and there, it can still be close paraphrasing which can still violate copyright. Obviously a blog, advertising page and others like them don't usually claim copyright. It's sort of a judgment call as to who's copyright was violated. You don't have to be right every time. When in doubt, QD it as a copyright violation to protect Wikipedia against any liability. An admin will make the final call.Rus793 (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Excuse me, @Rus793:, I like to think we have editors here whose writing is "fairly well written and punctuated": me, for one! </mock indignation> :) Speaking as an admin, though, if I don't have a specific page I can check to verify copy/pasting, I won't delete a page as a copyvio. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Of course there are exceptions. There are a number of experienced editors including admins that write exceptionally well and you are certainly one of them. Of course, these editors aren't usually submitting new pages that need patrolling. Also, most know better than to violate copyright. However, you made a very good point I overlooked. When using QD:G12 the editor needs to include the url of the page that appears to hold copyright. Otherwise an admin really cannot delete it as a copyright violation. Thank you for pointing that out. Rus793 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

A wait request

First, the QD was a mistake that I'm sure is being corrected. Secondly, anytime an editor clicks on Wait, he or she needs to give a reason on the talk page. In this particular case, however, it may not be necessary. See the comment I left at User talk:Pkbwcgs. I'm sure it was well-intentioned, just misapplied. I was patrolling and editing the page at the time it was nominated for QD. It's marked patrolled now. As an editor, it really isn't up to me to remove the QD. Either Pkbwcgs will do it or an admin will. We're all just learning as we go here. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@MiloDenn: Milo, one thing you still need to do on Talk:Nebelhorn is to add an attribution template. I usually use Template:Based on. It's also in Wikipedia:Transwiki attribution. Attribution is the only requirement of the CC 3.0 license to meet the Copyright requirement. Even though not everyone does it, it's still a very good idea. I'll add it for you as an example—just go to the talk page. I also added the {{talk header}} just above the attribution template. Thanks. Rus793 (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


Thank you for making the page Rubihorn and well done for adding more information to that page compared to English Wikipedia. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, and I added the based on English Wiki on the talk page. I also translated a bit of the German page. MiloDenn (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Your welcome. I will add your page to Wikipedia:Proposed good articles. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I will remove your quick deletion comments. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Which ones?MiloDenn (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The ones to do with Nebelhorn. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

  The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for keeping an eye on the recent changes page and for reverting vandalism. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Wow, thanks, that's amazing, MiloDenn (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Your comment on the request for rollback

I removed your comment and hid it because you mentioned something inappropriate. If you would like further explanation, please do not discuss it here, but send me an email. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

What is your email, as I would like to discuss this. I don't disagree that you are right, but I would like to know why. Thanks, MiloDenn (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
You can email me through the "Email this user" link in the sidebar on my user or user talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I couldn't see it. Where exactly am I looking. MiloDenn (talk) 19:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Along the left side of the page, in the "Tools" section. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
It is definetly not there when I go on. Could we use IRC. MiloDenn (talk) 20:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm, if you are using a different skin from me, it could be in a different place, I suppose. Are you looking on my user page, or my user talk page? What skin do you use, and what do you see in the sidebar? I can't get on IRC right now, and that wouldn't be an appropriate place to discuss this anyway. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I am just using the normal bog-standard as it comes one - I haven't changed it. I have looked on both of your pages, all over, but it is nowhere. I would like a skin, and I am happy to use yours. MiloDenn (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


Hello, SpaceGuy32. You have new messages at Pkbwcgs's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Pkbwcgs (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk page warning vs automatic notice

Milo. I'm still following-up and adding warnings to pages you have QDd. In Twinkle, there is an option to "Notify page creator if possible". That simply sends an automatic message (most of the time) to the user's talk page notifying them of the QD. It is not the same as giving a level 1–4 warning (or other notice) telling them why it was nominated for deletion. For example, take a look at User talk: For some reason, the automatically-generated notice did not post to this page. But notice the level 1 warning I added for you, including mentioning the page the warning is for (Yersiniosis). Thanks Rus793 (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

New articles

Thank you for all the new articles! (And of course your other work). I just patrolled several of your new pages and made some minor changes to simplify them. If you have any questions on the changes I made, please ask. Thanks! --Tbennert (talk) 16:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Your welcome, you don't need to thank me! Thank you for making changes as well, as I am still not perfect at getting it all simplified! MiloDenn (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Good work deserves thanks :) You are obviously improving and making really helpful changes.--Tbennert (talk) 02:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Labelling a change as vandalism

When you revert a change, please be careful about calling the change vandalism. this change didn't look like vandalism to me, just misplaced content. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Template:Oberallgäu

The page you wrote, Template:Oberallgäu, has been selected for quick deletion. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. You can find more information about the reason here. MiloDenn (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Source citations

Hi Milo. Thanks for the many articles you've written so far. I just patrolled Oberstaufen and added some source citations. I noticed you usually include several pertinent facts in the articles you start and I assume these come from somewhere. I mean, it's clear these are coming from sources. Point is, we're called editors because we compile information from reliable third-party sources, then cite those sources. We're not authors who allow readers to presume our writing is authoritative. We prove it is by providing readers with verification in the form of full source citations. I'm just encouraging you to cite sources whenever possible in these new articles. If you'd like any help you can email me, ask here or ask for help at Wikipedia:Simple talk. You're doing nice work, keep it up. Rus793 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that's totally my fault. If I use a based on template should I put them in or not?. Thanks, MiloDenn (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The "based on" template in the talk page is for attribution, which only gives credit to the authors who edited the article there. It is the only copyright requirement for using Wikipedia data. We don't expect readers to follow up and go to Enwiki to find out what the sources of information were. Also, copying and pasting an Enwiki article has its pitfalls and many times these are in the source citations. Sometimes the cits are very poor. They can be complete fabrications, not to reliable sources or suffer from w:Link rot. The majority are good, but you always have to check. Otherwise, if the attribution was used to refer the readers to the other project, we could be sending them up a blind alley. Besides, there's nothing wrong with trying to make our articles better than those at other wikis. I usually verify the citation is still good and, if using the <ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |date= |website= |publisher= |accessdate= }}</ref> or similar template, fill in the current accessdate to indicate I verified it. In the case of Bad Hindelang, it perhaps took me no more than 5 minutes to locate and add three source citations. Once you know what you're looking for and know how to use google search operators, finding sources can sometimes be fairly easy. I modified one sentence so the citation supported it completely. One other small point while I have your attention. I added the state=collapsed option to the template "Towns and municipalities in Oberallgäu". I did it when I patrolled Oberstaufen and Bad Hindelang for a little cleaner look. See if you want to use it or not. Let me know if you have any questions. Rus793 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


I see you joined the ranks of the patrollers. As I'm sure you know, that means your new pages (created after becoming a patroller) won't need to be patrolled. As Aunt mentioned, you don't have to patrol the New pages list but I see you already added the userbox. If you do want to patrol new pages, you might want to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Guide to layout and Wikipedia:Manual of Style. You will now see unpatrolled pages highlighted in yellow (which non-patrollers do not see). Also, on new pages on the lower right you will see "[Mark this page as patrolled]". Again, others do not see this. Before clicking on this to mark it patrolled, try to go over it and see that it has been wikified and simplified. If you are not going to deal with a particular problem, then tag it for others to fix. I think the longer you do this the less you'll add tags. Here's a thought, you can create new pages (which you are credited for) or you can improve new pages started by others. You don't get credit for the latter but it's just as satisfying. Rus793 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Service award

Congratulations! You are well passed your 200th edit and have been here a month. You are now qualified to display the following award. You can use any form of the award you like. You have enough edits for your next award, but need another 60 days service. This is the first of what I'm sure will be many awards. Nice going!

 This editor is a Novice Editor and is entitled to display this Service Badge.

Amazing, thanks very much, and yes I hope that I will continue on here for a long time. Thanks again, MiloDenn (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
You might want to put this award on your user page. Alternatively, you might want to use the template {{Service awards}}: with that one, all you need to do is update your edit count, and it will automatically display the right award. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks very much, you may not have noticed but it is in my userboxes on the right hand side. MiloDenn (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for adminship

@MiloDenn: Milo, thank you very much for the thought but you should really ask before nominating someone to be an administrator. First and foremost, I don't have any great aspirations to be an administrator. That might change down the road... who knows? But I like being a content editor. Also, we are not short of good admins right now. While I'm honored, I would greatly appreciate you deleting my nomination from the list. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I can't do it now, but I will happily do it in the morning. I am sorry for not checking with you. If you want to remove it that is fine😭 MiloDenn (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it's best to remove sooner than later. I'll delete it. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


I believe I mentioned that you should make sure a page is in good shape before marking it as patrolled. I was just looking at the pages you have patrolled (it's my responsibility to do that when I give rights). Most look fine, but I want to comment on a few:

  • Temple Run 2: The only claim of notability is the mention of how many times it has been downloaded (and "downloaded" is misspelled). That doesn't necessarily show notability, especially when you note that the source for that claim is a primary source, the gamemaker's own website. This article could be tagged for primary sources and questionable notability. It would also be better with a more specific category than just "video games". It has a link to the dab page Android. I see that you simplified it and added a stub tag, which is good.
  • Jair Bolsonaro: Not only does this need a little copy editing (he is a military?), I don't see any notability here. This article seems to fail WP:POLITICIAN, the notability guideline for politicians. Keep in mind that it's not enough for him to be notable, the article must show the notability. The only thing representing a reference is another primary source, the person's own website. This article could be tagged for primary sources and notability, or even nominated for qd.
  • Scottish Government: This page is unwikified: the subject is not in bold characters in the intro, and there are no links. It is essentially uncategorized, having only a maintenance category and a stub category. It also could use some simplifying. I do see that you added the stub tag, which is good.

Keep in mind that you are not required to patrol if you don't want to. If you see an article that needs work and you don't want to address it, you can leave it unpatrolled. If we don't address issues at the time an article is patrolled, it could be that no one comes across them again, so it's good not to let them fall through the cracks.

Don't let this discourage you, though. What you did was good, but I want to encourage you to do more. Let me know how I can help you with this. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

  • Here's one more: Epsom Downs railway station. This article is missing context: the first sentence doesn't say what the subject is or where it is. The article also isn't categorized. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Speedy of Acorn squash

Just thought I would let you know we typically allow a single sentence from as long as it is not overly complex. It is also not a good idea to readd a speedy template after an admin has declined it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


Hi, Milo. When you create a template, such as Template:Cities and towns in Oberallgäu (district), please remember to categorize it using the categories we have here. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Copyright violation

@MiloDenn: Milo, I was marking the page Richard Riley Abu Dhabi QD:G12 for being a copyright violation. I didn't want to remove your QD but I did change the reason as a copyright violation (once confirmed) is a far more serious problem for Wikipedia. However, if you want to delete the QD and redo it as G12, you can then add the url of the violated page (note the © symbol on the bottom) which is You probably want to go to the user's talk page and change the warning to a copyright violation. Usually, once a user understands Wikipedia cannot accept anything copyrighted by someone else without permission, they stop doing it. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "SpaceGuy32/Archives/2017/January".