User talk:ThePlatypusofDoom

Barnstars and stuff: User:ThePlatypusofDoom/Shiny Things

v1.24

Pun Generator

Why don't programmers like nature? It has too many bugs.

 GENERATE NEW PUN

NOTE

Note that if I accidentally reverted your edit, feel free to revert it, if you are cleaning up vandalism, I mess up sometimes. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

My Archive of Archives

User:ThePlatypusOfDoom/Archive/Archive

Request on 11:49:32, 13 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 58.2.236.190

• 58.2.236.190 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bollywood Galiyara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Need Assistance to update infromation about Bollywood Galiyara, I tried to create a article Draft:Bollywood Galiyara but t how rejected, now I dont know to re work with the feedback and re submit. can any one help me for that.

58.2.236.190 (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Responded on the IP's talk page. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Michael Hardy is reminded that:
   1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
   2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
   3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
2. MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
3. The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

Sarcasm doesn't always come through clearly

I think there may have been a misunderstanding. My edit here was intended as biting sarcasm directed at Wordsmith's incredibly blinkered attitude towards racist content. I'm extraordinarily pissed off at his casual shrug-it-off approach to conspicuously anti-semitic material. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: Sorry, I misinterpreted it, it doesn't work that well in text (for me, anyway). I think The Wordsmith is a good admin, but he sometimes can tolerate something too much, or not tolerate something enough. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I generally think he's a good admin too, but he dropped the ball hard in this case. I was just really disappointed to see someone who normally seems reasonable get so far off track. And he kept digging himself deeper in as additional evidence came to light. Reading the "widespread offence" clause of the userpage policy as meaning that thinly-veiled racism is okay because it's not immediately obvious to everyone...is not okay. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: I understand how the rest of the material is related to Nazism, but how does "1488" relate to it? (Probably missing something glaringly obvious). ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't recall that one off the top of my head either and had to Google it. I knew 88 by itself as a symbol; the letter 'H' is the eighth letter of the alphabet, and 88 is supposed to represent "Heil Hitler". (Yes, it is a bit subtle; that's the point of a dog whistle—to allow someone to signal racist views in public without getting called out.) The 14 comes from the Fourteen Words; that article has the explanation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: Well, that's glaringly obvious, if you know what it means. At least the user's indeffed now. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• @TenOfAllTrades: My response wasn't quite as casual as it came across. I just hadn't had my coffee yet, so wasn't articulating myself well. When I said "that may be a different story", I intended that to be taken as "yeah, that changes things". Of course, once you found the 1488, that puts his intent well beyond reasonable doubt. I agree with the indef in that case. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  @The Wordsmith: Fundamentally, the problem was that you refused to see the editors' user page as problematic until he nearly-literally scrawled I am a neo-Nazi across his edit summaries. The casual-sounding response wasn't where I took issue with your position; it was your overall willingness to bend over backwards to endorse the use of (semi-, not-very-) subtle racist messages on user pages. I hope you're willing to recalibrate your sensitivity to that sort of dog-whistle message in the future, because not every neo-Nazi will be quite as conveniently obliging. You're far from the only editor, unfortunately, who chooses to be wilfully blind to this sort of thing, but that doesn't make it okay. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• @TenOfAllTrades: I tend to give some latitude when things could potentially be interpreted one way or another, at least until doubt is removed or the user explains himself. This is especially true when the editor does actually contribute to the encyclopedia. If I were Jewish or European I might have a different understanding of the statue (which I hadn't seen before and thus had no context) or Wagner (who to me is just a composer who had attitudes not uncommon in the 19th century). Even the Bible verse has multiple purposes, and I particularly bristled at the idea of blocking someone for putting a Bible verse on their userpage. As an American who hadn't encountered those particular symbols in context before, I just wasn't seeing it. Once the 1488 was discovered, a symbol I do (unfortunately) have experience recognizing, the rest of the pieces fell into place. I'll admit I missed the signalling until that last piece of the puzzle. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:47, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  @The Wordsmith: That was part of why I took a significant amount of time to place each of the symbols in context, for editors who might review the user page and not be familiar with their role as Nazi, neo-Nazi, and/or anti-semitic references. I'm disappointed – but not surprised, based on my general experience with Wikipedia – that you're pleading ignorance even when the explanation of why those symbols together, in that context were problematic. (Instead, you chose to explicitly and deliberately dismiss the significance of them being placed together: "As it is, though, we have a statue, an interest in a composer, and a Bible verse. None of these things are evil, separately or together. ")

  And, incidentally, I am neither European nor Jewish. I do, however, make a point of paying attention when members of ethnic or religious minorities say uhhh, hey... about stuff. Pulling out the "widespread offence" clause to justify leaving subtle racism on a userpage isn't cool. It's easier on a case-by-case basis to ignore this stuff, but it's bad for the long-term health of the project. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) My goodness, I feel like a dunce here. I had never even heard about 1488 previously. Just read Fourteen Words now and understood some of the context. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) New essay being created User:ThePlatypusofDoom/Don't edit until you've had your coffee. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:29, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) The 1488 was a dead giveaway to their intentions. I've seen that before (usually written 14/88) and yeah that's a red flag (how ironic). RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		Thanks for helping keep Wikipedia clear of spam! MordeKyle (talk) 20:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

@MordeKyle: Thanks! ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Disheartening

Hi Plat - first of all thank you for all the great work you do around here. You are a net positive to the project, and we'd hate to see you go. I understand your poll at WP:RFACP is probably disheartening to read, but I'd urge you to try to see the positive side of the comments. No one there thinks you're an awful Wikipedian - they just think that, right now, you wouldn't make a good administrator. There's plenty of things you can do to help us without those extra pixels. I'd be more than happy to elaborate on my (now highly optimistic) review, but the key element to take away is to get back into focusing on what you enjoy doing here and at some point you'll find yourself in a position where another editor says 'hey, you need the tools'. As always, my talk page and email inbox are always open -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 11:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

15:27:00, 12 October 2016 review of submission by Cloar1

• Cloar1 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Charles Robert Mcpherson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello ThePlatypusofDoom,

Can you please help me understand why you declined this article? I appreciate your help as this is my first article.

We have been researching this individual for a while. There are media articles (referenced), old historic photos, etc. What more do I need to show "notability"?

Where is the promotional material? I am not trying to promote anything.

Thank you again!

Chris

@Cloar1: See here and here. 1 source isn't good enough. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Request on 18:31:48, 13 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 5.80.185.189

• 5.80.185.189 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Malawi24 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I wrote you a private message. I just wanted to know whether being cited by verified media/well known media and being referred to as a publication by these cerebrated papers is not enough to prove notability? And possible to refer us to someone conversant with SSA and the media in this ends?

5.80.185.189 (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Please revert the changes made by my son whom I caught playing with the computer.

It would appear that he edited a Ministry of Transportation article.

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Cas Liber (submissions)
• Second Place - MPJ-DK (submissions)
• Third Place - Adam Cuerden (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
• Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
• Featured List – Calvin999 (submissions) produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
• Featured Portal – SSTflyer (submissions) produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
• Featured Topic – Cyclonebiskit (submissions) and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
• Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
• Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
• In The News – Dharmadhyaksha (submissions) and Muboshgu (submissions), each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
• Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup Greetings, all! We would like to announce the start of the 4th GA Cup, a competition that seeks to encourage the reviewing of Good article nominations! Thus far, there have been three GA Cups, which were successful in reaching our goals of significantly reducing the traditionally long queue at GAN, so we're doing it again. Currently, there are over 400 nominations listed. We hope that we can again make an impact this time. The 4th GA Cup will begin on November 1, 2016. Four rounds are currently scheduled (which will bring the competition to a close on February 28, 2017), but this may change based on participant numbers. We may take a break in December for the holidays, depending on the results of a poll of our participants taken shortly after the competition begins. The sign-up and submissions process will remain the same, as will the scoring. Sign-ups for the upcoming competition are currently open and will close on November 14, 2016. Everyone is welcome to join; new and old editors, so sign-up now! If you have any questions, take a look at the FAQ page and/or contact one of the judges. Cheers from 3family6, Figureskatingfan, Jaguar, MrWooHoo, and Zwerg Nase. We apologize for the delay in sending out this message until after the competition has started. Thank you to Krishna Chaitanya Velaga for aiding in getting this message out. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair play on your user page !

Slogan for those disappointed on the 8th :)

New Page Review needs your help

Hi ThePlatypusofDoom,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello ThePlatypusofDoom. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week [19 November 2016]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for diligent diverse work across multiple areas. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:WikiPancake submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate ThePlatypusofDoom to be Editor of the Week! A WikiPlatypus if there was ever one, he has thrown great work and effort into several types of articles, having almost 8,000 in only 6 months. He also participates actively in discussions related to block users and WP:ANI. He also humors edits and makes Wikipedia more enjoyable. He's been a great help in the AfC process and has done loads of vandalism reverting with Twinkle and Huggle. Finally, he is a great example of WP:BOLD for newcomers to follow.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)