User talk:11WB

Archives 2025 • Feb-May 2025 • June 2025 • • August 2025 • September 2025 • • October 2025 • November 2025 •

Thank you!

Hello 11WB, I hope you're well! 🙂 I just wanted to say thank you for the kind words here, and for taking the time to do a little bit of research and leave your two cents on my draft. It leaves a great impression, and I hope you found Durrr Burger to be at least a little bit of an interesting/entertaining read. Cheers from North Carolina! Johnson524 02:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all! I really respect and appreciate the work that both you and @Zxcvbnm do for the project! It genuinely makes me happy seeing editors collaborate respectfully, even when they may not agree. After reading the draft, and the various discussions, it was refreshing to see a process conclude amicably. I'm happy the article was not deleted outright! Thanks so much! 11WB (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NPR?

I don't understand what you meant by "As someone who also has NPR". National Public Radio? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:43, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New page reviewer. I began the discussion on your talk page, let's please continue it there. Thank you. 11WB (talk) 05:44, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs, I note that you have blanked your talk page, which you have every right to do. I was hoping we could have a discussion about this, as some of your articles are fine. I will assume this is not something you wish however, so I will consider this matter resolved. Best of luck with your future Wikipedia endeavours! 11WB (talk) 05:52, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I messed up, and have now fixed it, I hope. And apparently NPR means New Page Reviewer. I don't recall ever using it, so no great loss. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:58, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator I should note. I've seen the notice over on your talk page. I am sorry about this. Unfortunately, as you can see at WP:PERM/A, Autopatrolled is only given after an author's articles have been thoroughly reviewed and sources examined. It, as you probably know, allows an editor to publish an article, without said article requiring review from a new page reviewer (which answers your question as to what NPR is)! As cliché is it may sound, there really is nothing personal here, and I am genuinely sad to see that you no longer have AP. You have a 15+ year history of writing articles, so perhaps with some work, you could reapply for it in the future? Whatever you decide to do, I wish you well! 11WB (talk) 06:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall having used Auto Patroller, either, so again it's no great loss and I've got no urge to try to get it back. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is an automated permission, any article you publish to mainspace skips the Special:NewPagesFeed. This just means now that any article you publish in the future will be subject to standard review. 11WB (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I welcome improvements from article critics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:49, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Get Hep to Love

Looks like I originated it, in 2009, but I don't specifically recall it. I must have gotten the plot description and cast from the DVD. Whatever my thinking was in 2009, I'm well aware now that IMDB is generally considered a shaky source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It might be worth setting up some time, should you so choose, to go back over your articles and make some improvements, especially to those that are older. I do have a short list of issues with the short sample of articles I reviewed of yours. I am happy to provide that list if you would like! 11WB (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman's Park

It's covered in the reference link [1], for one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those are listed under external links and should really follow standard Wikipedia:Inline citation. This is why another editor tagged that specific article as not citing any sources. 11WB (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever tagged it didn't bother looking into the details. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:18, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who tagged that article was actually blocked by a CheckUser. This isn't relevant to the lack of inline citations however, the tag was correctly applied. 11WB (talk) 06:19, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the one who tagged it is a bad actor is relevant. The tag could be removed based on WP:DENY. And the claim that it's "unsourced" is untrue. "Lacking inline citations" is a different issue than "unsourced". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. An example of a completely unsourced article would be Dixie Whatley. I still believe it would be a good idea to check older articles you have authored for issues like these. 11WB (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary account IP viewer granted

Hello, 11WB. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! CoconutOctopus talk 16:12, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Temporary account IP viewers

A tag has been placed on Category:Temporary account IP viewers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pokémon Showdown for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pokémon Showdown is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokémon Showdown until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 03:30, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review request

Hi,Can you help me in getting this page Jat architecture reviewed?,Thanks Vivan007 (talk) 17:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken a look and it appears mostly fine. WP:TIMESOFINDIA isn't the greatest source. There are also some minor grammatical and punctuation errors which need editing. On the whole this article is fine and I've marked it as reviewed. Please be aware that ordinarily editors are expected to wait for their article to be seen on the new pages feed by a reviewer. Happy to review on this occasion however! Thanks! 11WB (talk) 17:36, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Will make sure to follow the guidelines, also Thanks for this. Vivan007 (talk) 17:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note about signature

Hi 11WB, I hope you are having a good day! I wanted to make a note about your signature really quickly. It is within policy; however, underline is commonly used by the "mark blocked" gadget to indicate that accounts are partially blocked and I hovered over your username only to see from the logs that you do not have any blocks. I was just noting this because it confused me ever so slightly, but it is not a big deal at all. Cheers! Casablanca 🪨^(T) 01:38, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear! I had no idea about that, I have now removed the underline! Thank you for letting me know about this! 11WB (talk) 01:40, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously...

Why on earth did you open that RFC? FOARP (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors have interpreted DESTNOT differently. With it being cited at AfD, and the closure (as I explained to @Loki here) being questionable, I wanted to know whether it was broad or specific. I have no issue with it being closed if you feel it is inappropriate whilst the AfDs are ongoing. 11WB (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It may be too late to withdraw but I think it would be wise in any event.

Firstly let's be clear that "DESTNOT" is not a thing. It's a link that someone set up specifically to score points at AFDs. There was an RFC about two articles. That was it.

Secondly if an RFC close needs clarification, that should be taken up with the closer first and foremost. FOARP (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I took the DESTNOT redirect to RfD and got no support for deletion. I've made quite clear that I don't agree with the idea of setting up a redirect for a discussion. We do actually agree on the majority of the problems surrounding this larger issue. The reason I set up the RfC is to clarify the close that was made in February. I don't know the issues you have with @Stifle, but two administrators who interpret an RfC close differently and use that as rationale for a !vote (in the case of @Stifle at least), is a problem. 11WB (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When two people interpret something different, holding an RFC is not always the wisest way of proceeding. Instead, letting the arguments play out is often better, because people can see them in context rather than divorced from the actual articles they are related to.

Additionally, on WP there is often a bias against whoever takes the issue to an RFC: the assumption is that if you are the one asking the question then you are the one who has a problem with your position.

I'm sorry if I come off as a bit stressed here, but having put a lot of effort into this it is hard to see it being undone. FOARP (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask, as I only became aware of this 24 hours ago (apparently this debate has been ongoing since 2007?). What was your plan regarding this? 11WB (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And it's no trouble, you fully have the right to express however you feel. I had a feeling starting the RfC would ruffle feathers, and I definitely wasn't the best person to do it. I was reluctant to contact either yourself or @Stifle as I've seen some of the recent discussions have been incredibly tense. If I had entered the mix and started making suggestions, I guarantee there would have been Wikidaggers sent my way! 11WB (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need to take a break from this area. FOARP (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Grand Burstin Hotel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 22:06, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]