User talk:J947

Welcome to J947's talk page. If I leave a message on your talk page, please reply there. If you leave a message for me on this talk page, I'll reply here. Please sign your comments with ~~~~. Thank you.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This is my talkpage. Send me messages here or use the {{ping}} template. I manually archive this page when it surprasses 50,000 bytes.

Here are some things to remember when posting messages to me:

• Don't send me junk mail.
• Leave your message at the bottom of the page.
• Don't make personal attacks on me.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

for your nice supportive offer to the article creator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Darkosadze

Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Coolabahapple! :) J947 06:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangkok 12th district, but when you said, "there are no 'delete' votes," you probably forgot that the nomination itself is a !vote for deletion, so it's actually only 2 for keeping with 1 against, which is probably too close for a non-admin closure. Also, keep in mind that AfDs are not votes; one of the arguments for keeping was "I believe ... are notable", which is a poor AfD argument. I'm not looking to re-open the discussion, but at best it should have been a no-consensus closure. Please consider modifying the closing statement. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y Modified. J947 04:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to this comment:

Don't worry about a few million bytes (=a few megabytes). First, it won't work (every edit creates a new copy of the entire page, so editing a page to remove a character, or even to blank the page, increases disk use). Second, disk space is cheap. When you're buying large disk drives in bulk, the kind of space you're talking about saving probably costs about 1¢. Third, in general, we don't need to worry about performance. Unless the devs complain at us, we can assume that it's okay. There are a few things that we can do that are slightly better or slightly worse, but it's just not a big deal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been pointed that out. Thanks anyway! J947 02:00, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what is the problem with my article? thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remixreek (talk • contribs) 01:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Remixreek: It is very promotional. Also, please see WP:OR. I can help you get used here if you want. J947 01:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello J947, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the message Me-123567-Me! A smile to you too! J947 18:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question if there is a reason why you are using AWB to tag clear CSD candidates? I'm only asking because ones like that are not going to be around long, and AWB tagging of obvious CSD articles tends to clog up the watchlist of the people who've tagged them. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: It's timewasting to avoid tagging articles. A reason to use Twinkle more is because it has got a option for tagged articles to be on your watchlist or not. By the way, have you ever noticed the 'Mark all pages as visited' option? I use it when I'm looking at pages of a high priority for me. J947 04:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're probably going to disagree on this, but the reason many people keep the pages they tag on their watchlist is because they want to see if the tag is removed, and adding tags to an article that has zero chance of survival seems more like time wasting to me. Not a big deal, I was just curious and always like hearing other views. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the minor inconvienience. J947 05:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dario Korolija, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia (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) 10:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YFixed. J947 19:24, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello J947, I was NPPing and saw that you gave Guetty Felin a Prod notice instead of sending it out to be AfD. The subject does not appear to be notable, so even if the creator did dig up a citation, it would probably end up on AfD at the hands of deletionists. Is there some method to PROD vs AfD that I don't know about? Thanks. L3X1 (distant write) 03:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@L3X1: I'm not sure if the article is notable or not. I PRODed because it was an unreferenced biography of a living person. J947 03:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, is it bad form to then AfD the article to obtain a consensus regarding Notability? Or should I wait a week to see if a citation is produced and then AfD it if the citation is not definitive. L3X1 (distant write) 03:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The citations won't be forthcoming because she's simply not notable. Have sent it to AfD. Schwede66 05:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm sorry but CSD A7 is appropriate for this page. What we want in sources is not just sources that show that a person exists but sources that show that the person is "important or significant". And all I see in the sources is that this is a university student who holds a role in his university student union and in this position has provided two-sentence quotes on news websites about campus issues. That shows that this person exists, but it doesn't come close to being "significant coverage" by Wikipedia's standards. (As another way of looking at it, the coverage isn't "of him" - the newspapers are interviewing him to provide comment on topics he might know something about.) You might also want to look at WP:POLITICIAN - basically, we don't take articles about student politicians normally. Blythwood (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Awarded for outstanding achievement in the field of editconflicting me when tagging new pages ;) —Frosty ☃ 03:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I edit conflicted with you as well earlier while we were both tagging {{db-person}}! Thanks for the barnstar! :) J947 03:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh.. can you explain to me what it says then? Sorry, but I didn't understand a word of it or what on earth its supposed to be about... —Frosty ☃ 03:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Frosty: Deleted now; it was about a school and it had info there as well. J947 03:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello J947. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Michelle Von Emster Case, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you. SoWhy 08:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to understand how is this an unambiguous keep. If I go by the fact that AFD is not a vote, I see a merge or at best a no consensus outcome here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lemongirl942, the closer here has been an editor for all of four months and has taken a fancy to closing controversial AfD's. See below for another example. Since that is two inappropriate closes in a week, it's time to notify an admin. Do you know an admin who can address it? 198.58.162.200 (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J947,

What's the deadline for the relisted articles for deletion? (I would ask for this one)

Frock~trwiki (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Frock~trwiki: I would have normally closed it as 'keep', but I thought (given that most editors participating there were relatively new) that there might be some sockpuppetry, so I relisted it. J947 17:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,J947

Actually I understand you, because I know the rules. If I were, I would think the same.

My purpose, bringing in a valued article to the Wikipedia on condition that it should. (Esspecially about theater subject, as I do in my old articles in Turkish)

But about voting, I understand there was misfortune. I think I know the reason. I just shared the page to show that it's my new Wikipedia article (I always do in Turkish ones as before). (But never any notes about voting "keep". Because I beleive, if the article will be kept, it deserves to be suitable and because of the people really see it is a relevant article. ('cos, I beleive these kind of thinks like critism or votings, can much improve the articles, like we see the difference begining and complete look of this article.) At the same time as a Wikipedia reader, I would like to see the same essence in other articles.

But offcourse honestly, I wish many users to see the article, for sharing multitude consensus and I wonder the especially experienced users' ideas like you.

So, I tried to search to find something to explain that users are not sockpuppetry I don't know if it works but... (I don't know how to look the users IP, so the users voted with their IP's, I searched from an IP search web site. Different IPs, two of them seem very near, the other one is far from... but they are all in istanbul.)

What can I say I think more... If it will be ok. for you, you can remove these comments. Because I do not want to think the others think same.

(Thanks God, we have one more voting from a master editor : )

And I wondered when the relist articles will be concluded. Because I could't see a period. I'm sorry it's my first voting experience. I've been working hard and I'm a little excited : )

Thanks for your attention,

Regards,

Frock~trwiki (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, J947

I'll be happy to hear your opinion,

Regards,

Frock~trwiki (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi,J947

Like I explained at the discussion page about sockpuppetry doupt; "(Imagine) If I have a Facebook group together with my account over the 50.000 people, If I share the the page there "Look friends, It's the last new page I have prepared at Wikipedia (at Wikipedia tr as I always do, because you know also here we try to reach more people by relisting ect.) That people can view and would like to comment. And I don't think they are Wikipedia users or active users. They're just Facebook users. When they saw post, they just viewed for this page."

So, I mean; As a user who has prepared this article for weeks, and prepare more articles to support this one, please for the fair decision, don't allow the article to be deleted by people who say

"I had randomly looking but delete" or

"I haven't looked closely at the most recent batch of additions but delete" or

Because of unsubstantiated doubts or

Comments that do not match with Wikipedia rules. (about sources)

I need your feedback,

Regards,

Frock~trwiki (talk) 08:41, 04 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you close this Afd for Bernardo Guillermo and say that it was very close to delete? You are not an admin and should not be closing items that are controversial, as in very close to delete. Read the policy please. Non-admin closures are only for very clear cases. I see you closed another one a few days ago that was also controversial.198.58.162.200 (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok just to bring them all together here, so that your activity in non-admin closures is clearer:

• You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangkok 12th district and received a complaint above;
• You closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sober_(Selena_Gomez_song) and received a complaint;
• You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernardo Guillermo and I complained just above this entry.

That should tell you something: i.e. stop closing AfDs until you get more experience or become an admin. Maybe User:Oshwah can check this over? 198.58.162.200 (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also the 24 March relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamo-Leftism. An AfD where a single editor is wielding a WP:BLUDGEON to drag a discussion of a politically sensitive but otherwise straightforward WP:WORDISSUBJECT on and on and on with endless iterations of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT despite a pretty clear consensus. I don't really blame J947 for not wanting to read this endless discussion, only for enabling manipulation of the process. No experienced editor would have done relisted this. No experienced editor woud have brought it to AfD (a disruptive newbie started the AfD).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J947, it takes a while to learn the ropes. Lots of us get a little carried away at first, I know I did. complex systems take time to master.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you are relisting an AfD nomination, please remember to comment out or remove the nomination from the original log per WP:RELIST. I've been fixing this for at least two days now. --Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kurykh and Evad37: I've been using User:Evad37/XFDcloser for a long time now and it used to do it automatically. I don't know what the problem is. J947 00:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the problem is... nor why only a few AfDs would be affected (Rapper Maddy, Like Me (musical), The Class of '58 is what I could find). The vast majority of relists have had no such problems, including all of J947's most recent relists. I've added a warning message if for some reason the regex doesn't find the transclusion on the old log page, but I doubt that's actually the problem, since The Class of '58 had no problem relisting the first time [1]. - Evad37 [talk] 03:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was just testing out Wikipedia solz for changing bill English he a great pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmejeff (talk • contribs) 04:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please test at Wikipedia:Sandbox, okay? J947 04:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I just noticed that you tagged this page with A7(band), however, this article is not about a band or a musician, it's about their work. I don't think A7 is justifiable here. Thanks Hitro talk 07:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted. J947 07:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

A tag has been placed on Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.nca.gr.jp/jws2008/OS2-firstsc.pdf. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa, the history looks a bit confused but I think the above notice should go to Shrekts. Schwede66 00:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the page was tagged as copyvio before Shrekts performed any edits. The material you used to create the article was copied from https://www.first.org/about. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create this! J947^(c) 19:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Bfistein (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Peachpie (compiler) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there, Just edited the sources in the above article. I added several objective third-party articles and removed the Wikipedia reference. However, the reflist is not refreshing for some reason. Hopefully this will make the sources more reliable.

Just wanted to let you know that the bug where your new poll comments went up to the top of the page just got fixed - sorry for missing that :) Enterprisey (talk!) 20:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Enterprisey: Thanks; a 'preview' option would be great (and perhaps a bigger text field as well). J947^(c) 20:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you are relisting an AfD nomination, please remember to remove the nomination from the original log per WP:RELIST.All the AFD-s you relisted today suffer from the same error.Cheers!Winged Blades ^Godric 16:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consider using this version. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. J947^(c) 22:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aside, you put back some items. Doesn't the full stop mean they didn't pass afd vetting? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but those candidates haven't be evaluated on other standards so they can look at their goals. J947^(c) 03:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the table is there to show the users what they need to be vetted completely and take the poll? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I just wanted to ask you about your AfD relisting method. I noticed that you managed to relist something like thirty discussions in five minutes this afternoon, seemingly indiscriminately, so I was just wondering how you normally arrive at the decision to relist any given debate. In particular, uncontested nominations with no comments or only comments endorsing the nominator's proposed action should usually be left to admins, since we have a mandate to treat these like expired PRODs and close them as "soft delete". This is even more pertinent if the debate has been relisted with no additional comments. A few examples here, here, here, and here. There's a good chance these entries could have all been closed instead of clogging up another day's log for the next week. I'm also seeing some more lengthy discussions mixed in, like these two, which might be difficult to properly assess at a rate of 8 per minute. Any light you can shed on the matter would be appreciated. Regards, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Juliancolton: I'm first addressing the soft deletion point you made. I knew about the recent policy when I started AfD closing/relisting back in March. At first I didn't relist the soft delete-eligible ones even though others (e.g. Kurykh and Northamerica1000, who are both admins) did. Then I started doing it. Note: I do examine arguments, though minimally, and the reason I'm so quick at it is that I use User:Evad37/XfDcloser. I'll come to your other points later. J947^(c) 01:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Kurykh and Northamerica are both admins, so it's up to their discretion whether to enact soft deletions. There are some cases where NAC relists of SOFTDELETE-eligible nominations are appropriate, but I think in general it might be a good idea to leave those sorts of AfDs to admins. That way, at least we'll still have the soft deleting option, even if we decide not to use it. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Juliancolton: I haven't seen a single case when either of them have enacted SOFTDELETE. J947^(c) 02:44, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But again, that's their choice to make as reviewing admins. Many admins – I'd say most – do, sometimes, opt for soft deletion where appropriate. If non-admins relist all low- or no-participation nominations immediately after seven days are up, then admins no longer have the choice and the whole no quorum policy is obsolete. See what I mean? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

A tag has been placed on Doglan, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

• It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
• It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. WNYY98 (talk) 08:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I just moved it to draft and am not the actual creator of it. J947^(c) 18:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• 47.185.93.163 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Morgan Berry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe this actress has proven herself to be of notability based on her online presence and official cast announcements from notable companies. She has also proven to be of high demand in the convention scene.^[1] In addition, Morgan has noteworthy roles in many popular anime, video game and movie titles associated with notable companies such as Funimation, Hi-Rez Studios, ScrewAttack and GalaxyTrail^{[2][3][4][5][6][7]} I believe this should also be taken into consideration. She is in big enough titles to be of notability, despite her only being in the industry since 2015. Thank you for your time.

Sorry, but none of those sources are considered to be reliable. J947^(c) 18:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear J947, Many thanks for your kind comments and endorsement of my proposal at Wikipedia: Village pump (Proposals). I am well aware that as this proposal is still in its infancy, we shall just have to see what happens in the face of what other Wikipedians might say. Once again, thank you for your comments. Vorbee (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Vorbee for telling this to me. Much appreciated. J947^(c) 19:41, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is "(with namespace 0)" ? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Namespace 0 is the main (article) namespace. You just need to replace it in the url from '?namespace=4' to '?namespace=0'. J947^{(c) (m)} 03:05, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what all that means, and I am pretty sure many visitors to that page won't either. :) Maybe we ought to just go with simple terms. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. I am not sure how to phrase it, though. J947^{(c) (m)} 03:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have all the hallmarks of a future admin. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak, just my thoughts. J947, get a couple of years under your belt first, though; that seems to be the time that many consider as necessary before this becomes an acceptable step. Schwede66 19:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Use those couple of years to do what the advice pages say, and I think you'll become a dandy admin. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Kutra Unarvu requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 19:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. J947^{(c) (m)} 19:57, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Hi, I'm Boleyn. J947, thanks for creating Pondok Ranji railway station!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boleyn, the above note needs to be posted at Azurevanilla ash. I have had a look at the history as J947 wouldn't create unreferenced articles. Schwede66 03:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

Hi, I noticed you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spindrift (company) a second time, despite the fact that it had no opposition to deletion, and that you had recently done this on other AfDs as well. I'd like to echo Juliancolton's earlier comments. WP:NOQUORUM was relatively recently updated to make it more clear that SOFTDELETE by an admin was an acceptable outcome. BU Rob13's essay WP:Relist bias also makes some very good points here. Relisting AfDs a second time should normally only rarely be done, especially when there are viable other outcomes to the discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to pile on, but I'd like to say something a bit stronger than TonyBallioni. The updates to WP:NOQUORUM that I championed make clear that evaluating an uncontested AfD nomination as a PROD is expected, with exceptions only acceptable when an administrator believes the AfD is likely controversial (or for a few other narrow situations). Because the expected outcome is deletion, it is not appropriate for non-admins to relist these, which is one of the reasons the guideline explicitly mentions administrators rather than closers. I'm a huge advocate for non-admins helping out everywhere they can, but please leave the possibly-delete outcomes at AfD to an admin, mostly for the reasons I state at WP:Relist bias. You may find that you can contribute more productively as a closer at WP:TFD (where non-admins can close as delete in all cases) or WP:CFD (where non-admins can close as delete so long as they can carry out the removal of categories from pages; see WP:AWB for the likely method of doing this and feel free to email me for copies of the AWB scripts I used at one time when I closed CfDs). If you need help getting started at either process, feel free to let me know; I'd be happy to direct your towards good resources or assist you in any way I can. WP:ANRFC can always use non-admin closers as well. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should also message MRD2014 about this as he also did controversial relistings (to some extent worse than me because he relists AfDs with a !vote apart from a nom the first time). Also, the outcome would practically always be the same, as other regular participants will just do the same thing. J947^{(c) (m)} 01:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding relists, I usually relist if there is only one !vote aside from the nom, usually unless it has been already relisted. I don't consider one !vote to be consensus. WP:RELIST says

However, if at the end of the initial seven-day period, the discussion has only a few participants (including the nominator), and/or it seems to be lacking arguments based on policy, it may be appropriate for the closer to relist it, to solicit further discussion to determine consensus.

—MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should also read the revamped WP:NOQUORUM, MRD2014, which makes clear that you should not make such a relist when there is no-one opposing deletion in almost all cases. Also, see note #2 in WP:RELIST, which references NOQUORUM. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

he nomination statement counts as one delete vote (that's why the article is at AfD in the first place. It would take at least two clearly policy/guideline compliant 'keep' votes to close as 'keep'. This does not inclued 'I like it' votes which usually come from the article creator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: I have read it and will take that into consideration when relisting future AfD discussions. Should a discussion be closed if there are no !votes and it hasn't been relisted, assuming it hadn't been PRODed in the past? —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MRD2014: The short answer is "Usually, yes". The long answer is "It depends". It definitely should be treated as a PROD. Almost always, this means soft deletion (where anyone can request restoration at WP:REFUND). Sometimes, this means relisting after doing some WP:BEFORE research (or !voting) because the topic appears notable. Sometimes, it means relisting because the argument given by the nom is patently awful (e.g. comprised only of arguments to avoid, etc). These are rare exceptions rather than the norm, though. Because deletion is solidly on the table, these decisions should be made by admins. `~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 02:39, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, J947. I see that yesterday you made a non-administrative closing of WP:Articles for deletion/Sumana Secondary School. But the guidance for non-administrative closings (WP:NAC) tells us that they should be done only "absent any contentious debate" (see item 1 under "Appropriate closures"). This guidance is repeated at item 2 of "Inappropriate closures" and again at item 1 of "Pitfalls to avoid". Would you please explain why you thought it appropriate to make a non-admin closing of this discussion, given that there certainly was debate over the applicability of pre-RfC consensus? I look forward to hearing your response. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this close because it does not appear to weigh the arguments based on policies and guidelines, as required when determining consensus. You can see my relisting statement for more detail. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 02:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13: Did you mean 'secondary schools are not presumed notable automatically' instead of 'secondary schools are not presumed notable'? J947^{(c) (m)} 03:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant what I said. They are not presumed notable. That's not to say they're presumed not notable, which would be quite different. They just don't have any presumption of notability such as NFL players do (see WP:NGRIDIRON). There's no policy or guideline which states that "this is a secondary school" is an argument for keeping an article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which is precisely what I was trying to say in my rebuttals to the !keeps, with a link to the exact same RfC BU Rob13 cited in his relisting comment. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When closing as 'redirect', please remember to include the appropriate redirect template so that the respective categories are updated. See this example. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I'll remember that. J947^{(c) (m)} 03:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J947. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Mz7 (talk) 08:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mz7 for the prompt response! J947^{(c) (m)} 04:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's September 2017 worldwide online editathons.
		"Hispanic and Latina Women" "Women in the Olympics" "Women from New Zealand"

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Ipigott (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

A tag has been placed on Kaushal dimri requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. —usernamekiran(talk) 04:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not me. J947^{(c) (m)} 04:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Bws7 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Bws7/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The individual who is the subject of this article was the first African American to graduate from Stanford University Medical School, the first African American head of a department at a Harvard-affiliated teaching hospital, the first African American professor of medicine at Yale University, a professor at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard-MIT Division of Health Sciences and Technology, and a Vietnam veteran. All of which is referenced from reliable sources. Yet he doesn't meet the "notability" requirement. And Wikipedia has an article on toilet paper orientation. Well done.

@Bws7: He may well meet the notability requirements. But you have to show that he meets it, through significant coverage in reliable sources. Right now that requirement is not met. I hope this clarify the situation for you. J947^{(c) (m)} 05:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It does not. The sources I've cited are from Brown University, Harvard University, the American Academy of Orthpaedic Surgeons, and the New York Times. I'm not sure which of those fails to meet the standard of "reliable". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bws7 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bws7: Firstly, reliable sources are almost always newspapers. Secondly, the Harvard University source is just a fact-displaying profile. Thirdly, the Brown Alumni Magazine may well be okay for notability, but notability requires multiple sources. Fourthly, the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons source is pretty much a primary source. Fourthly, while the NYT is very reliable and he is there, normally at least 3 (semi-) reliable sources would be safe to have an article like this. Also, please sign your comments. J947^{(c) (m)} 18:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you relisted the AFD discussion for the Trump Orb article, with the given reason being to "generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus". However, consensus seems to be overwhelmingly favorable towards deletion, while the cases being made for keeping have not responded to further scrutiny. Could you explain why you decided to relist it? Mr. Anon515 21:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]