Wikipedia

User talk:Fenix down/Archive 19

< User talk:Fenix down
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Fenix down in topic help needed
Archive 15 ← Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

  Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

  Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

 

  Administrator changes

  Jake Wartenberg
  Emperor • Viridian Bovary
  Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

ASD Gradese

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, the page of ASD Gradese has been deleted, but you removed its name from Template:FVG teamlist. IMHO it's not right because Gradese played in Serie D: in 1955-56 season.Ame71 (talk) 19:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see that edit, if I removed a listing that should be 5her, I'm sorry, please add it back, if I removed it from a navbox then it probably best it stays out as not a useful and to navigation. Fenix down (talk) 20:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

AFD Close

Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

I thought I'd give you the courtesy of at least asking for a more substantive explanation of your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luca Soccer Club (2nd nomination) before I take it to DRV. An out-of-process nomination in contravention of WP:RENOM and a discussion full of references to an inapplicable guideline and a source analysis that was comprehensively debunked, against multiple explanations that the subject meets WP:GNG, with sources that were uncontested. As S Marshall pointed out, it's probably going to DRV anyway. St★lwart111 23:50, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Clear consensus in the discussion to delete. Analysis of sources presented to support GNG was not in favour of keeping. Overwhelming votes and comments indicate this is nor a notable subject. If people present sources for GNG but other editors say they don't meet GNG, consensus is that they don't meet GNG. Whether you think the first AfD should have gone to DRV or not what is not in doubt is that this gng produced a clear consensus. Fenix down (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Also a second thought would be that you might think the first afd should have gone to DRV. You may be right, I'd have relisted it if I had seen it. Bottom line though is that DRV would probably have resulted in a relisting and we seem to have had exactly that. I'm not sure what outcome you think might occur? Fenix down (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Nfitz presented 5 sources in support of the subject meeting GNG, expressly in addition to the ones referenced in the first AFD. None of those were disputed. Henriklars presented an "analysis" of sources which was deeply flawed, and people said so, and he claimed the subject failed GNG on that basis. That analysis and conclusion was disputed by several contributors. A number of the delete contributions didn't reference policy or guidelines, in fact some referenced things expressly not in guidelines ("we don't know player names!"). There was no consensus for deletion, and the discussion should have been relisted or closed as no consensus, especially given the nature of the nomination in the first place. This was system-gaming at its worst. St★lwart111 00:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
And I won't even go into the personal attacks, aspersions, bad faith, and WP:POINTY contributions. St★lwart111 00:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
The problem is that 9 people commented that the subject was not notable and only 3 people argued that it should be kept. In such an instance, the consensus is clear that the subject is not thought to be notable. I can't wade in and start disregarding other people's opinions. There were repeated comments throughout the discussion that sources presented did not support GNG. The original AfD was taken DRV and closed by a separate admin as unnecessary because a properly developed discussion was taking place in this AfD. The exact process per guidelines may not have been followed, but the outcome is still good, namely that a more detailed deletion rational was presented in this discussion, a better analysis of sources was presented and a wider number of editors were involved. I'm sorry you feel that sources presented were sufficient for GNG, other contributors do not and clearly stated this throughout the discussion. There's nothing more to do here. Fenix down (talk) 10:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You beat me to it. Please relist this for further debate. It's not a good close - and in such a debate, where it went to AFD just days earlier, there should to be an extensive closing statement. Nfitz (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
No, this is not a controversial close. Yes the original AfD went to DRV but that was closed by a different individual on the reasonable grounds that this second AFD was already underway and generating a good discussion. The consensus was clear that editors feel the subject is not notable, sources were discussed in detail and rejected as meeting GNG. Even when this was challenged there were continuing delete arguments throughout the whole time the AfD was listed. Fenix down (talk) 21:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with you and I feel that, taking into account all the circumstances and surrounding facts, this was a controversial close as well as a poor outcome. Like my fellow editors above, I too invite you to reconsider this.—S Marshall T/C 09:33, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, there's clear consensus, 9 to 3 in favour of deleting with clear arguments presented. I can't simply ride roughshod over that sort of outcome. Had it 6 to 5 or something much closer then there would have been clear reason to relist, but there simply isn't here. Yes it was a mess that this was renominated so soon after the first nomination, but regardless of that, a much more detailed discussion was had here, as acknowledged in the failed DRV and a new consensus has been achieved. I'm not sure what alternative outcome you expect here? The idea that you can have an AfD where, like this, detailed discussion on both sides takes place, andthere is a 9 to 3 view to delete, but a closing admin somehow decides there either is not consensus or consensus is to keep is simply ridiculous. Fenix down (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
I join issue with you on all of those points. I'm totally unconcerned about the ratio of keeps to deletes, and I'm much more concerned about the abuse of procedure than you are. I find the discussion very poorly detailed, with a lot of credence given to (very new editor) Henriklars' analysis of the sources and a much too-abrupt dismissal of Nfitz'. It's striking how many of those "delete" !voters had a short or indeed very short contribution history. In my view, there's nothing ridiculous at all about a no consensus outcome there; but as I said during the discussion, this is very likely headed to DRV no matter which way it falls.—S Marshall T/C 11:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Saying that it should be deleted on a 9-3 vote, suggests that you have a fundamental misunderstanding how AFD works. WP:GAFD is clear it's not a vote, but a discussion. Of your 9 "delete votes", 7 of them were right at the beginning, before any reasons to keep it were provided. Then there were 3 keep votes, followed by 2 more deletes, one of which seemed a bit pointy. And that ignores that the previous AFD a few days earlier, was almost a snow keep! I'm not saying the discussion is a keep - but it's clearly a relist. Please do so. Nfitz (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Basil

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Can you please relist this one. None of the other participants weighed in after my keep - and I thought the link I provided was so overwhelming, that I didn't think that individual references were necessary - especially given some of the Delete votes, clearly did no Before, only spending seconds considering the article, after their previous edit! I'll add some references. Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

No. Editors had 3 and a half days since your comment and none chipped in with support. The consensus is clear. If you had commented just before the week was up you'd have a point as it could be said that I hadn't allowed time for comment, but you had half the alloted time to seeing if you could get support and you didn't. There's no obligation for editors to respond, especially when they have already clearly said they feel the subject fails GNG. Fenix down (talk) 21:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, please relist - not one of the those that supported deletion spoke up. Only the nominator, who surely carries little weight as they indicated they checked 13,000 references in the 2 minutes since their previous Wikipedia comment, and who seems to see AFD as a battleground, rather than a discussion. Nfitz (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Nfitz please could you share some sources that looked good from the Google search that you ran? Please could you also confirm what 'Ahmed Basil' is in Arabic? I don't believe, if memory serves me, that the Ahmed Basil article had an Arabic translation for his name so I was unable to participate in the AfD. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Spiderone I didn't dig too deep into them, as I felt it was pretty obvious from what I was seeing. The Google search] I used was: "أحمد باسل" "كرة القدم" (which I linked in the AFD). I translated his name as "حمد باسل", but that seems too common, so I also added in "كرة القدم" which translates as "football". If I have time later, I'll pull some specific references. I'm sure I could have spent more time providing details - but there was an overwhelming number of AFDs simultaneous created for Iraqi players - and personally, I never had a chance to review them all. (it's a lot easier if you just tag two a minute with Delete - I'm not sure how that's even allowed! I appreciate that you didn't comment without being able to check properly!) Nfitz (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
Nfitz - the best source that I could find in a quick look was this magazine. Certainly, if something else with a similar level of coverage could be found then it meets the multiple sources requirement and we should look at seeing if the discussion should be reopened or if a draft space copy should be restored or something. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
SpideroneEither way, there should have been a relist to consider the sources - especially given the extreme amount of AFDs that had been listed, and the poor quality of many of the 'hit-and-run' delete votes. Worst case scenario - an article that's been there for a long time lasts an extra week or two. Nfitz (talk) 21:03, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review for Luca Soccer Club

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Luca Soccer Club. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —S Marshall T/C 12:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

  Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit and undelete a page.

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

You deleted one of my pages previously. I am currently working on updates for KC NWSL players (now KC Current NWSL) for the 2021-and 2022 seasons and would like to edit and have undeleted the article for Tristin Stuteville as she was signed to the team last month, making her a pro soccer player, adding additional work she has done in the community, additional history on her work as a pro coach at the Division 1 NCAA level, and her upcoming work as a talent scout for Major League soccer's (MLS) NXT program. She will become the first and only female talent scout for the MLS (notable and newsworthy). Coupled with her pro playing career this should meet any previous concerns brought up when discussing the previous deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athleteskc (talk • contribs) 21:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I can see an AfD for this individual. However, I can't just undelete an article. To be honest, there's nothing in what you have said to indicate she is notable by any current guideline, simply being female in a post is not something that makes one notable, and the positions you are saying she will hold are not pnes that normally make someone notable.You are free to create an article in your own draft space however and I would recommend you take this through WP:AFC to get an independent view on your submission. Fenix down (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Having been signed to a professional team in the top women's league in the world does not qualify? How would that be any different than any other player on an NWSL roster? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athleteskc (talk • contribs) 18:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Signing means nothing, all players have to play to be notable per NFOOTBALL. You'd need to provide a source indicate an appearance in a competitive game between two fully professional team. Has she played? If so I'm happy to restore the article to your draft space. Fenix down (talk) 18:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Perfect, that's the guidance I was looking for . I don't want to spin my wheels with this player and others, like Allie Hess , just to have the pages deleted. I am excited to do the work and contribute, but as I said I don't want to waste my time or anybody else's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athleteskc (talk • contribs) 18:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I restored this thread as, since I'm an admin I think it is good practice for all my threads on my talk page to remain so they are properly archived for future reference. If she plays, let me know and I will restore to your draft page and you can work on the article complete with other people's history and move to mainspace. Fenix down (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

few pages needed

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://int.soccerway.com/teams/bhutan/druk-lhayul/53488/

Like this in bpl (logo on club fb) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.140.236.228 (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Tbh I have not been paying much attention to Bhutanese football for a while but can see there have been a number of changes, I'll try to update logos when I can if no one gets in before me. Fenix down (talk) 20:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

 

  Administrator changes

  A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

  Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Arianna Criscione

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Could you return the previously deleted article Arianna Criscione to draft? She's appeared for Italy NT so meets WP:NFOOTY. Seany91 (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Sure, no problem, can you provide a link confirming this. If she has made a full internationall, then I would be happy restoring her straight to the mainspace. Fenix down (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
[1], [2] and others all refer to her as former Italy international with caps, and her page on Italian/French WP show her having won three caps for Italy NT between 2011 to 2014. So it appears her English WP article shouldn't have been deleted. Seany91 (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Seany91, sorry for the delay. Looking at her appearances the tournaments appear to be invitationals. Can you confirm that they were official sanctioned fifa matches? Happy to take your word for it but I'm not sure myself. I'm presuming so, but not certain. Fenix down (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
No worries, though I'm not sure why this matters because WP:NFOOTY doesn't distinguish between caps earned in friendlies or not. Also one of the sources above is directly from FIFA. Seany91 (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
It matters because all internationals, friendly or not have to be officially sanctioned Tier 1 matches, which not all invitational tournaments are. the fact that she is described on the FIFA website as an international doesn't confirm this. I'm sure they are but as they are clearly described as invitational tournaments, it would be good to confirm they are offcialt tier 1 matches. Fenix down (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Bhutan national under-17 football team results for deletion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bhutan national under-17 football team results, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhutan national under-17 football team results until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Bhutan national under-20 football team results for deletion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bhutan national under-20 football team results, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhutan national under-20 football team results until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
A token of thanks
Hi Fenix down! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
 

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

  Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Thanks for the page template that would be my user page as well :-)

Kingoptimizer (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Notification of discussion at VP and indirect mention

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. You are also indirectly mentioned in this comment. JoelleJay (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. To be honest I don't think I will be getting involved in that discussion in any way. As an admin who, despite a significantly reduced level of activity, mainly is involved in closing afd, making much in the way of contribution could be seen as trying to shape future outcomes which I then enact, leading to potential conflicts of interest. That and NSPORT is crystal clear that it doesn't supercede gng, so it is editors behaviours not guidelines that need changing. E.g. even though nfooty is only a presumption of gng, if a player passes nfooty but has no third party coverage of significance, he can still be kept if fans weigh in and simply say "passes nfooty". Fenix down (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Understood, and I certainly didn't expect you to participate given how involved you are as an admin. I just figured if I'm citing some closes of yours as examples I ought to notify you. Regards, JoelleJay (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for James Cook (footballer, born 1885)

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of James Cook (footballer, born 1885). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Natg 19 (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:New Radiant SC.png

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:New Radiant SC.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of Maardu FC Starbunker.png

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo of Maardu FC Starbunker.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:47, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Question about international caps?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey, since you know a lot about the NFOOTY guideline, I had a question about the Rewenig caps. It looks like he only has 4 that were FIFA-official, not 24, which seems like a big difference with regards to how "much" he meets that guideline? If Konter's excluded from the most-capped Luxembourgish players because 48 of his games were against B teams or in amateur tournaments, wouldn't that also exclude most of Rewenig's games? Plus the fact that obviously anyone playing in Luxembourg would have "international" playtime, for want of domestic opponents... Thanks! JoelleJay (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. My understanding is that a players international caps only count when they are in official FIFA class A matches, Including friendlies, or similar matches arranged at a continental level in instances where the player plays for a FIFA nation but is playing a nation, e.g. Micronesia who are AFC members but not FIFA members. Quantity makes no difference here though, a single cap is sufficient.
I am kind of following the discussion currently but I have not been involved yet because os simply don't have time to wade through the numerous tangents currently developing. To my mind though there is definitely scope for considerable tightening of NFOOTY with regards to club appearances, but in terms of international appearances, where a player has featured in a top level international match, we should be taking an approach similar to NACADEMIC and say that this individual, having appeared at the highest possible level is inherently notable because of that by definition. Fenix down (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

help needed

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

see my latest edits and try to keeppages trustworthy, sadly registered user goes against facts due own frustration, nothing tried works so far... this shouldnt be alowed here. kind regards! 93.143.105.184 (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Cross-wiki harassment from 93.143.73.189. Nehme1499 12:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

innocent users reading affected pages didnt deserve your vandalism revert so good luck, make all locked ill be back until alive ale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.143.105.184 (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is anything for me to do here is there? Fenix down (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fenix_down/Archive_19&oldid=1071749771"