User talk:Fenix down/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Orphaned non-free image File:Hurriya SC.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Hurriya SC.gif. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:45, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

uwcl again

So I ask about restoring that 2017–18 UEFA Women's Champions League again (better: moving the userfied version to mainspace). Yesterday the English champions were decided. People are interested in the article now. Changes to version mentioned in deletion review are +five teams, +final stadium known, plus UEFA mentioning the next edition on official channels. It is definitely "going ahead". -Koppapa (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Fenix down:. Have you read this? Look, UEFA talking about teams qualified to next version on their main page. Also I added two more teams. -Koppapa (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Koppapa, sorry for the delay, meant to reply but it slipped my mind. I don't see why this shouldn't now be moved to the mainspace, there are clear references confirming it is taking place. I'd fix the bare URL ref in source 1 though, but don't see any problems regarding notability or crystal now. Fenix down (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Are you able to restore it? -Koppapa (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Have restored it from your userspace. Not accusing you of being lazy or anything, but were you not able to move it yourself? I presumed you could which is why I didn't move it when I last replied. Fenix down (talk) 14:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Palindrome

Notifying all named accounts who have edited this article this year. There is a discussion of whether this article should contain foreign language palindromes. If you would like to comment the thread is Talk:Palindrome#Non-English_palindromes_2 Meters (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Block request

In light of this and this, would you mind blocking the offender. Cheers, Number 57 09:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

48 hours to cool off. Does seem like he does want to contribute in a worthwhile way, sort of, but I agree language like that is not acceptable. Fenix down (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

NMI national team

Hi, NMI have never played a official international football match as per [national-football-teams.com]. Please refrain from reverting edits. Simione001 (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Please see your talk page for my response and additional comments on your general editing conduct which I find unacceptable. Fenix down (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Responded. Simione001 (talk) 08:29, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Responded. I dont agree with you threatening to block me. Simione001 (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Continued discussion. Simione001 (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Invite to the African Destubathon

Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Nominations for deletion

The following articles have been nominated for deletion:

Tyce Mister Dale Roberts (Northern Mariana Island footballer) Daniel Stafford Vince Stravino Daniel Westphal

Thanks. Simione001 (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

So, we discussed this at length last time. As perfectly plausible search terms, can you explain why you did not simply redirect them to the oldest players section of the national team? Can I ask that you do so and request for the AfD to be closed? Fenix down (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Because I dont agree. Simione001 (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Steven McKagen

I have renominated this for deletion as it was voted to be deleted in the previous AfD. Simione001 (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

So why have you nominated a redirect at AfD. The correct place is RfD. Suggest you ask for the discussion to be closed and nominate at the correct place. Fenix down (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

So it's not particularly helpful simply to start deletion discussions in the wrong place (you should check WP:RFD for guidance, but I can see from the other articles where I have stated I think things should be redirected that this is not echoed by other editors. I think the best course of action is to let these discussions take their course and then start a wider discussion about the extent to which a redirect is appropriate per WP:RPURPOSE, particularly the point in the guideline which notes Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. Fenix down (talk) 09:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Please take a look at the bottom of my Talk page

There I explain my revert at Belgium national football team to the user King Philip V of Spain. Then you will understand the rationale of my revert. Hopefully it can convince you too. Cheers, Kareldorado (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

• News and notes: Fundraising, flora and fauna

• Discussion report: Cultivating leadership: Wikimedia Foundation seeks input

• In the media: A news columnist on the frustrations of tweaking his Wikipedia bio

• Technology report: Upcoming tech projects for 2017

• Featured content: Variety is the spice of life

• Traffic report: Debates and escapes

• Recent research: A 2011 study resurfaces in a media report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Havnar Bóltfelag (Women)

Hi Fenix down. I removed the logo from this article because it lacks the non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c. My edit sum did not mention No. 17 of WP:NFC#UUI. If the file had a non-free use rationale for the article, then I wouldn't have removed it; I would have brought it up for discussion at WP:FFD instead. If you feel the file's non-free use is justified for the article, please add the appropriate non-free use rationale. You might also want to check, KÍ Klaksvík (women) and Brøndby IF (women) since those use are also missing non-free use rationales. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Asian 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 02:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

lu bangsat lu bodoh lu kimak lu pantat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:E68:4425:A3BA:A930:6AAE:BF29:FCAE (talk) 07:52, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

• News and notes: Finally, a new CTO; trustee joins Quora; copyright upgrade impending

• In the media: Washington Post continues in-depth Wikipedia coverage

• Wikicup: WikiCup winners

• Discussion report: What's on your tech wishlist for the coming year?

• Technology report: New guideline for technical collaboration; citation templates now flag open access content

• Featured content: Cream of the crop

• Traffic report: Un-presidential politics

• Arbitration report: Recapping October's activities

• Recent research: Why women edit less, and where they are overrepresented; article importance and quality; predicting elections from Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 06:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Non-free soccer logos missing rationales

Hi Fenix down. Would you mind taking a look at some non-free files when you have a spare moment or two. I am asking you based up a suggestion you made in our recent discussion about Havnar Bóltfelag.

Anyway, these are all soccer logos which are missing rationales for one of more articles. I have tagged them with {{di-missing some article links}}. They all seem to be missing non-free use rationales for reserve/youth/B team articles and previous discussion at NFCR/FFD have typically not allowed such use per No. 17 of NFC#UUI, which is why I did not add the rationales myself. If you feel there are extenuating circumstances which justify the non-free use of these files in any of the articles missing a rationale, then please provide the rationale. If you think further discussion is needed at FFD, then please let me know add I will nominate them. FWIW, I did check through the articles' edit histories to try and find out who added them to the articles missing rationales, and added a notification template to the editor's respective user talk page. The files are as follows: File:Nkmaribor 2013.png, File:NK Renče.png, File:Olympiacos FC logo.svg, File:Valenciacf.svg, File:PSV Eindhoven.svg, File:ND Slovan.png and File:Novara Calcio logo.svg.

In addition to the above, File:ZeleznicarLjubljana.png and File:Nkbranik.png are also missing rationales, but not for other soccer articles; they are missing rationales for articles about other sports. File:AC Milan.svg does have a rationale for it's reserve team, but I do not think this is valid because of No. 17. I was going to nominate it for discussion at FFD, but I figured I might as well get some feedback on it from you as well. File:Slovenialogo.png is missing a rationale for Slovenia women's national football team. I know we've disagreed on this type of usage before, but I am not bringing it up here because of No. 17. Rather, I am bringing up because of WP:NFCC#1 due to File:Football Association of Slovenia logo.png being available on Commons. I do understand that there are some slight differences between the two files, but I'm not sure if that is enough for the non-free is needed since both files essentially serve the same encyclopedic purpose. If the non-free, however, is the more accurate representation of the NZS's logo, then perhaps either (1) the Commons version should be removed altogether or (2) the non-free version should be moved to the federation's article and the Commons's version to the team articles. Finally, File:All India Football Federation 2016.png is a new updated version of a file which was removed by Explicit per Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 6#File:India FA.svg. I did not add the rationale because even though the file is different, the non-free use is basically the same as the older file; however, you are an admin and if you feel the situation has changed since the FFD, then perhaps Explicit will reconsider his close or the non-free use of the new file can be discussed at FFD.

Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, thanks for your message, sorry it took me a while to get back but wanted to make sure I had time to look at all of them. To address your questions one by one:

1. First lot: NK Maribor to Novara Calcio. In this instance, I can't see a way around NFC#UUI17. If we accept that the men's / women's first teams are the physical manifestation of the intangible notion of "the club", then it is undeniable that Reserve, youth, B teams, etc are child entities of the first team. I would suggest that these be removed. The link to the main first team article which is present in all these articles suffices as a means of aiding the reader understand what article they have come to
2. File:ZeleznicarLjubljana.png and File:Nkbranik.png. A more tricky situation. Here, i would argue that, since we do not conventionally write article on omnisport clubs, that it is difficult to say. My view is that in this instance logos can be used for all first teams across all sports where the team itself is notable enough for an article. However, where an article exists on the overall Omnisport club, which I don't see that it does for either of these clubs, it is probably best to keep use minimal by only using it for the omnisport article.
3. AC Milan. Would suggest not valid per my comments above. Challenges that it makes it obvious which club is being referred to here I don't think are valid, a simple hat note to the first team at the top of the article can clarify.
4. Slovenia. I would suggest here, looking at slWiki that they are being used for the right articles. The commons logo seems to specifically be the FA logo, whereas the other badge, looking at google to be what is worn on the shirt. I would suggest for the non-free one that it is reasonable to use it both on the men's and women's teams. I don't think a discussion on which one, if either should take precedent is one that is going to gain much wider traction, so would suggest that the men's and women's teams be treated as of equal status from a parent / child standpoint. For futsal, I would want to keep it as a separate sport rather than a child entity, but probably it would be better to use the commons logo here for minimal useage given the similarity between the two files.
5. India. I don't see any particular change. Although I would like to see logos on all of the national teams because I think they are much more likely to be viewed than the federation themselves, the current consensus is different. To my mind, if there is no substantial discussion of the logo in the context of the team then I don't think consensus would indicate that the file should be used. This is however, a purely theoretical argument. In practice, I think it extremely unlikely that this is enforceable in the long term. I have seen numerous examples of logos being removed under similar circumstances only to be added back shortly after and which then remain.

Hope this is helpful. Fenix down (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at these. The AC Milan logo does have a rationale. Being bold and removing it from the reserve team's article would not be wrong in my opinion, but it's probably best to discuss this at FFD just to see what others think. Do you know if there's anything in the FOOTY MOS which discusses this kind of logo use?

As for the other files tagged with "missing some articles", a rationale was added for NK Maribor B with this edit, but the file was removed from the article with this edit. The rationale was added after the file was removed, so it's probably just two editors trying to resolve the issue in good faith. This file's usage will likely also need to be resolved via FFD. Rationales were also added for File:Valenciacf.svg, so again probably something that should be discussed at FFD. The remaining files are still as they were when I tagged them and can be removed from the articles lacking rationales after a week has passed.

I agree that the omnisport logos are a probably OK as long as there is no main article for each parent organization, but not if there is. So, I guess the omnisport articles will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Your suggestion regarding the Slovenia files seems workable to me. These also could be discussed at FFD just to see what others have to say, but maybe being bold is fine here. The India logo is a bit trickier since it the former version was removed by consensus via FFD, but technically this is a different file. One possible problem with allowing the use of the Slovenia and India logos, however, might be that it is seen by some as being "unfair" and "inconsistent". So, maybe an FFD would be a good idea just to give the community more chance for input. If the consensus turns out to be overwhelmingly in favor for the non-free use of such logos in these articles, then maybe that could be seen as the community sort of "reassessing"how No. 17 should be applied in such cases, which in turn might allow some logos previously removed via FFD to be "re-FFD'd" to reflect the new interpretation. On the other hand, if the consensus is clearly against such usage, then that would be a reaffirmation of the current interpretation of No. 17 with respect to such usage.

Finally a bit of personal soap boxing, I think there's always going to be differences between policy and actual practice when it comes to non-free use, especially as long as the WMF is content to stand on the sidelines and let editors try and sort things out. I can kind of understand why the WMF decided to allow non-free use and in principal think it's a good thing. Wikipedia, however, has grown quite a lot since that time and now the basic assumption by much of the community seems to be that the use of any image (freely licensed or otherwise) is by default automatic when it comes to articles. So, maybe it's time to not only re-assess No. 17, but all of the NFCC to determine whether it should be revised to reflect current practice. All this would be much easier if the copyright experts at the WMF would simply chime in and provide some guidance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Fenix down.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Fenix down. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

• News and notes: Arbitration Committee elections commence

• In the media: Roundup of news related to U.S. presidential election and more

• Blog: The top fifteen winning photos from Wiki Loves Earth

• Gallery: Around the world with Wiki Loves Monuments 2016

• Featured content: Featured mix

• Special report: Taking stock of the Good Article backlog

• Op-ed: Fundraising data should be more transparent

• Traffic report: President-elect Trump

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Notable players removal

I noticed that you have removed Removed lists of Famous / Notable players from most or all of the Western Australian teams, citing lack of defined criteria from guidelines as per the Manual of Style. Can you please advise me on what format is really needed, and maybe one or two examples of club articles that do list appropriate criteria (which I can use as a guide), so that I can look at building these sections back up in a more acceptable way? Thanks. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, any criteria will do; international caps, X appearances, X goals. I think the key thing is firstly that the level for satisfying the criteria is not so low that the list becomes too long and secondly that the criteria are clear enough that a reader understands why players are listed and an editor knows whether they should include another player or not. I would caveat that with my opinion that if a player is really that notable they should really be discussed in sourced prose in the article to be of most use to the reader. That said, I personally would not remove any list as long as there were clear criteria and the list was either referenced or the players had their own article where the criteria can be verified. Fenix down (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, then. Can you please give me 1 or 2 links to club articles where the lists do meet these criteria, so i can use as a guide so that anything I rebuild is likely deemed acceptable ? Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I have also seen that its not just Western Australian NPL sites you have done this to, you have made ~240 such deletions over the past 2 months. Obviously this purge has been for a reason. I will make some changes for a couple of articles later this week, focusing on players who have their own articles and are thus already deemed 'notable', and then seek some additional comment from you. I agree that sourced prose per each notable player is the desired eventual outcome, but an acceptable list as a 'stub' is a start that can later be added to via prose. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Correct, the reason for the removal, per the manual of style, is that a list of players without any inclusion criteria is actually an impediment to the reader understanding the article as they have no idea why players have been included / excluded. I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, but I would strongly advise against creating lists of notable players based on whether they are notable per WP standards as this simply recreates a category page. As an example of a helpful and clear list, I would suggest something like this. Although I am not a fan of these lists really, I can see how this can be useful for the following reasons:

1. It contains a link to the category page so all players who have played for the club can be searched.
2. It contains a link to an overall list of all players / foreign players (though these are only deemed necessary for clubs playing in fully professional leagues)
3. There are clear inclusion criteria and in this instance all of them need to be satisfied
4. All players have WP articles so whether they meet the inclusion criteria can be readily verified
5. The inclusion criteria restrict the number of eligible players to a reasonable length such that the list does not cause imbalance to the overall article.

Happy for to look at anything you do and provide feedback if you want. Fenix down (talk) 09:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 1 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the Tacoma Stars (1983–92) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the Baton Rouge Bombers page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

• Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
• Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Timor players list

Hi Fenix. I understand that you are looking after the page for the East Timor national football team. However, I think you should consider taking down the list of Brazilian players using a Timorese passport. A reference/citation has been provided for every one of them. In some case, two were provided. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomsonNotThompson (talk • contribs) 11:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

They were not references confirming the suspicion of illegal activity. You can't make statements stating people are suspected of crimes without linking to sources specifically discussing this suspicion. The links you provided were merely to websites confirming that these were players who had played for the national team. Fenix down (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

That makes sense. Why don't we change the first line then to say "At least twenty-four Brazilians players have Timorese passports. They are:..."? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomsonNotThompson (talk • contribs) 11:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

That would not solve the issue, can you provide a source that is both reliable and also lists these players under suspicion clearly stating such? If you can I am happy to unprotect the article to allow you to edit it. Fenix down (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Here is one: http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/east-timorese-football-accused-corruption/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomsonNotThompson (talk • contribs) 11:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any of those players named in that source. Please also remember to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ at the end of your message. Fenix down (talk) 11:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Fenix down: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

• Year in review: Looking back on 2016

• News and notes: Strategic planning update; English ArbCom election results

• Special report: German ArbCom implodes

• In focus: Active user page filter prevents vandalism and harassment

• Op-ed: Operation successful, patient dead: Outreach workshops in Namibia

• In the media: In brief: Coverage of gender gap initiatives, banner fundraising, and more

• Featured content: The Christmas edition

• Technology report: Labs improvements impact 2016 Tool Labs survey results

• Traffic report: Post-election traffic blues

• Blog: Wiki Loves Monuments contest winners announced

• Recent research: One study and several abstracts

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)

The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact L235 if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Fenix down!

Happy New Year!

Fenix down,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Donner60 (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Reference errors on 4 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Esteghlal F.C. page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

• From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost

• News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?

• Interview: What is it like to edit Wikipedia when you're blind?

• In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more

• Featured content: One year ends, and another begins

• Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases

• Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new

• Technology report: Tech present, past, and future

• Recent research: Female Wikipedians aren't more likely to edit women biographies; Black Lives Matter in Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

• Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy

• Special report: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

• News and notes: Official WMF rebuke to Trump policy; WMF secures restricted funds

• In focus: WMF strategy consultant brings background in crisis reputation management; Team behind popular WMF software put "on pause"

• WikiProject report: For the birds!

• Op-ed: How to make editing workshops useful, even if participants don't stick around

• In the media: Presidential politics, periodic table, and our periodic roundup of updates

• Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes

• Traffic report: Cool It Now

• Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles

• Forum: Productive collaboration around coordinated protest marches; Media and political personalities comment on Wikipedia at its 16th birthday celebration

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 America East Conference men's soccer season Part 2

I, like the user above, also have concerns with this AfD. Unlike Nfitz, my concern is that one of the dissenters has now gone and re-created 10 of the 11 deleted articles specified in the discussion. I've been on Wikipedia for over 10 years and I've not encountered anything like this before. I would have to guess this flies in the face of some rule(s) in which I'm not well versed? As someone who deals a bit more in the deletion process, can you please advise? I appreciate it. GauchoDude (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit: I didn't count the original AfD article in the tally above. The user re-created 10 of 12 articles. GauchoDude (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit 2: After reviewing the user's contributions, it appears they have done the same thing over your other ruling for many of the articles in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 America East Conference men's soccer season. GauchoDude (talk) 15:08, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit 3: Sorry for stalking, I mistakenly entitled this incorrectly. The original AfD I was referring to is located here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978 VCU Rams men's soccer team. GauchoDude (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I have CSD'd the recreations and warned the user. The correct way to deal with this is through WP:DRV. Fenix down (talk) 15:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 America East Conference men's soccer season

I'm a bit concerned about your close in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 America East Conference men's soccer season. You closed the discussion the day after it was relisted "more thorough discussion and clearer consensus", when no one had yet commented. You also closed it on the basis that "Claims below that the articles pass WP:NSEASONS are erroneous" when no one mentioned that in the debate. In fact, no one said it passed WP:NSEASONS either, if you read the wording closely. I'd suggest that you either comment on the open debate, and we have a discussion. Or you close it based on the discussion itself, rather than your opinion, which wasn't raised in the discussion. Nfitz (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You wrote this: season not tournament. Seems notable enough. then this (when asked for an expansion) WP:NSEASONS defines when for college sports teams, an individual season for the top collegiate level is notable. Surely then it goes without saying that the season article for the entire league is notable! You were the only person who mentioned NSEASONS. If what you wrote is not saying "Keep per NSEASONS" I am not sure what it means? If this was not what you meant, then I would suggest you are much more careful with your wording. Moreover, my comment on NSEASONS was merely one of several comments I made outlining my view in an attempt to deal with all opinions against the original rationale.

Furthermore, one admin keeping an AfD open does not give it a fixed additional window of grace. I had not seen the AfD before, but when I reviewed it I felt that firstly there had been no successful attempt by any keep-voter to show GNG, or outline why any of the complaints originally put forward in the deletion rationale were incorrect. Secondly, with it already having been extended once and with the total AfD having been open for nearly three weeks, I did not see, since there was not a single third-party source in any of the articles, that any additional arguments were likely to be forthcoming that would satisfy GNG. Fenix down (talk) 15:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

My perhaps poorly worded point is, that we could divide articles like 2016 America East Conference men's soccer season into articles for each team; and we have notability criteria that for such articles, and an article for the top teams in this conference would likely be notable. Therefore, doesn't it go without saying that the parent article is also notable? Nfitz (talk) 02:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, sorry it took a while to reply. In theory yes, if you could show GNG / NSEASONS for each team then I would agree, a conference season summary article would not only be notable in itself but would also be useful from an aggregation point of view. In practice however, this wouldn't really work. I can't see an instance where even the majority of teams in any given conference would fulfill even one of the criteria laid out in NSEASONS. For the first two, only one team could by definition as it requires a team to be national champions. For the third, there could definitely be more, but in the seasons noted in the AfD, I see only a couple of teams at most progressing to the NCAA Div 1 Championship and obviously the fourth is specific to a handful of programs. That said though it would probably be worthwhile discussing at WT:FOOTY a proper guideline for competition seasons rather than relying on an interpretation of a guideline meant for something slightly different. Fenix down (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem, I often don't check in for a few days. One hand I see your point, on the other, I don't really agree about the close. Nfitz (talk) 02:15, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't either, so I have disputed the claim as well as his claim on the VCU seasons. You can find it here, Nfitz. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know...

seeing the remarks on your militant deletions, you're making it looks like you're pretty much in the wrong here. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Just so you know, AfD isn't a vote. All the articles fail NSEASONS for reasons which I made abundantly clear in my closing rationale. furthermore, I could not find any indication in any articles of significant coverage outside of primary sources, no attempt in the discussion to show GNG, nor any attempt to include independant sources in the article during the discussion. Fenix down (talk) 16:17, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Talk pages

Just wanted to give you the heads up. When you deleted the recreations from these two afd's (thanks for that btw), you missed most of the associated talk pages. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm just going through them now. Fenix down (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of 2014 Palau Soccer League for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2014 Palau Soccer League 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/2014 Palau Soccer League until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Unsourced squad lists

Any chance you could protect Barnstaple Town F.C. and Bideford A.F.C. due to an IP repeatedly adding unsourced squad lists? I tried RFPP, but as usual it was no use. Cheers, Number 57 13:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Disputed deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978 VCU Rams men's soccer team

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1978 VCU Rams men's soccer team (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

No consensus was reached, and furthermore CRYSTALBALL is a bad reason to delete an article unless every 2017 article for every sport is nominated for deletion. If that's where you're getting at, I'll happily nominate every sports team season article, regardless of sport, for deletion. Quidster4040 (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

when the team is not competing at a level to satisfy NSEASONS, the article needs to satisfy GNG. It cannot satisfy GNG by definition prior to the season actually starting. Therefore WP:CRYSTAL is particularly relevant here. Fenix down (talk) 16:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

How do we feel about this? Surely smashing many non-notable articles (with borderline exceptions for NCAA appearances in 2012 and 2013) into one article still leaves the article non-notable? Just because there happens to be a ton more information doesn't make the topic any more notable, or is there more forgiveness given as it covers a large swath of time? GauchoDude (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of 2016 NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship Game for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2016 NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship Game 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/2016 NCAA Division I Men's Soccer Championship Game until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. GLenhart1 (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

On this day, 2 years ago...

Wishing Fenix down/Archive 8 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Lepricavark (talk) 03:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted article

About a year ago, you speedy deleted the article on Esoh Paul Omogba twice. Could you tell me which editor created the article? Thanks. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, not had much time for WP recently. The first time it was deleted the creator was a user called Ryanaphon and the second time it was a user called Tatsuta Suzuki. Fenix down (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you double check the second name again? When I check the contributions for Tatsuta Suzuki (talk · contribs) it says the user account is not registered. Sir Sputnik (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

• From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed

• Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education

• Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app

• In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia

• Gallery: A Met montage

• Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers

• Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer

• Featured content: The dominance of articles continues

• Traffic report: Love, football, and politics

• Blog: WikiIndaba 2017: A continent gathers to chart a path forward

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

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.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)