User talk:Premeditated Chaos/Archive 14

Re from ChieftanTaurus' talk

Hi, thanks for the answer. As I explained to CT himself, I was tricked due to divergent local policy, but (contrarily to his assumption), I reverted his removal in good faith. Yes, I agree about the snappy comment and, actually, the initial message to Fire90 was IMHO quite snappy as well. Thanks again, --Daimona Eaytoy (Talk) 09:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm gonna say the same thing to you I said to him on his talk page: it's almost always better to talk rather than to template. I understand from your point of view what happened, but dropping a "welcome to Wikipedia" template on anyone with more than say, 5 edits, is usually considered somewhat insulting. Templates like that are almost guaranteed to start the conversation off on the wrong note. Neither of you is 100% in the right. I would let the matter drop. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts, I appreciate it and I strongly agree with that. Unfortunately, the way CT replied to Fire90 looked really pricky to me (also given the motivation, which to me was absolutely trivial), and thus made me act a bit too impulsively. I have no trouble in saying that I don't know enough en.wiki policies, thus I tried to cling to a standardized template, which would probably have explained the situation much better than me (even though I misunderstood its application field). That "welcome to Wikipedia" looked seriously ridicoulous, but I really didn't want to give a stronger warning, since this wasn't even close to an upper-level warning situation. Anyway yes, recognising errors from both sides, better to end this up. Thanks again for your help, and for "moderating" a situation which may have ended up in bad ways. BTW, although my username is quite deceiving, I'm a man, but don't worry, you're not the first (nor you'll be the last) to think that :-) --Daimona Eaytoy (Talk) 12:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Just a personal curiosity: is it comfortable to let users delete contents from their own talks? Isn't it confusing if, let's say, you would like to continue a discussion but the other user erased it? Asking because I couldn't really imagine this was possible.--Daimona Eaytoy (Talk) 12:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

First, apologies for misgendering you. I get that all the time and it drives me crazy so I'm sorry I did it to you.

Second, yeah, en.wiki considers a user's talk page to be their own and gives them discretion to remove things from it. I agree it can be confusing, but I think it's generally understood that if someone removes or archives a discussion, they don't want to continue it. Unless it's a fairly serious matter, usually best to just note that and drop it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry I said :-) I would have been mislead myself, probably. And yes, I agree with what you say, however (very personal thought) this implies some kind of strong faith towards users, which may only keep comments they agree with and delete the others without breaking any rule. You know, I'm used with a completely diferent policy, where even if the page is yours, other users' comments aren't. It's always interesting to talk about different ways of handling such situations. Thanks again, --Daimona Eaytoy (Talk) 22:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Delirium Sandman.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Delirium Sandman.jpg. 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) 18:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hoax spotting

Thanks and well done for your research challenging the page now archived at Spanish tickler! This is currently the second longest-standing hoax listed at WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I saw! That's pretty cool, although I'm a touch disappointed I missed the top spot by only a month ;) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Revdelete needed at Oshun

Hello! I saw your revdelete at Delilah a few days ago and I thought I would tell you that one is currently needed in the article Oshun. An editor copied and pasted the Encyclopedia Britannica article into it and the revision needs to be deleted. I was wondering if you could take care of that for me, since I do not have the ability. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, I got caught up in some ArbCom stuff and it slipped my mind. Glad to see that Dianaa took care of it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Smack Happy Design

Hi, I tried to create a page for Smack Happy Design: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Smack_Happy_Design&action=edit&redlink=1

I'm a little confused about the reasons for taking it down. Could you help me make it better?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhanusek (talk • contribs) 00:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It was deleted because it was mostly copy and pasted from the Smack Happy Design website, which is a copyright violation and is not allowed. It also had elements of promotionalism, which is not allowed under our policy on advertising. If you have significant, in-depth, independent reliable sources that show that the company would meet our criteria for inclusion for businesses, or our general notability guideline, then we may consider including an article about the company. Otherwise, no. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Language

I need to learn English, sorry for asking once more. "X is indefinitely banned from removing or discussing the addition or removal of windows." You translate to "X is indefinitely banned from removing windows and discussing the addition or removal of windows." I don't arrive at that, whichever way I set brackets, depending on which of the 2 "or" means what. I get to 1) "X is indefinitely banned from (removing or discussing) the addition or removal of windows." (removing the addition??) or 2) "X is indefinitely banned from removing or (discussing the addition or removal of windows)." (removing what??) - How can we simple folks follow when logic is missing? Even if it won't pass, that should be worded unambiguously, for posterity ;) - It's 5 years today that I suggested something for Bach (on his birthday) - which caused an uproar then but happened after a while, and not by me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It might have been slightly clearer with commas, as in "X is indefinitely banned from removing, or discussing the addition or removal of, windows." It's a valid construction in English; it just sticks two sentences together without needing to be repetitive. Here it's just slightly more complex because the second clause is a whole phrase unto itself. Something like "X is indefinitely banned from opening or closing windows" is a simpler example, if that helps make sense? Except in our case "or closing windows" has been replaced with the slightly more complex "or discussing the addition or removal of windows." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that helps. Coming from German, the comma before "windows", having "of" for the second term, but not for the first one, seems strange. Accepted. Don't try such a thing in German ;) - I wonder what else I don't know about English grammar. - Different question: in case such a thing passes, may I put "my" removed windows back. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

By the wording of Remedy 3 as written, "this includes a prohibition against adding, deleting, or collapsing an infobox," so no. But as written, that restriction for Cassianto specifically and wouldn't apply to you or any other editor.

That being said, if you found yourself under the fairly similar restriction of infobox probation, as written in Remedy 1.1, you would be indefinitely restricted from "restoring an infobox that has been deleted" per the second bullet point of that remedy. That would apply equally to any article, including articles you have created or expanded. But that's only if you wound up under probation in the first place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear: by "my" i meant one I added but X removed. See Psalm 149, for example. Longish conversation about it in my 2018 talk archive. - Why would I be under probation? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

In this purely hypothetical situation:

If X is under probation or the Remedy 3 wording, then X can't remove infoboxes in the first place and the action should be reported as a violation of their sanction.

If X is not under probation or the Remedy 3 wording at the time of the removal, there is nothing stopping them from removing an infobox.

If you are not under probation in this situation, then there is nothing stopping you from enacting step two of WP:BRD and reverting the removal of the infobox. However, if you and X wind up in an edit war about removing or restoring the infobox, then an uninvolved admin could put you and X on infobox probation (along with any other participants in this hypothetical edit war), which would then restrict you all from removing or replacing infoboxes in future.

The situation I'm describing above is purely hypothetical, and I have not looked at the discussion you linked me, because I don't want to be accused of coloring my answer one way or another based on that discussion. Also in that vein, I'm not comfortable going into any more detail with this hypothetical situation, because that's all it is - hypothetical. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

This is truly hypothetical. I have not edit-warred in my whole career, and don't plan to do so. At present, I live happily with voluntary 1RR, and for infoboxes even 0RR (when an IP reverted on Requiem (Duruflé), a friend reverted once, thinking the IP didn't know what they were doing. Turned out they knew exactly. Most pointy discussion of 2017 if you ask me.) Now: X reverted on the psalm, twice (another IP stepped in). Could I give up my (voluntary) 0RR on the grounds that the revert was kind of "wrong", being by someone who was later restricted from such reverts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I understand your point about not wanting to see a discussion to avoid a biased answer, but think you could still read it, and see that pro and anti people can still talk. Alex Shih also took part. (It was before the case request.) I think you should look at the Requiem because SchroCat mentioned the same example in which he didn't take part. - No answer expected, take care. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Today's featured article: The Age of Reason, by a user who died, on a funeral day for me, - just to hint at my mood. - Looking at the arb case: it seems to aim for solving a war which I fail to see, - all I see is something like ten attempts per year (may be even not so many) to get rid of a longstanding infobox. Waiting for the age of reason. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about your loss, but Gerda, I think this thread has reached the point where it is no longer achieving much of anything. If you have general comments about the case, perhaps you could place them on the talk page there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I said it there. So much nicer to talk to a person than a committee, - and you were so kind to reply there. Thank you for your patience. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Drafts for Discussion idea

Regarding your suggestion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Camarillo suicide by deputy, I'm rather intrigued by it. I'm sure there's all sorts of issues with it — might just turn into pile-on BITE deletes — but at least on the face of it, if ACTRIAL becomes permanent, it would a cool format to consider. Sort of combines the AfC/NPP work into an editathon/outreach-sort of structure. At any rate, just wanted to comment so it doesn't disappear into the MfD archives forever. ​ ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a little off-the-wall, but I think it might be a better system than what we have. My particular concern is one that SmokeyJoe (courtesy ping) frequently brings up at draft MfDs, which is that AfC is set up in a way that encourages people to work on hopeless drafts without explaining that they are hopeless. All of our templates are worded like "hey you can improve this!" instead of "this is not within our scope because it's an essay/how-to/advertisement/school assignment, and we don't take things not in scope so you should rework this into an article or do something else."

One problem is that there's disagreement as to whether something is within scope, just like in the discussion above. One reviewer might see a given draft as out of scope and decline, another might see it as valid and accept - so you get wildly varying results depending on which reviewer finds your draft. It's so unlike almost anything else on WP, which is all done by consensus and agreement among multiple people (which is hardly perfect of course but at least it's somewhat less subject to variations). I think turning AfC into a noticeboard like AfD might make the results a little less variable.

I think the discussion format would be more helpful and welcoming to newbies than AfC presently. It would centralize discussion about a particular draft, allowing for input from uninvolved users, rather than forcing newbies to post on the talk pages of various reviewers, who may or may not be responsive at any given time. It's not a guarantee that anyone would participate, but at least it makes the conversation available.

Anyway, not sure if it's anything I'd ever formally propose, but I'm glad you liked the concept in theory :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting idea. List each submission for a week. Editors can make suggestions or vote delete amd any editor can just accept the draft and include a rational. Everything gets actioned within a week. Legacypac (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

+1 to the issue of AfC never saying "This will never become an article." I've commented elsewhere that one of the issues with AfC is that the process is actually skewed to help PR firms or freelancers: it encourages resubmission and dialogue over a draft, and eventually, after enough back and forth and enough improvement, something that really never should have gotten to mainspace is approved because it met all the other suggestions. The people who are most likely to work with reviewers being the people who are financially motivated: no one is going to go through 6 declines to get their biography of a notable 17th century cleric approved. The DfD idea you proposed sounds great on two fronts: it'd allow for people to mainspace notable things that your average reviewer will decline because it occurred before 1990 or has wonky formatting, and it would make it possible to end the constant back and forth on drafts that simply have no hope. Pinging Primefac, as I know he's always interested in constructive AfC improvement ideas. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd be okay with DFD. You'd just have to be very clear about how it was presented as an RFC, because based on the discussion hell that has happened when even discussing "deleting drafts" (mostly at CSD) it'll need to be airtight. Primefac (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Userpage

Hi there!

Since a while, my userpage has effectively been deleted, pointing to a policy which I don't think applies in this case. I've since been called an ass, a jerk, an idiot and silly, and no administrative action has been taken. I don't know how to defend myself, except listing these incidents on my userpage! Do you have any advice? --Mathmensch (talk) 07:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Are you kidding? You called for Floq, a respected admin in good standing, to be de-sysopped, based on him un-linking your Meta userpage last year. The userpage does in fact contain material that violates our local policy about negative material about other editors, specifically the fact that it calls out two users by name. Floq was 100% correct to de-link it. I'm sorry that you encountered sarcasm as a result of your request, but there was nothing about anything that any of those users did that crossed the line into something an admin needed to take action against. You were told that on ANI when your frivolous report was closed without action, yet you've come to my talk page looking for a different answer.

Here's my advice: stop forum shopping and frankly, get over it. Disputes happen. Sometimes people use words like "ass" and "jerk" out of frustration or irritation. We're all human. Just like in real life, it is utterly impossible to enforce perfect civility at all times. If we tried to force admins to police every single interaction that wasn't 100% to the satisfaction of both parties, we'd end with everyone indefinitely blocked (admins and all) and no Wikipedia.

Nobody is going to take action based on this situation or the previous situation from last August. If you continue to forum shop this, you may wind up blocked for disruptive editing (ie wasting the community's time). Please go edit some articles instead. Trust me, you'll feel better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No, it was also based on blaming me for a strange comment ("ass", see above), that someone else made about me. Also, I was not posting negative material about other users, but rather I was listing what they did. I can tell you about at least one userpage where the same practice is deployed, without any punishment being imposed. If listing what others did is percieved negative, it's hardly my fault. I'm also not "forum-shopping", but I was asking for advice. Now I notice that I will not find good advice on this userpage. --Mathmensch (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Allow me to quote from WP:POLEMIC's list of what is not allowed, since you are apparently still not familiar with it: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." Bold added for emphasis. If someone else is doing it, then they're wrong too; it doesn't make you any less in the wrong. Telling Floq to resign based on his correct action was a complete overreaction and was rightfully shut down. Again I will tell you: you are in the wrong here. Drop the stick. Let it go. Go edit articles. You will feel better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos: Where did I record a percieved flaw? And my above post clearly states that this was NOT the only reason why I told Floquenbeam to resign, it was him blaming me for being insulted, basically. But I can't control how others insult me.

Please, don't misinterpret rules to my disadvantage. Instead, please recover my userpage to what it was, so that the behaviour of others towards me becomes apparent and finally stops being so nasty. --Mathmensch (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Not interested in hashing this out any further. You have been told, in numerous ways and by numerous users, that your complaint is frivolous and will not be acted upon in any way shape or form. Your insistence on pestering people about it, including users who have told you not to post on their talk pages, is far past "I didn't hear that" and striding quickly towards being purely disruptive.

Consider this your final warning: drop the fucking stick. You are not correct in this situation. Go edit an article. Contribute some content. Alternatively, if continuing to edit Wikipedia is upsetting to you, log off and go take a nice walk or make some tea. One way or another, stop pushing this issue. It is done.

If you continue to press it, I will block you for being not here to contribute constructively. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with you in everything you just wrote. --Mathmensch (talk) 13:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You have already publicly stated that you do not want to edit here anymore, which is perfectly fine if that's how you feel. But if you are not here to build an encyclopedia, then all of this drama serves no purpose. Wikipedia is not therapy so that you can feel like you've gotten closure before you retire, and you are popping up entirely too much on my watchlist for someone who apparently has no interest in helping us get any work done. GMG^talk 13:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for deleting my booboo at Draft:Move/Eidolon (disambiguation)!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  14:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Lol no prob :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Interactive Financial Exchange

Hello -- I just noticed that you deleted my client's (admittedly outdated) page on December 6. We -- the Communications Committee of the IFX (Interactive Financial eXchange Forum, Inc.) have been planning to update the material there, but, being a committee of a non-profit, it was not very speedily done. I guess I have two questions -- why did you delete it, and how do we get it back so that we can make it current? Thank you. Doggess (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the article as a result of an expired proposed deletion tag (PROD). The rationale for the PROD was that the person doing the original tagging did not find sufficient sources to show that the article passed our general notability guideline (GNG) or our software notability criteria (NSOFT). I would prefer not to restore it unless you can show that it meets our inclusion criteria as linked above; namely that it has been discussed in some depth in reliable sources that are not affiliated with the product. Examples of reliable sources include books, magazines, scholarly journals, and newspapers. Self-published content such as blogs, and content provided by the parent organization is not considered reliable for the purposes of determining notability.

Also, since you are affiliated with the organization, you must declare your conflict of interest on your userpage. Please see the instructions here at our page about disclosing conflicts of interest. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The IFX Forum is about to be my ex-client, so it is unlikely I will be doing anything with respect to this page. Therefore, I haven't declared any conflict of interest. I have passed your comments on to my soon-to-be-former client and perhaps someone will take up the quest. Doggess (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Could you please explain...

In your closure of WP:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP zealot (2nd nomination) you wrote: "It has been pointed out that we already have WP:CRYBLP, which states much the same without the anti-Semitic history that taints this essay."

Excuse me, but did you actually check the revision history of the essay yourself, to confirm that it had a genuine anti-semitic history?

I checked the history, as I noted in my keep, and I did not see genuine anti-semiticism. Originally the essay used the emotionally charged word "nazi", later replaced by "zealot", both in the article, and in the article title. But, I offered the example of the Seinfeld episode of the "soup-nazi" to illustrate how, 70+ years after ww2, the word nazi is often used in a context that is not anti-semitic:

I just read the original version of the essay, and, while doing so, I was reminded of the Soup Nazi Seinfeld episode. Nazi Germany was terrible, had shockingly terrible policies. Today's anti-semitic Neo-Nazis are terrible too. But language is slippery, and some people use the word Nazi in a context that is not meant to be anti-semitic. The Soup Nazi article doesn't say anything about critics calling that episode anti-semitism, which I think shows lots of people agree Nazi wasn't being used in an anti-Semitic way in the Soup Nazi episode. Of course we want to be more careful than comedy writers, so I support renaming the article Zealot, etc. But, unless I am missing something, I don't see a problem with anti-semitism here.

I asked participants in the discussion to explain to me, if I missed it, how the essay was anti-semitic. No one offered that explanation.

If you checked the revision history, and you think you can explain how the essay was anti-semitic, would you please explain your reasoning to me?

If you didn't check the revision history, or you don't think you can explain how the essay is anti-semitic, may I encourage you to restore the history, and talk page? You may think that CRYBLP already says everything of value this essay says, but, even so, if there is no genuine problem with anti-semiticism, surely others who wish to modify, or comment on, CRYBLP, should be able to examine the history of WP:BLP zealot? Geo Swan (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

(TPW) Just as a starting point: As I mentioned in the first AfD, early versions of this essay were headed by a photograph of Adolf Hitler addressing a Nazi parade or rally, with the caption, "A BLP Nazi informing his army of BLPolice that the biographies of living persons policy now also applies to animals." Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

^ this, thank you Brad. I will not be undeleting the page, so I recommend you take it to WP:DRV if you believe I have wrongly closed the discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, your response to my several questions is to point to Newyorkbrad's comment, and say "this"?

  Okay, in case you don't read my reply to Nyb, if he is arguing that the existence of some revisions to the essay that included an image of Adolph Hitler, captioned with a caption that distrubed him, is the sole justification for not restoring the revision history, I think that argument is extremely weak. The image and caption he says he was concerned about were removed over seven years ago.

  I am thinking of starting a brand new essay, voicing concerns about BLP, different than those voiced in CRYBLP. Of course I should take a good look at CRYBLP, even if my essay never becomes more than a user essay. And, of course, the responsible thing to do would be to look at all earlier essays related to BLP, including BLP zealot.

  Stating the obvious, I can't refer to the past history of BLP zealot, when that past history has been deleted.

  If someone had added a questionable image of Adolph Hitler to an article, seven years ago, and that image was subsequently removed, seven years ago, would the existence of past revisions with that image be grounds for deletion? Of course not. What if someone started an AFD, arguing that more stringent inclusion standards in 2018 argued for an article that had existed for eight years should be merged and redirected to a related article, would the existence of seven year old revisions which included a questionable image of Adolph Hitler be sufficient to argue the article needed deletion of all revisions, prior to redirection, instead of simple redirection?

  Lets be frank. You told me to take my concerns to DRV. You did so in a way that I am afraid suggests you didn't really consider answering my questions. I am working on an essay, in draft form now, User:Geo Swan/opinions/every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment. We are all fallible, Premeditated Chaos. Every time a good faith contributor asks us a question is an instance when, if we made a genuine effort to consider an answer, we might realize we had more to learn about how to be the best possible wikipedia contributor. Geo Swan (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad my comment says I looked at the original version. I did not see this image, or that caption, in any version I looked at.

  If this had been an article, on a notable topic, and interim versions contained something that really needed to be obfuscated -- like libel of a living person, but there were earlier versions, that didn't contain the libel, we'd ask an administrator to obfuscate the specific revisions that contained the bad content.

  Yes, this is not an article, it is an essay. How much difference should that make?

  Newyorkbrad, that comment you refer to, immediately above, this one? It is followed immediately by a comment from someone who may have been the essay's primary authors, who wrote "I also removed the one image since it no longer applies. Maybe we can find one that appropriately depicts zealots?"

  Okay. So, your comment, in the initial MfD, raised a concern over the addition of this image, and you had that concern immediately addressed.

  Just to be clear, are you arguing that an ill-advised image and caption, excised from the essay over seven years ago, is a valid reason to make the essay's entire revision history unreadable to anyone but administrators?

  Surely MfD of essays should only delete essays that unquestionably are patent nonsense? Surely it should not be used to suppress essays some parties simply disagree with?

  Newyorkbrad, how sensitive should you and I be? There are people here, who disagree with me, who have made dreadful comments about me. Sometimes other members of the wikipedia have come to my defence. Andy Dingley came to my defence, last fall. But, my experience is that other contributors do not call out genuine breaches of civility nearly often enough. Newyorkbrad, some of my work is on controversial topics, and that has made me the target of some pretty malicious wikistalkers, who have even explicitly mocked me in article space, as in this edit from my first serious wikistalker.

  I have been explicitly targeted, like that, several times. I don't look to have those edits obfuscated. I see the project being best served by being thick-skinned, and by being satisfied by having the ill-advised edits merely trimmed in a subsequent revision. Did you think the image caption of seven years ago, was explicitly targeting you? Did you really once assert BLP applied to animals? Is there a reason why you remain so concerned, seven years later, that you aren't satisfied by the knowledge that so long as WP:BLP zealot remains a redirect to WP:CRYBLP, that no one is going see the image of Hitler, with the caption that concerned you? Surely, even if someone decided they had a new or revised draft of WP:BLP zealot, with a valuable and distinct position than CRYBLP, took their new draft to DRV, got consensus to resusitate the essay, the chance of a good faith contributor restoring the image of Hitler is essentially zero? Geo Swan (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Look, the consensus of the discussion was to delete the essay. You have presented your points in favor of undeleting. I have read them and I do not believe they are sufficient for me to override the consensus that the community had arrived at when I closed the discussion and enacted that discussion. The history of the essay is tainted with the unnecessary Hitler/Nazi comparisons, even if you didn't see those diffs for whatever reason. Taking all that into account, I am not going to undelete the history at this time. You are, as I mentioned, free to contest the closure at DRV. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Please reinstate page

Hello,

Could you please tell me why you have deleted this page? If there are any issues how can I improve it? Also, can you please provide me the content as I do not have a copy of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mustafa_Mustafa_(footballer)&action=edit&redlink=1

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayasliyim (talk • contribs) 05:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the article as a result of an expired proposed deletion tag (PROD). The rationale for the PROD was that the person doing the original tagging did not find sufficient sources to show that the article passed our general notability guideline (GNG) or our notability criteria for football players (NFOOTY).

NFOOTY in particular specifies the following criteria for basic notability: "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable. See a list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football." As the subject, Mustafa Mustafa, had not played in such a league (for Australia the only league on that list would be the A-League), he failed our notability criteria and someone tagged the article for deletion using a PROD tag. The PROD tag was never contested, so as an admin I deleted it after it expired.

If the circumstances have changed and Mustafa Mustafa has played in a professional league (see the linked list above), please let me know and I can restore the article. Otherwise, I would prefer not to restore it unless you can show that he meets the GNG as linked above; namely that he has been discussed in some depth in reliable sources that are not affiliated with him or his team. Examples of reliable sources include books, magazines, scholarly journals, and newspapers. Self-published content such as blogs, and content provided by a team he plays for is not considered reliable for the purposes of determining notability.

You appear to have a copy of the original text in your sandbox (User:Ayasliyim/sandbox). I can email you the latest version if you like, although there were only minor tweaks and no major revisions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello PC - thanks for the swift response!

Ok I see. I wasn't aware of the PROD tag however I can try and explain now.

The National Soccer league (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Soccer_League) was Australia's national competition from 1977 to 2004. It was the top flight national league governed and approved by FIFA. In my opinion, any national league that is governed and approved by FIFA (even if semi-professional) should be included in the list of fully professional leagues kept by WikiProject Football. The club that Mustafa played for South Melbourne (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Melbourne_FC) at the time participated in The 1999 Oceania Club Championships (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Oceania_Club_Championship) under the Oceania Football Confederation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania_Football_Confederation). The winners of the Confederation were entered into the inaugural 2000 FIFA Club World Championship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Club_World_Cup) which was/is an international FIFA organised competition televised around the world. Any player participating at this tournament with some of the wolrd's biggest clubs should be regarded as notable alone. Also, he has appeared in print media such as Soccer International magazine and the Herald Sun newspaper. Back in the early 2000s most things were in print so I will need to find copies of these if requested.

If you have have any further questions or can provide some more guidance to restore the page please let me know.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayasliyim (talk • contribs) 00:04, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Ayasliyim, sorry for my delayed response. Based on your argument I think the subject may have a reasonable claim at possible notability, so I will restore the article and take it to AfD for a community discussion. I won't be arguing for deletion, it'll just be a procedural nomination so people with more in-depth knowledge about football can discuss. I will copy/paste your above comment into the AfD so people can see it, but feel free to remove or modify it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ludfordian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cornwallis Island (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Request

Hello. Help improve the article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you very much.27.68.20.150 (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no interest in that article. Please don't spam random people with messages like this, it's annoying and it will almost certainly not result in anyone helping you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2018).

Administrator changes

331dot • Cordless Larry • ClueBot NG

Gogo Dodo • Pb30 • Sebastiankessel • Seicer • SoLando

Guideline and policy news

• Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
• Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
• The notability guideline for organizations and companies has been substantially rewritten following the closure of this request for comment. Among the changes, the guideline more clearly defines the sourcing requirements needed for organizations and companies to be considered notable.
• The six-month autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) ended on 14 March 2018. The post-trial research report has been published. A request for comment is now underway to determine whether the restrictions from ACTRIAL should be implemented permanently.

Technical news

• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

Miscellaneous

• A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Golenkinia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parietal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Merging lists

Hi, thanks for your message- will go ahead with the merge and add refs within the next 2 weeks hopefully as am a bit backlogged, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for 137 Avenue, Edmonton

User:MuzikMachine has asked for a deletion review of 137 Avenue, Edmonton. 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. —Cryptic 22:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion Review [Re-Edit] : Harshit Tomar

Dear Mam

We hope you get this at best of your health and mood.

With all due respect , we would like to bring into your consideration , that we are handling Harshit Tomar's Social media and would like to humbly ask you to kindly check his past work background. He is a renowned Indian singer with over dozen of songs with over 100 of millions of views on you tube. All his other social accounts such as Instagram , Facebook and snapchat have been verified official pages.

Someone out of jealousy and to disgrace his name had given the page for deletion.

Here we are sending his social media links

https://www.instagram.com/harshittomar/ https://www.facebook.com/HarshitTomar/

Mam we have read in your introduction that you dont re-install a deleted page , but we hope you will make an exception this time as if you google you can see all information about our Artist.

We hope that you will look into the matter on priority.

Regards

Team 2shades Entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.50.151.3 (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The article was deleted by consensus at Articles for Deletion because your client fails our notability criteria for musicians. Accordingly, I will not be restoring the article unless it can be confirmed via reliable sources that he would pass those criteria. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Mam , Here i am attaching all the links through reliable resources , hope to receive a positive response.

• https://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/harshit-tomar/829813588
• https://www.saavn.com/s/artist/harshit-tomar-albums/OHGVTjIogis_
• https://chandigarhmetro.com/red-suit-new-punjabi-song-neha-bhasin-ft-harshit-tomar-official-video/
• https://www.patrika.com/entertainment-news/pyaar-te-jaguar-neha-kakkar-s-album-releases-1276880/
• https://www.celebrityborn.com/biography/harshit-tomar/10706
• http://www.lovekarmapassion.com/harshit-tomar-turning-dreams-reality/
• https://www.news18.com/news/india/hemant-madhukar-to-shoot-song-for-mumbai-125-kms-in-capital-701746.html
• http://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/hemant-madhukar-to-shoot-song-for-mumbai-125-kms-in-capital/
• https://starsunfolded.com/harshit-tomar/
• https://www.ohcelebrity.com/harshit-tomar/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.50.151.3 (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Reliable sources need to be in-depth, independent, and accurate to give any weight to a claim of notability. In-depth means it's not just a trivial mention in one or two sentences, but that a large portion of the piece discusses the subject. Independent means that the content doesn't originate with the subject or his media people - it's written by someone who doesn't have an existing reason to write about him. Accurate means that the publication itself is known for fact-checking and providing accurate information.

Good examples of reliable sources include large newspapers, like The Times of India, magazines, and books. Bad sources include commercial listings (because the purpose is to sell the product, not critically discuss the subject), tabloid journalism (because it's rarely fact-checked and usually sensationalist), and anything that came from a press release. I have evaluated your sources and generally they don't hold up to our criteria:

1. iTunes is not a reliable source, it's a commercial listing
2. Saavn is a streaming site, which is also not a reliable source
3. Chandigarh Metro appears to be a one-man blog, so unlikely to be fact-checked, and the article itself is hardly about Tomar - it's about someone else releasing a song he's featured on
4. The Patrika article is also about someone else's song and barely mentions Tomar
5. CelebrityBorn is not a reliable source with any fact-checking
6. LoveKarmaPassion is basically a blog with no editorial oversight
7. News18 is barely about Tomar, it's about a song he's featured in
8. Indian Express is once again barely about Tomar, it's about a song he's featured in
9. Stars Unfolded is like CelebrityBorn, unreliable celebrity info site
10. Celebrity Profile is the same as Stars Unfolded and CelebrityBorn

Long story short, your sources don't meet the criteria, and again, I will not be restoring the article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear Mam

Sorry for bothering you again but here are certain links that hopefully will justify your requirements

https://m.timesofindia.com/city/ludhiana/No-sweat-over-impressing-girls/articleshow/10038738.cms

http://www.ptcpunjabi.co.in/harshit-tomar-is-saying-i-dare-you/

Mam Please see the page was on Wikipedia for over 4 years , and the real problem is we never kept track of articles about him , but will surely keep in mind for future.

Please see if it resolves problem and hope to receive a positive answer as it will hinder our Artist's image. Thanking you.

That first article is the barest possible acceptable source, but barely. It's short and tabloid-esque little profile that barely discusses him as an artist. When I clicked on the second one, my browser told me it was a security risk, so I haven't looked at it. I am not restoring the article on the basis of one barely-qualifying source. The answer is no, and it will continue to be no unless the quality of the sourcing increases substantially.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a host for promotion of artists. If it hinders your artist's image to not have a Wikipedia page, that is none of our concern. In fact, it actually confirms his lack of notability - very few people who are already notable enough to have a Wikipedia article will have their career or image suffer for lacking a Wikipedia article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undead (Discworld)

WP:TNT is an essay. Which of WP:DEL#REASON are you using to justify closing the subj AfD as delete? Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 08:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I enacted the consensus of the discussion, which was to delete the page because the vast majority of it was unsourced fancruft. Many of the commentators noted no opposition to recreation along encyclopedic lines with reliable sourcing, which I also noted in my close. If you had to shoehorn it into a DELREASON, you could put it under #14: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

The "Did You Know...?" Reviewer's Barnstar

Thank you for your work in evaluating articles that are submitted for review so they can be mentioned in the DYK section of Wikipedia’s Main Page. I have often wondered why reviewers often don't get accolades for their work since they often put in as much time as those who improve content. The effort needed to participate in this area of Wikipedia is significant. I don't think most other editors realize what a service you are doing to help showcase new, expanded or recently promoted GA articles. What you do provides an incentive for new and experienced editors to continue improvement and creation of content. I find my curiosity piqued by the DYKs. You do a great job and help me gain insight into the range of topics that Wikipedia covers. You’ve put in the time and effort to improve content and therefore deserve recognition and appreciation.

Barbara ✐  ✉ 08:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, that's so kind! :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Cantor's diagonal argument/Arguments

Hi PMC. I'm not disputing your close here since the consensus is that the page is useful. I am just curious as to whether {{Old MfD}} should be added to the page. Normally, the template is added to the talk page, but this is a talk page so to speak. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I've now put an explanatory comment under the italic header that's basically the equivalent of {{old mfd}}, I think that should be ok. Feel free to fiddle with it if you want. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

That should be good enough. Thanks. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Christian Heresies

This is firs time I am using TALK. Not sure what issue is given that sources posted are documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hartzion (talk • contribs) 11:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Please go post on the talk page of the article where TonyBallioni has already started a discussion. There are numerous issues with your content. The biggest one is that much of it has been copy-and-pasted direct from the sources (which is why Diannaa deleted about a dozen revisions a few days ago).

The second biggest is that much of it is utterly non-neutral - you cannot just write something like "Messianic Judaism is built on an edifice of semantics" in an encyclopedia article and present it as the unvarnished truth. That kind of thing is not a fact, it's an opinion, and we're not in the business of having opinions in our articles unless they're presented as opinions (please read the essay "Beware of the tigers" for an explanation of why that is).

Another issue is that although these assertions are sourced, they are not sourced to reliable sources. YouTube, Amazon, blogs like Pulipt and Pen; these things are not reliable sources, especially for claiming that a particular movement or belief is heresy. It's a strong claim, and it needs a very strong source. Yours do not cut it.

I will say this one more time: if you re-add the content again without taking these things into account, toning it down, and gaining consensus on the talk page, I will block you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Golenkinia

On 28 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Golenkinia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 18S rDNA analysis has shown that the green algae genus Golenkinia may belong to a previously unknown sister clade of order Sphaeropleales? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Golenkinia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Golenkinia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Article- Edits made to the page Sandeep Pampally

I have made changes to the restored page 'Sandeep Pampally' with references, citations and links. Kindly do the needful to publish the page. Sonees (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I've taken another look at the article and I'm going to be honest: what I see isn't good. There's a major problem with the entire "early life" section. Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows that that entire section appears to be lifted directly from Pampally's website itself. It's copyright violation, so I've removed it.

The entire awards section is unsourced, and some of it contains major errors. As an example, it says that he was awarded at the "Muskoka International Film Festival", but that doesn't exist - the actual festival is called "Muskoka Independent Film Festival", and it's a minor local film festival at best. I've removed that section as well.

I have removed the links to YouTube and other WP articles as neither is considered a reliable source. I've also made the citations inline for you; please learn to do this yourself in future.

I've restored the page to mainspace with my edits; please don't restore any of the removed content unless it is sourced appropriately. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Sonees (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Move UCSD Moores Cancer Center

Hi PMC, you advised me to ask here if I needed admin help moving articles—well, I'm trying to move UCSD Moores Cancer Center onto Moores Cancer Center. The reason is that the UCSD acronym is no longer in use, the institution name is not needed to identify the cancer center, and the change will bring this page in line with the other UC San Diego Health page following a similar naming scheme (Jacobs Medical Center). Could you help me out?

Thanks! TritonsRising (talk) 00:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Done :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Chochopk • Coffee • Gryffindor • Jimp • Knowledge Seeker • Lankiveil • Peridon • Rjd0060

Guideline and policy news

• The ability to create articles directly in mainspace is now indefinitely restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.

Technical news

• AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
• When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
• The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
• There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee is seeking additional clerks to help with the arbitration process.

Obituaries

• Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Diamond Tooth Lil

Diamond Tooth Lil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Tooth_Lil

The photo posted on wikipedia.org is of Evelyn Fialla Hildegard NOT Honora Ornstein.

“The Idaho Daily Statesman Newspaper” Boise, Idaho, Wednesday Morning, Page 6, December 8, 1943. “Diamond-Tooth Lil” Recalls Gay Days of Era When She Was Toast of Dance Halls of the West” with photos.

"The Idaho Daily Statesman Newspaper" published a photo of Ms.Hildegard holding the photo of herself that is posted on wikipedia.org with the name Honora Ornstein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.208.10 (talk) 21:14, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for coming to discuss the situation with me. I've spent about an hour trying to track down a digital version of that article and haven't been able to find it anywhere. The Idaho Statesman doesn't keep digital archives, and they're not available on Newspapers.com either. Do you have a scan of it that you could send so I can confirm that and actually cite it in the article? If you don't, I've written to the Boise Public Library asking for a copy, but I don't know how long their response will take. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I wound up getting a reply back from the library with a scan of the article much faster than I thought I would. You were correct; the photo does show Evelyn, not Honora. I'm about to go correct the article, with citations. I appreciate your diligence in the matter, and I would love to update the article with any other resources you might have about either of the Diamond Tooth Lils. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge of Kathleen Teipner Sandoval

Hi there, I have just had a notification of the merge of Teipner's article with that of her ex-husband. I contributed most of the article content and referencing and unfortunately I didn't receive any auto notification that the article had been tagged for deletion and therefore didn't contribute to the discussion. Could you re-open the discussion so I can add some points? I consider that the article should be retained as a stand-alone article rather than merged. Thanks in advance. MurielMary (talk) 11:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Typically deletion discussions aren't re-opened so long after closing. Do you have any in-depth independent sources about Kathleen that weren't brought up in the original discussion? The major concern that resulted in the merge consensus was that there weren't enough sources to support a standalone article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Concerned observer

Greetings! I have been following the discussion on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:East Carolina University student riots, and I confess I'm not sure I agree with your decision to close it as userfy. Particularly I disagree with your explanation of why you chose it: userfying a draft is not really a compromise between keep and delete, unlike with an article. The reason is that userfying a draft make its even more difficult to delete than keeping it, because drafts are eligible for CSD G13 deletion, and userspace pages are not. My interpretation is that the discussion resulted in no consensus whatsoever; could you do me a favor and further explain your thoughts? Thanks. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 12:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I chose to split the difference rather than closing it as no consensus/default keep. It's userfied, so it's out of draftspace where it is annoying the delete voters, and it's not deleted, so that satisfies the keep voters. It would have been better if the article had been userfied from mainspace in the first place rather than draftified, but here we are.

Drafts by their nature should generally not be deleted unless there's pressing issues with the content: promotional, inherently unencyclopedic, or copyright violation, or less frequently, repeat resubmission without improvement (thus wasting AfC reviewers' time). None of those were present in this case. The only problem was that it was a crap new article that was moved to draftspace for incubation rather than being sent to AfD.

Being crap in draftspace is perfectly permissible: draftspace is one of the places we allow that kind of thing to sit and bake and hopefully be improved. There was no policy-based reason to nominate it for deletion so soon after the move to draftspace.

You state that userspace pages are more difficult to delete than draftspace ones, and that is true: but in this case, there's no particular reason why that should be a problem, because there's no particular policy-based reason to delete it in the first place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That makes sense. I suppose it annoys me a little bit, because I've been going through the userspace drafts myself. But I'm working from the back of the maintenance queue, so by the time I get through 35,000 pages, this will be long abandoned and I'll just blank it. Thanks for explaining, the results of discussions like this also interest from me a policy standpoint. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:43, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Please reinstate page Life Extension Advocacy Foundation

Hello! The page of Life Extension Advocacy Foundation was marked for speedy deletion. An exchange and a set of improvements followed, the style was improved by several independent editors (as I am the staff member of the organization now), and I gave necessary proofs to show that there was no copyright infringement (namely, the project Lifespan.io belongs to Life Extension Advocacy Foundation which can be easily seen from LEAF and Lifespan.io sites), and the page has enough external sources telling about it to comply with the Wikipedia rules (namely, around ten links with interviews, articles, tv-news shows where our members took part to tell about our work, a scientific article which resulted from our work, and a few links to the external social media resources containing the results of our collaborations with the external organizations and projects). Here is the list of links telling about our activities and containing the commentaries from our board members, issued in several countries:

https://ideas.ted.com/a-crowdfunding-platform-aims-to-solve-the-puzzle-of-aging/ https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3k898v/todays-kids-could-live-through-machine-superintelligence-martian-colonies-and-a-nuclear-attack https://emerge.me/blog/top-aging-experts-reveal-the-best-habit-for-how-to-stay-young/ https://www.kp.ru/daily/26740.4/3768436/ https://www.kp.ru/daily/26822.7/3859245/ http://readweb.org/58123-rukovodstvo-k-dejstviyu-dlya-aktivista-po-radikalnomu-prodleniyu-zhizni.html http://www.fox5ny.com/news/evolution-of-medical-care-in-the-digital-world https://geektimes.com/post/300307/ http://www.vechnayamolodost.ru/articles/prodlenie-molodosti/kraupladljd2cf/

We are second in range newsmaker in the field of rejuvenation research, which is why the link to our research newsletter was also provided in the original article: https://www.leafscience.org/blog/

We run a few collaboration projects, like two educational videos created together with Kurzgesagt (the channel having 5 mln subscribers), which is why two proofs of this collaboration were provided: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GoJsr4IwCm4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjdpR-TY6QU

We also organize and give talks at different conferences (one of them organized in collaboration with Singularity University Moscow Chapter), which is why one more proof in Social media was provided (the recording of the conference on the channel of Singularity University Moscow Chapter): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmSAfNTTOMU

Last but not least, the wikipage of Vitalik Buterin, the creator of the cryptocurrency Ethereum, posted a link to Life Extension Advocacy Foundation wikipage, because we published an interview with him in our newsletter. Reference #29 on Vitalik's page.

Could you please tell whether this list of notability proofs is enough for our page to be reinstated or not?

After giving the last set of proofs and clarifications, I have not received any more requests to provide additional information - apart from a few bits of advice regarding the formatting of the links. Then the page was suddenly deleted without explanation. Could you please consider reinstating it, or let me know what specific complaints you have regarding this page?

Thanks! ElenaMilova (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The page was not deleted "suddenly and without explanation", it was deleted as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Extension Advocacy Foundation, where no policy-based rationale for keeping was advanced after several relistings. As per the linked discussion, the sources provided fail to meet our guidelines for business articles (WP:CORPDEPTH), and therefore there are no grounds for inclusion on the basis of either the general notability guideline or the corporation/business notability guidelines.

To give you an example, the two most reliable sources you gave me above (and to be clear, that's "most reliable" only as graded relative to the others presented), the Vice article and the Fox 5 article, don't even mention the name of the organization, so they can hardly be said to be discussing it in any depth.

I will not be undeleting it without far, far better sourcing. Feel free to seek a review at deletion review if you disagree. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! This is maybe the clearest explanation from all that I have received so far. We use Life Extension Advocacy Foundation and Lifespan.io (which is our main project) interchangeably, when appropriate. One more question, regarding this article: https://www.kp.ru/daily/26822.7/3859245/ I do realise it might be harder for you to assess, as this is originally in Russian, but it contains a piece of interview with our President concerning crowdfunding (this is what we do as a non-profit supporting scientific research on aging), the name of the organization is there, and it is in Komsomolskaya Pravda which is the biggest Russian newspaper. Here is their media kit in English so you could familiarize with the current data. http://advert.kp.ru/Files/20180115172602.pdf Is this source a good secondary independent source, or there should be something even more substantial?

Thanks again! ElenaMilova (talk) 15:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

That article is not an in-depth discussion of LEAF as an organization. It is a bunch of interviews strung together on the theme of life extension in general, one of which happens to be with someone associated with LEAF. Per WP:CORPDEPTH: A primary source is original material that is close to an event, and is often an account written by people who are directly involved. Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include: memoirs or interviews by executives (bolded for emphasis).

On top of that, it's hard to call it "independent" when it explicitly states The author thanks the assistance of the representative of the Life Extension Advocacy Foundation and Lifespan.io Elena Milov, data analyst Artem Fedoskina , as well as the organizers of the conference "Undoing Aging" - international foundations for the support of research on the fight against aging SENS Research Foundation and the Forever Healty Foundation right at the end.

Please re-read WP:CORPDEPTH, and apply the checklist under the section "Primary criteria" to any further sources you wish to present. If you find at least three that pass all four requirements (Significant, Independent, Reliable, Secondary), feel free to present them here with an explanation of how each one passes the criteria. I would ask that you not post any further sources here without properly considering how they meet our requirements. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! This is very helpful! ElenaMilova (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Premeditated Chaos. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 10:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

SoWhy 10:21, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

MfD followup

Just hoping you can clarify what the policy-based reason was for this delete closure? There is a numeric majority, but I'm unclear what userspace-relevant basis for deletion there was to delete an established user's sandbox. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a very stale (5 years since last edited) userdraft of completely inaccurate information about a topic on which we already have an encyclopedia article. There's reasonable precedent for deleting stale user drafts since we are not a webhost. The information's entirely incorrect, so it's not like it has a chance of being incorporated into the mainspace article ever and therefore has no encyclopedic use. I also think the fact that the user was adequately notified, has been active since the MfD, and failed to comment speaks to how much he's using it / interested in keeping it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the reason I ask. I obviously have no particular attachment to that draft or its content, but there seems to be a concerted push lately to target users' sandboxes and other userspace pages, and apart from the very small number of people who participate at MfD saying they should be deleted, I don't think there's any policy/guideline basis for it. WP:STALE has particular guidelines for userspace pages "of long inactive users", which is basically that there are some cases that such pages could be blanked, but the only reason for deletion is WP:U5, and I don't think pages like this are in the spirit of U5. This RfC found consensus for there being no expiration date for userspace drafts, after all. And WP:V explicitly does not apply to userspace (i.e. it is completely acceptable for a new user -- or me for that matter -- to create a sandbox page in userspace and type whatever gibberish is useful for me to better understand some aspect of contributing to Wikipedia, whether as a draft article, draft template, or just a scratchpad. In any event, this was not a "long inactive user", so I am curious how this is anything but an IAR deletion? In userspace statements don't have to be verifiably true, and pages do not have an expiration date (other than via AfC). If it qualified for CSD, that's fine, but I don't think that's what you're saying. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:28, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Drop a line to Compassionate727 (courtesy ping), they mentioned a few sections up my talk page somewhere that they're working through the stale userspace drafts; I think that's where the relative increase has come from. With regards to it being an IAR deletion, I really don't think it is - it might be if I'd gone entirely against a keep consensus and closed it as delete anyway, but the consensus to me read delete as being unencyclopedic/not contributing to the purpose of building the encyclopedia. While WP:V doesn't strictly apply in userspace, the thing can hardly be said to be a good-faith effort to create an encyclopedic article if the facts are all entirely wrong - in which case, why do we need to keep it, five years after the creator has obviously forgotten about it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, by IAR close I don't mean ignoring the consensus of opinions in the discussion but something more along the lines of going along with the reasons people gave that don't have a policy/guideline backing. If 4 of 6 people at AfD said "delete because there aren't many google hits" (or some other WP:AADD) and it were deleted as such, I would call it the same thing. I suppose I'll start a thread elsewhere. Thanks for replying. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites and Premeditated Chaos: I am indeed going through userspace drafts, but at this point, I've stopped nominating them for MfD. Either they're eligible for CSD U5 or I blank them. Whether my initial spree of nominations triggered some latent urge to delete drafts I can't speak for. If it did, we may wish to revisit the guidelines, because that would indicate there isn't strong consensus in favor of them. My personal observation is that you personally have one of, if not the, most "inclusionist" attitudes towards userspace drafts. There's of course nothing wrong with that (only Legacypac outstrips me in terms of deletionism), but what you consider to the correct interpretation of policy may not reflect the rough consensus. One such instance of that appears to be here. My other comment is that policies are supposed to reflect consensus, which is to say that an actual deletion discussion (which established consensus on a per case basis) generally has the authority to decide in contradiction to policy (which establishes consensus as a general rule), provided of course that the participants in said deletion discussion are experienced members aware of said policy and have decided against it in good conscience. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 13:03, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It's simple really: there's no reason to delete sandboxes of an active user outside of the CSD reasons, and there's no policy basis to do so with rare exceptions that are generally covered in those CSD criteria. Sandboxes are how people learn, how people test and prepare things for the encyclopedia. If a newbie writes some gibberish about themselves in a sandbox while learning to contribute, that is relevant to Wikipedia and thus not a problem for NOTWEBHOST. If they did so in any other namespace, it would be a problem, obviously.

"Inclusionism," to the extent it's a meaningful term, is a philosophy about the encyclopedia. Sandboxes are not part of the encyclopedia, explicitly. The same policies don't apply, and you're exerting effort to find things nobody else can even find in order to not just blank them but delete them (yes, I realize you've stopped, but I'm here leaving PMC a message because he/she has just set a very dangerous precedent that bogus nominations can yield results if enough people support the rationale). Nobody would have ever come across that nonsense about the World's Cup except for people looking for things to delete or the user who created it. Whether it had encyclopedic value is of no consequence. For many people it is demoralizing or at least offputting to have someone trawling through your userspace, looking for things to delete, and then deleting something -- even if it didn't actually have value to the encyclopedia aside from to that one user who created it. Most people would be a good sport and say "yeah I don't mind if you delete it" but why? There is absolutely nothing to be gained from doing so. There is nothing about this that isn't simply a time sink with no improvement to the project. I'm taking a hard line on it because of the simple fact that it shouldn't matter. Nobody wants to spend their time defending standard sandbox nonsense that's meaningful only to the user who created it, but with rare exception nobody has had to because there's been an understanding that sandboxes/userspace pages serve a different purpose than other namespaces, and that deleting them is at least mildly problematic with absolutely no upside aside from a maintenance log. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry User:Rhododendrite but there is long standing precedent and procedure to review and remove userspace material deemed inappropriate or not useful. We have U5, various Gx CSDs and MfD for edge or unusual cases. Userpages are built in to the NPP page curation tool for this reason and we have wikiproject WP:ABANDONED focused on them. Userspace cleanup is supported by various maintenance categories. When you edit or create any page on Wikipedia you release it for others to edit or seek deletion. There is all manner of bad pages to remove (copyvio, attack, spam) and occasionally useful draft to promote and to even make a dent on the project we have to pretty much clear every page we touch somehow to prevent revisiting pages over and over. Legacypac (talk) 14:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Rhododendrites I think one major disagreement we're having is that you seem to be interpreting anything in userspace as being a sandbox, and therefore not to be touched. Whereas I think most people view User:Foo/sandbox as reasonably not to be touched except to deal with serious violations, and anything else under User:Foo/ as a userpage or userspace draft subject to our normal restrictions on usage of userspace.

Per WP:UP#GOALS, Extensive writings and material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful to the project, its community, or an encyclopedia article...because it is pure original research, is in complete disregard of reliable sources, or is clearly unencyclopedic is considered unrelated content. With that in mind, I think it was perfectly reasonable to nominate the page for deletion as unrelated/unencyclopedic. The consensus narrowly agreed with the nominator, and I closed with that in mind. My close by no means sets a "dangerous precedent"; it's not as though we have never deleted a userspace page for exactly that reason before. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

What is really disappointing is that almost a majority of editors voted to keep something that is clearly against the goals of wikipedia. Legacypac (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@PMC so you would consider a single userspace subpage of an active, experienced user comprising a single sentence (though I cannot view it now, as I recall the entirety of the article was something like "The World Cup in 2024 will be in [some country]" with maybe some boilerplate sectioning or something) to be "Extensive writings[/]material on topics having virtually no chance whatsoever of being directly useful..."?

As to the other point, it's true that any userspace subpage can be a sandbox, even if not every userspace subpage is a sandbox. As sandboxes do not require being tagged as such, but simply fulfill a particular purpose, it seems difficult to tell the difference between a sandbox and some other kind of page. Regardless, I don't know that that distinction is all that meaningful as the sort of content that's allowed in a userspace sandbox is already within what's allowed in WP:UP. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

FWIW I'm not trying to hassle you here. More trying to figure out where exactly the problem, ambiguity, and/or misunderstanding is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:39, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The page was about 19.6 bytes when it was deleted, so I would suggest it is somewhat more extensive than "a single sentence" (even if quite a bit of that was tables etc, it's still information). It was specifically tagged as a userspace draft by the creator, which I think is a reasonable indication that it was not just a sandbox for mucking about in, but was actually intended to be moved to mainspace at some point. Obviously that stalled out and the draft was abandoned five years ago. The information in it is wrong and serves no conceivable encyclopedic purpose. The active, experienced user was duly notified and chose not to comment, indicating that he himself doesn't particularly care about the deletion of the content. A nomination and consensus for deletion is not unreasonable in these circumstances.

I don't think there's a misunderstanding, I just think we disagree on the interpretation of policy here. Which is fine; the policy is not black and white, hence the need for XfD in the first place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for being the only admin closing discussions on MfD. I'm quite frankly not sure what we would do without you. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 00:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That's very kind, but I humbly protest that I'm not the only one! Killiondude turns up quite often when I don't pounce on everything right away, and I know Xaosflux and a few others also pop in from time to time. I'm sure others would trickle in if I wandered off elsewhere :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hah! I feel like I just pop in and close things every once in a great while. You're the MfD Overseer(tm). Killiondude (talk) 22:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Honora Ornstein aka Diamond Lil

Hello and thank you for correcting and updating the photo of Evelyn Fialla Hildegard aka Diamond Tooth Lil on Wikipedia Page. I have been researching and documenting Honora Ornstein aka Diamond Lil for over 8 years. Unfortunately, a lot of the information published about Honora Ornstein in old newspapers and books are incorrect. Best regards, Trudie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.208.10 (talk) 17:46, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That's awesome! I would love to see you register an account and add some of your research to the page. It's a good article, but it could always be better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Arbcom Wikipedia Library???

Hello PMC, was told on a Wikipedia Library application I should be expecting an email form arbcom, any ideas to the issue? (please ping me when you respond I'm terrible at remembering to look at my watchlist.) --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 00:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Cameron11598 Hey yeah I'm not sure what happened, I sent an email to the Wikipedia Library contact email a few days ago. I assumed it was either a mailing list system, or a mass account that all the Library coordinators could see. Is that not the case? Anyway, I can send the email directly to you again if you want or if you don't have access to that email account. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Nope we lowly account coordinators don't have access, would you mind shooting me an email via Special:EmailUser/Cameron11598 ? --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 02:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, shit. Oh well, email's sent now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Lol, Thanks ! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

We do have a mailing list for future use its wikipedia-librarylist.wikimedia.org but I'm not sure if it is restricted to coordinators or a public list, I'll ping @Samwalton9: to provide some insight--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for not forwarding that to you Cameron|, we were discussing whether we'd consider this sufficient for granting a user access and I was about to get in contact with you when you got sent the direct email :) Sam Walton (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Honora Ornstein, Diamond Lil

RE: Honora Ornstein, Diamond Lil

Newspaper press releases throughout the country printed incorrect information about Honora Ornstein.

The following information on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_Tooth_Lil is NOT true:

1. “Lil was also known to have come from a wealthy family prior to her time in the Klondike.”

2. “Shortly before she divorced her last husband around 1928, she lived in an apartment she had purchased in Seattle and inherited $150,000 from her mother, equivalent to $2.14 million in 2017.”

3. “Her reputation limited the market for her jewelry collection, which she struggled to sell in the 1950s.”

I am writing a book about Honora Ornstein. I will register and correctly update wikipedia.org information about Honora Ornstein with photos.

Best regards, Trudie Stapleton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.208.10 (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Good to hear from you again Trudie. Before you get rolling, can I ask you to look over a few of our policies/guidelines first, just so you don't get tripped up? They can be complex and a little confusing for people who aren't used to them. The blue links in the next paragraphs are links to the relevant pages.

Most important is our policy about verifiability of information. Particularly, Wikipedia summarizes and reports what has been published in reliable sources like newspapers, magazines, and books. Information without citations can be challenged and removed, even if it's something you "know" to be true (see verifiability, not truth). We don't interpret, synthesize, or theorize: that would fall under original research, which we don't allow.

Citing your own book can be a grey area between introducing verifiable information and original research, especially if it winds up being a self-published book rather than one that's published through traditional methods (see our pages about citing yourself and self-published sources). Your best bet for improving the article is to cite the sources you're using to write your book, rather than your book directly. It would also be helpful to incorporate both claims into the article so the reader has the full picture of the situation.

For example, if you have a source that indicates that the information about Honora inheriting a bunch of money is disputed, you could edit the article to say something like, "Some newspapers have reported that Honora inherited money from her mother in 1928. However, [the reliable source that you're going to cite] disputes this because of [whatever your source says]." That way, readers can see both claims and check the sources out for themselves.

I have the article on my watchlist, so I'll keep an eye on it. And of course please let me know here if you need anything :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Potato race, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stake (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

With respect to my addition of the word "assault"

I am literally the reason that the word assault was removed from several mass shooting wiki pages including vegas and parkland. I was testing the waters. I am more pro-gun than the NRA but the world has gone full-retard with respect to firearms so I genuinely fix a little here and subsequently troll a little bit there FOR SCIENCE. But thank you for righting my wrong:) cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GunSense101 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

I started writing my message on this user's talk page before this message here was posted, and didn't see it until after. Wouldn't have bothered with the warning if I'd seen this one first. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	I just wanted to say 'well done' for this. I see so few flat out apologies here -- Much respect. Jbh Talk 16:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, although I do wish I hadn't said something that required an apology in the first place. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Christian heresies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Epiphanius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Güzide Alçu

Hello, Premeditated Chaos. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Güzide Alçu.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CeeGee 17:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Potato race

On 3 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Potato race, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the early 20th-century American rodeo event of mounted potato racing could become violent, with biting being almost the only tactic that was prohibited? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Potato race. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Potato race), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Is this a blockable offence?. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Actually, AN, updated the links. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:59, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pearl and Hermes Atoll

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pearl and Hermes Atoll you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ceranthor -- Ceranthor (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Jan Gardner

Hi PMC, can you userfy this article? gidonb (talk) 01:10, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

All done, it's at User:Gidonb/Jan Gardner. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, PMC! gidonb (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The Ponzi Factor

Why was the Ponzi Factor page deleted? It was on the international news and meets the notability criteria.--Quantstyle (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Because the consensus of the AfD was that it does not meet the notability criteria, and I closed the discussion accordingly. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Win Naing Tun

May i request to you, i wanna create the Win Naing Tun article. He is a younger Myanmar footballer who play in Yadanarbon F.C.. I will put realiable reference. He was scored his first time ever professional goal against Shan United F.C. on 2018 June 11. Could you accept me to create this article? (talk) 11:20, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The article title isn't protected, so you're free to create it. As long as he passes WP:NFOOTY, and you have sources to prove it, it should be fine. I don't have it watchlisted and I don't care for football so I won't be checking on it or reviewing it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your no-nonsense comments over this Afd:) ~ Winged BladesGodric 07:13, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Affecting restrictions on an entire topic area

Hello there Ms. Chaos,

The topic of Eastern Europe, already subject to restrictions, continues to be chaotic. Most recently, following yet another ANE, admin NeilN enacted sourcing and representation restrictions on one of the articles [1]. The problems raised in that ANE are not particular to that article, and affect several dozen more. My question is this: Can these restrictions be imposed on the entire topic area, and if so - how? François Robere (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I strongly doubt that such heavy restrictions would be imposed on an entire topic area without a full case to prove they are indeed necessary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your help

Hello Premeditated Chaos, thank you for taking your time reviewing the article I wrote about Gabriella Crespi. I really appreciate your suggestions and I'm definitely going to follow them...I wrote it after reading a lot of articles about her, so probably I was too enthusiast, I will tone it down.Littlemissmarc (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I understand it's easy to get excited when you're writing about things you love. One important thing you can do to make things less promotional is to tell us where these exciting opinions come from. For example, Crespi’s charismatic personality and creative talents left an indelible imprint on contemporary design culture is a pretty strong opinion. So if you want to include it, I would look for sources (preferably more than one for something that strong) that describe her as such. Then rewrite the sentence to acknowledge those sources, like "Later designers such as Alice B. Smith and John Q. Fakename have described the lasting influence that Crespi's creative vision left on contemporary design culture." That way you're not presenting an opinion as a fact, you're presenting the fact that Alice and John have an opinion, if that makes sense. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Pearl and Hermes Atoll

The article Pearl and Hermes Atoll you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pearl and Hermes Atoll for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ceranthor -- Ceranthor (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Please reconsider

I saw your closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DovBer Pinson, and I think that closing this as a delete was a bit hasty, because the discussion was more like no consensus. Would you please consider closing it as "no consensus", or at least re-listing it? Debresser (talk) 18:41, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, but I'll undelete and relist at your request. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Much appreciated. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Japanese photographers

Hey,

I've seen the AFD on the bot-created "renowned Japanese photographer" article and !voted. I suspected there may have been more and I was right: PetScan revealed 30. I've listed them below, I don't want to bundle them in as I wasn't the one who started the AFD, but I don't think any of them stand out such that it would wreck the AFD, so if you want to add them, here they are.

(Table moved to my sandbox)

Cheers,

StraussInTheHouse (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I know there's more, I've PROD'd one or two in the past I think, but I've also seen a few get expanded and kept. Opted not to bundle because I don't have any way to tell which way any given one would go offhand, so I think it would turn into a trainwreck. Better to research them individually and nominate one by one than risk a keep/no consensus and get egg on your face :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Kpgjhpjm/common.js

Please blast User:Kpgjhpjm/common.js per G7, if you do not mind. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Done, cheers. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)