Wikipedia

User talk:Ansh666/Archive 6

< User talk:Ansh666
Latest comment: 6 years ago by MediaWiki message delivery in topic Administrators' newsletter – August 2017
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 → Archive 10

Please stop making Wikipedia inconsistent

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

One of the reasons I hate this site is because often there are jarring redirects left in the name of "cleaning up" where I'll click a link and get taken to somewhere sort of slightly related with no information on the link I clicked.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Data_types this template and stop being a tit. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.92.158 (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@5.65.92.158: There was consensus at the Articles for deletion discussion that established that the article did not meet the notability guidelines. I have also removed it from the template. Please do not restore this article unless you wish to improve it by adding references to establish notability. ansh666 03:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll put it on my "to-do" list but it is a legitimate format I've seen used (that's why I was looking it up) you should leave it in both places. A good place to start (for any interested) might be the PowerPC latest manual, as it contains instructions (which are emulated by software, because there's little practical need for such precision) to handle oct-floats.

The redirect left behind was jarring, it made little sense. It should be left in both. Please fix this and I will get round to it. From what I can tell the page was of similar form to the others (it provided details, that nice picture) - there's nothing wrong with it other than it's a very niche (BUT STANDARDISED) data type. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.92.158 (talk) 03:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I've undone the template edit, please leave the page as is. I'll get round to it (What do you want done though? It discusses (in the same format as the other pages) the same thing the other pages discuss) - I'll do a "routine" update though. Polish it a little, get rid of the blury maths. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.92.158 (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read the links I provided for you. Start with notability - just because it exists does not mean that we should have an article about it. In this case, consensus has been reached through established procedures that the article should not exist. Repeatedly reverting that consensus constitutes disruptive editing. Please restore the redirect. ansh666 03:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
But I offered to improve it? Is that not sufficient?
I didn't notice that, sorry. If you want to try and improve it, please go ahead. Do keep in mind the notability guidelines, though. ansh666 03:56, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
If I do improve it what stops it from being deleted again. Also why was it deleted in the first place. It still occupied space somewhere (as things are never permanently deleted) what harm is there in documenting it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.92.158 (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The requirements are laid out (rather broadly) at WP:General notability guideline - more or less, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources (as for what that means, follow the links down the rabbit hole if you wish). Previously, it was determined that the single source that currently exists in the article was insufficiently reliable for the topic. The reason we don't just keep everything that exists is explained there and in WP:What Wikipedia is not. Another note, please sign talk page comments using 4 tildes (~~~~). Also, I'd like to apologize for being a bit snappy. It happens, especially when I'm tired. (I really shouldn't be on here...) Cheers, ansh666 04:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
As act of good faith I've cleaned up some of the math markup (the bad math image was really blurry for some reason) and started a bit of research — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.92.158 (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding 2 singles being a double float.

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The phrase:

  • "Computers with 32-bit storage locations use two memory locations to store a 64-bit double-precision number; each storage location holds a single-precision number."

Suggests that there are 2 4-byte memory locations, each storing a float which combine together to yield a double. This isn't the case. If this is true then it means "space wise" in that sense "4 shorts are 1 double" and "2 ints are also a double" which as you know makes no sense.

If you are suggesting that literally reinterpreting 2 floats as a double will work.... I don't even know how to interpret that. Please get someone else to confirm this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.92.158 (talk) 03:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Slight addendum, the first line of the article already says "it's 64 bits" so I don't see what you're trying to save. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.92.158 (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

What you are saying is true, it could be worded better. What the meaning is is that doubles are always 64 bits, and since a 32-bit storage system can only store 32 bits in one "chunk" (I'm too sleepy to remember the exact term), it requires two "chunks" to store the entire double. ansh666 03:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
That's called being "64 bits" but on a 32 bit system they address BYTES anyway, so surely it means "8 chars are a double", this is exactly why I removed it. It's pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.65.92.158 (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
In the past, it was worded a bit better, but on 2015-05-10, Epigogue made it entirely wrong. However, I agree that it is pointless. Moreover, giving something specific to 32-bit computers at the beginning of the article is bad (though this isn't actually specific to 32-bit computers). Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
I can see that you are confused about the difference in meaning had by the technical terms "number" and "variable" as they are used in this context. It is an important difference between Electrical Engineering and Computer Science; but I care not, because this article does not need that level of depth. Epigogue (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

ANI thread on Legacypac

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Ansh666, your comment from 23:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC), I can't figure out who you are responding to. Please repair/tweak the layout/formatting/indentation, and/or add names. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Never mind--that thread is closed. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing that out, even if it didn't matter. It was in response to Corriebertus; I should have put an extra indent in but didn't for whatever reason. Thanks, ansh666 02:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, I usually pay attention to what you say but, as it happened, that particular proposal wasn't going to go anywhere. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
        • Nice to know! Cheers, ansh666 01:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Ctway

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

As I stated on the firearms deletion page, enough is enough. I recommend that every page created by User:Ctway and socks be automatically deleted. It would save us the trouble of doing it one by one.--RAF910 (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, it's really a case-by-case decision. I'm not just nominating all of the pages I come across, only the ones I legitimately can't find any reliable source coverage. There are several articles which have been improved by others, several articles which have no sources at all in the article but a cursory google search finds enough for (whereupon I tag as needing more sources instead of filing for deletion), and some which can be redirected to other articles. Besides, there isn't really a precedent or a method to nuke pages by a user when they aren't obvious hoaxes or disruption, especially since there are hundreds spread out over tens of accounts (several of which I found today!). ansh666 06:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps, your right. However, I have seen blanket deletions before. Also, from what seen, not one of Ctway's edits has ever been a notable firearm. Just, one of a kind guns, dead end prototypes, patent filing, toys or nonexistent guns. Most of his articles are only one or two sentences long have useless references, false references or Wiki mirror refs. Anyway, I got your back.--RAF910 (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've been redirecting a lot of them to their manufacturers or designers, if they have articles. But, brace yourself, another wave of AfDs is coming! ansh666 08:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baylè 1879 wallet / palm pistol

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've located the source material linked to the Bayle pistol. The Grimes article also mentions two other reliable sources. Would you look at the deletion discussion and see if your initial delete assertion might be swayed by the sources which have been found and applied? If kept, I propose we move the auction site link down to "External links" with a description of the useful images to be found there. In any case, thanks for your work putting sock-created articles up for deletion. I generally support your efforts, but have been pleased to source this article which I think is an exception to the rule. No hard feelings if you disagree. BusterD (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I've struck the nom statement, thanks for letting me know. It really is hard to keep track of each individual discussion when there are 50 open at once! By the way, don't worry about RAF, he has a slightly unique and somewhat-not-policy-based understanding of our notability standards. Thanks, ansh666 23:50, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Quite right. I've been in violent disagreement with other editors and this is not it. Thanks for your reconsideration. Frankly, this isn't my normal kind of page, but I found the auction site page quite intriguing and the pics compelling. I took the liberty of emailing the auction site fellow and he gave me the page numbers for Gazette. What is really cool is that there are more reliable sources for someone to find and add later. If I can ever help you with 19th century American dead people (my baliwick) or anything else interesting, feel free to call on me. BusterD (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Wik-Ed Women Session #5

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wik-Ed Women Session #5
 

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

I would like to personally invite you to the March edition of the Wik-Ed Women meetup, which will take place on March 15, from 6-10 in the evening. It will occur at Los Angeles Contemporary Archive, 2245 E Washington Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90021 (downtown LA -- map). The building has a pink top with old signage for American Accessories, Inc. dba Princess Accessories (Photos [PDF]). There is on-site parking in the back, which also has an entrance. If you cannot attend in person, you are more than willing to work remotely, as we appreciate all help that you can provide. Finally, here is a link to the Facebook event, in case you want to invite friends, as we are always looking for new editors to help expand coverage of women on Wikipedia!

I hope to see you there! Cosmicphantom (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

AfD NAC

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

When you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Donald Trump Chicago rally protest, you forgot to do the required housekeeping on the article and article talk pages. Thanks.- MrX 03:17, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@MrX: Thanks for letting me know! I use a script that sometimes has issues with this, and I forgot to check the article this time. Next time you see something like this happen (I'm not the only one with the script), feel free to do the cleanup yourself if you want. Thanks again! ansh666 03:56, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
OK. I didn't know that there was a (non-admin) script that would handle all that, but that explains it.- MrX 11:44, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, the script isn't specific to non-admins, anyone can use it. I clean up after admins who have this same issue (and use the same script) all the time - that's how I know it's an issue. Cheers, ansh666 22:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Thank you for closing the AfD tag on the Kasaragod college. Regards, Prof TPMS (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Thank you for making all of our lives a little better. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I did

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

...but damn if I'm not smooth enough to make it look like I meant it the other way the whole time ;) --v/r - TP 07:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, you had me fooled! Cheers, ansh666 07:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Memory Records

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm not seeing how the nom voting delete, another delete vote, and a merge vote from the deprodder (with no sourced basis to do so) equals consensus to merge. Could you explain? MSJapan (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I dunno either. Feel free to revert. ansh666 22:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Afd

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

That AFD you opened on behalf of an IP is being used for bad reasons. That IP is actually an editor evading scrutiny and attacking me and my friend Garagepunk66. I just wanted you to know in case you see more of his handy-work.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I am aware, but I feel the discussion is worth having. I'll gladly take responsibility for the nom, if it comes to that. ansh666 19:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: RFA comment

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ansh666! I didn't realize until just now that you responded to my comment on the recent RFA that you voted on. My comment in no ways was meant to imply that you weren't being positive or hopeful; I was only stating that towards future voters after yours. I apologize if you felt that my comment implied anything negative at all towards you. I was absolutely not my intention at all. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 21:32, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up, it's hard to tell sometimes. Cheers, ansh666 19:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Art Supawatt Purdy

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Im working on finding more sources but all in Thai. Tokyogirl79 already ask someone from Thai Wiki to help with validating his notability. Please give me a chance. This is my first effort and Tokyogirl79 and Jbhunley had been working with me. I had to work and have not had time to concent on this article lately. I feel that I can be a good wikipedia contributor if given a chance to learn, and i've learned a lot from Tokyogirl79 and Jbhunley.

To start out he meets the WP:Music notability guideline:
1. He has 2 CDs released with major label Warner Music 2003 'Art Of Love'[1] 2013 'Chun Yung Ruk Ter' [2] [3]

2. He recorded songs for the soundtrack of Soi Cowboy In the film Soi Cowboy, he appears as himself, a Thai TV star (They even have the clips from his work showing on TV included in the film). In the story of Soi Cowboy, the leading female is a big fan of this big TV star. Thus, he was invited by the bad guy to give a private performance in the key scene of the movie. I found clips to verify this on youtube and dailymotion (and of course in the movie itself), but I am learning how to cite youtube and daily motion as reliable without violates copyrights so I havent provide the reference in the article. 2 of the songs from his album with Warner Music were used in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greekadoniz (talk • contribs) 03:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC) Greekadoniz (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Art of Love' by Art Supawatt Album Launch & Press Release
  2. ^ Travel Interview: Art Supawatt promotes this album with Warner Music and his mini-series on CH. 9
  3. ^ It's a ecommerce page, but I use it to prove the album exits

Post-Democracy

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I see that the result for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-democracy was Keep WP:SNOW, thanks, and yet an editor has gone ahead and merged this important topic into the author Colin Crouch's page. I don't think that was the consensus as I read it, but I could be wrong. Any thoughts? Regards, Esowteric+Talk 15:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

AfDs

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Ansh, I'd like to discuss two of the closures -- I believe they were somewhat contentious and perhaps should have been closed by an admin?

  • Douglas Donato Pereira -- again, this was somewhat contentious with three delete and three keep votes. I don't see this as a snow keep.

My suggestion would be to re-open (and possibly relist). In any case, I think it would be a better approach to have an admin close these two as the discussions were extensive. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that the RfC supports trying to create a SNG - it's already been open a bit longer than required - and that the participants of that specific AfD (not any of the others I saw) want to wait for such an attempt to be made. Multiple people who advocated straight keeps or deletes (not even the keep-for-now-pending-RfC crowd) cited arguments that are usually confined to SNGs/OUTCOMES ("State winners of major pageants are normally notable.") or asked whether there was such a page, so it seems that consensus on that specific AfD is to wait. That said, if you wish to revert that one, go ahead. Closing it as NC vs keeping it open doesn't make too much of a difference there.
Regarding the second, judging consensus is about more than just counting votes. The nominator and two of the deletes didn't even acknowledge the Portuguese-language sources that were found by other participants. While I agree that the sources available aren't the best for establishing notability in this case, those advocating keep did believe that they were enough. I'll add more explanation to the top; WP:DRV is available if you still wish to contest. Cheers, ansh666 00:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
In the last comment on Douglas Donato Pereira I acknowledged the Portugese sources and noted that I looked at them. I stated that they were insufficient, pls see diff. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but you were the only one. Multiple other participants judged them to be adequate. ansh666 01:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
As your page states, I'd like to undo this close, with your permission. Would that work? K.e.coffman (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Sure, go ahead, but please leave a note on the discussion. Thanks! ansh666 02:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Pinoy Big Brother: Lucky 7

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What do you mean?Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Xx236: I've fixed it. There's a bug in the AfD closing script I use that I forgot about - if I try to close a discussion for an article that's already been redirected, it will try to redirect the target article because of technical issues that weren't present when the script was made. Thanks! ansh666 08:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ansh666 for the undo - subwaymuncher. Feel free to delete, I dont know how to talk to you.

I guess this must be it?

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

Hello, Ansh666. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

Lets talk

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Being almost retired is not sufficient reason to reverse my Prod on "Second City of the UK". The whole point of Proding the article it to invite discussion so BACK OFF okay? MarkDask 23:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Markdask: You seem to be a bit confused, you tried to nominate the article for WP:AfD incorrectly, not WP:PROD (for which it is ineligible, since it has already gone through an AfD before). Please follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO if you still wish to nominate the article for deletion. In this case, the correct page would be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second city of the United Kingdom (2nd nomination). ansh666 23:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'm back in circulation after a long time away, (2011), so the protocols are sometimes taxing. MarkDask 23:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

please wait for consensus before closing AfDs!!!

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

You should not have closed AfD like you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roll No. 56. It was listed only for 3 days and there were no other input than nominator's. This serves no purpose, so please be mindful. Coderzombie (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Coderzombie: you moved it to draft space, so there was no more article to discuss. This was a procedural close. In the future, if you wish AfDs to run their full length, do not move the article under discussion to draft space (in fact, do not move articles at AfD at all, it creates a lot of background work). Thanks, ansh666 19:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like there was a confusion. Probably someone moved the article to the draft and then you closed the AfD. I thought the order was the other way around, but I was not the one who moved it to Drafts. Coderzombie (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah, yes, sorry about that - it looks like you moved it back to Draft after someone had moved it back to article after someone else first moved it to Draft...my head is spinning! Anyways, the original point stands; I closed it after it had been moved to draft. Cheers, ansh666 23:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

User notice

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed you added an edit warring notice to Deghop's talk page, but there was already one added in an earlier section, and the edit warring on Tropical Depression Eight (2016) and 2016 Atlantic hurricane season was directly connected. That said, because you did actually add a notice relating to a separate page, I undid my edit removing your notice. Dustin (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

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

  Administrator changes

  NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
  Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

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

  Arbitration

  Obituaries

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

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

February 18 Wikipedia Day event in DTLA

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
LA Wikipedia Day Celebration (February 18)
 

Dear fellow Wikipedian,

Please join us at our Wikipedia Day celebration at the Ace Hotel in downtown Los Angeles on Saturday, February 18, 2017 from 11 am to 5 pm! This event will feature lectures, panel discussions, lightning talks, open space discussions and collaboration, and--most importantly--cake! Please RSVP on the event page if you're thinking of joining us.

I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list.

Thanks

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for cleaning up my Kellyanne Conway edit. I appreciate it. I like the reword much better. OmnipotentEntity (talk) 05:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome! ansh666 05:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Dead horse

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

...not to beat it too much, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border policy of Donald Trump proves that admin intervention was a good thing. I don't like posting such stuff at AN, and I don't know if that was what led Fut. Perf. to have a look at the AfD, but there are times when such attention is really necessary. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Drmies, somehow I managed to not respond to this! Sorry about being a little...flippant about that, but it seemed like you had already taken care of things by bringing it to AfD. If you'd clarified that you wanted attention at the AfD instead of at the actual article, I wouldn't have done anything at all. Cheers, ansh666 05:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • AfD was a logical step considering the content of the article, but I was also interested in an admin or two looking at the article, its history, and its creator. We have DS in that area, we have considerable disruption and a lot of partisan editing, and a lot of socking too; it may well have been that some admin recognized something. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I'll keep that in mind for the future. Thanks, ansh666 05:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

  Administrator changes

  Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
  Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Anand Kiran Koorma

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I have removed your deletion tag on that userpage as only the user themselves can request speedy deletion. If you created the Anand Kiran Koorma userpage, you should log into the Anand Kiran Koorma account and request speedy deletion from there. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That user created their userpage with only {{subst:afd}}. I've never had anyone complain about me tagging U1 in someone else's userspace when that user put an AfD tag on their own page. Check the history next time, please? ansh666 17:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Account

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings. If you ever remember User_talk:76.10.128.192#Heya.21, I have finally created an account. Thanks, PaleoNeonate (talk) 14:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

  Administrator changes

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

  Guideline and policy news

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

  Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

A request for clarification on a revert

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Before making this edit did you read my comments? If so, what is your reason for disagreeing with my conclusion? Also, how was your closure consistent with the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure? I do not see that it is covered by anything in the subsection "Appropriate closures", and it also seems to me to be a clear example of "a closure may be controversial": indeed "may be" is a gross understatement, as an earlier closure had already been reverted by an administrator, so that it was certainly controversial. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi James, thanks for bringing this to my attention. If I remember correctly, I stumbled upon the AfD while cleaning up User:Cyberbot I/AfD report. I'll admit to not reading your comments closely - I completely missed the part where the AfD had been closed and reopened, and had I seen that I may not have closed it. That said, AfD is for material in mainspace only; once it is out of mainspace and into either draft or userspace, the article criteria for deletion (notability, verifiability, etc.) no longer apply. You stated in your comment, it would be far from the first time that I had seen a deletion discussion continue after the page under discussion had been moved to a new title. However, that only applies if the content is still in article space. Since you were now discussing a redlink (the redirect was R2'd after the first move and suppressed the second time), there is zero reason to keep the AfD open as it no longer applies to the content that was being discussed, and that's why Train2104 and I closed it. This close is purely procedural, does not assess consensus at all, and hence is appropriate by WP:NAC "Appropriate Closures" #4. If you still wish to discuss the content of the page, I'd suggest either opening a discussion on the draft's talk page (notifying anyone who may be interested) or the ongoing discussions at WP:ANI/WP:ENI. If you still wish to discuss deletion of the page, I'd suggest WP:MfD, but be aware that the criteria are different there. And finally, if you still wish to contest the close, please go to WP:DRV. Thanks, ansh666 18:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

 

  Administrator changes

  Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
  Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

re-tangling your mind

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I missed your response here and just wanted to say that you're right about the vulnerability name. I was speaking from my own experience, which has been exclusively with "vulnerabilty and exploit both have the same name" examples, and forgot to put in my normal disclaimers about how that might not always (or even often, I'm not sure, but I suspect I was right about at least a plurality of cases) be the case. And considering the often alliterative nature of naming some exploits/hacker tools, I'm utterly terrified at the thought of ever using anything called "hammertrousers." At least without a jockstrap on. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

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

  Administrator changes

  Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
  ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

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

  Administrator changes

  Happyme22 • Dragons flight
  Zad68

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stubbs (cat)

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I do not think that your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stubbs (cat) was a well-judged use of the Wikipedia:Snowball clause, In particular, that essay says In cases of genuine contention in the Wikipedia community, it is best to settle the dispute through discussion and debate. This should not be done merely to assuage complaints that process wasn't followed, but to produce a correct outcome, which often requires that the full process be followed. Allowing a process to continue to its conclusion may allow for a more reasoned discourse, ensures that all arguments are fully examined, and maintains a sense of fairness, and later it says The snowball clause may not always be appropriate if a particular outcome is merely "likely" or "quite likely", and there is a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement. This is because discussions are not votes; it is important to be reasonably sure that there is little or no chance of accidentally excluding significant input or perspectives, or changing the weight of different views, if closed early. Especially, closers should beware of interpreting "early pile on" as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up. While I think i would have favored keep in this discussion, policy-based arguments for deletion were made by a few editors. I ask you to consider reverting your own close. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 08:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

First, the closure was requested on WP:AN by Ad Orientem, one of the few editors arguing for deletion (more on that later). Now, I may not be an admin as Ad Orientem asked for, but I didn't think there would be much controversy over the close, at least from a third party; I did expect some dissatisfaction, to say the least, from involved parties. I did see the request at AfD talk for the nomination, but only after it had been completed; I have not interacted at all with anyone in the context of either the article or the deletion discussion before I saw the request to close it, to get that out of the way.
Second, let's talk about the discussion itself. There are three editors legitimately advocating deletion: the nominator GreatCeasersGhost, RadioKAOS, and Ad Orientem (and, well, GregorB, kind of). As far as I can tell through the walls of text and attacks on news media, the main reasoning has been that, to paraphrase in a perhaps simplistic manner, since the cat was never actually legally elected mayor, the article fails notability and/or verifiability (which is clearly not how that works). The "reliable sources" issue is somewhat of a red herring - RadioKAOS states quite clearly that he believes the sources to be unreliable because they reported things that weren't technically true (i.e. that the cat was never actually elected mayor) - see for example Ultraexactzz's keep comment for why that doesn't make sense, and this excellent essay as well. As far as Ad Orientem's reasoning, it is certainly the most reasonable out of the three, but many of those advocating keeping the article made rebuttals for those points as well, and as he requested the closure, I took that as a withdrawal of sorts. As far as the keeps, there's a lot of them that chalk up to "per X", which is perhaps not the most useful, but there are enough editors convinced that the sources provided in the AfD itself, let alone in the article, are enough that I don't believe that there could reasonably be any other outcome.
Essentially, what it boils down to is that I'm disagreeing that there was, as WP:SNOW says, "genuine contention" or "a genuine and reasoned basis for disagreement", as far as our own policies go. There was some shouting about tangentially related things and some insults flying about, but little in the way of valid, reasonable dialogue about Wikipedia policies and guidelines that would really affect the outcome of the discussion, so I believed (and still believe) that the best course of action for everyone involved was to close it early. Hopefully this explanation is satisfactory. I am not going to revert the close; if anyone still wishes to contest it, please use WP:DRV. Thanks, ansh666 20:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
A slight correction: my comment was actually critical of the nomination's rationale (namely, that it appears to set an unreasonably high threshold of notability), so it was in effect an anti-deletion argument. I didn't go with "keep", though, because I wasn't fully convinced: just because a deletion rationale is flawed, doesn't mean that keeping the article is the best option. GregorB (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about that. I misread it as you agreeing with the nominator. Struck. ansh666 21:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that through exposition of your views. I hadn't known about the closure request at AN. I had seen a somewhat similar request (from one of those favoring keep, if I recall correctly, at the Help desk and I responded that I didn't think a snow close was yet proper. That was not ;long before you closed the discussion. I guess that i set a rather high bar for snow close, particularly when the discussion has been open for less than two days. To me, even two reasoned and policy-based contrary views are enough that a SNOW close should be avoided, because the early participants may not be a representative sample of all of those who would or might participate had it been left open longer. I particularly dislike cutting discussion when there has not been both weekend and weekday time, as weekend and weekday editors are apt to be different populations with different views. Your reasoning would be an excellent closing statement after a full length AfD, or perhaps even a 4-5 day one. All that said, I won't take this to DRV, but I urge you to consider waiting longer should a similar case arise in future. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
I will definitely keep that in mind for next time. Thanks! ansh666 22:25, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

 

  Administrator changes

  Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
  Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ansh666/Archive_6&oldid=1187361232"