Open main menu

User talk:Nosebagbear

I Voted in ACE 2019


DYK for Space climateEdit

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!Edit

  Credits where it is due. Thanks a lot for relisting AfDs with vote stuffed Keep comments and thereby maintaining the sanctity of AfD. Cheers from a fellow AfD contributor. DBigXray 11:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

...and in case you are wondering, I was referring to this excellent relist. --DBigXray 11:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


Checking on Measures for Justice article creationEdit

I see that on January 30 2019 you removed a Requested Article idea in the Business and economics/Organizations section under M, with the note "Removal of idea - selected for work." Am I right in thinking this was the suggestion for an article on Measures for Justice? And if so, do you know when this article might be posted? Thank you so much for taking up the suggestion.

Egallo25 (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Egallo25: - hi there. It's tricky for me to say - my biggest article I did in 3 days when I had nothing to do, others took a fair while. If you want to work on it then go ahead, I can always feed in any content I've made - just let me know if you move it into mainspace (article space). It can also be put back in the requested articles if you want, though if you spot someone else take it, let me know. I'll take it off if I get close to finishing my version. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: Thank you for the update. Since I work for the organization as a freelancer, I think I'm not supposed to create the article and that it instead should be written by an established Wikipedia editor. We're just eagerly awaiting it. If it went back into requested articles I'd worry that it would take a while for someone else to notice it, so I think it's best in your hands. Thank you
@Nosebagbear: If you don't think you will complete the Measures for Justice article soon, could you put it back into the Requested Article section, in hopes someone else might do it? It's been seven months, and nine months since the idea was suggested, so we're just hopeful that we can get it done somehow soon. Thanks so much!
@Egallo25: - sorry, I missed this, (for future note, to "ping" someone, you need to add the ~~~~ at the end of your whole message). You are of course right to do so. I'll only take it off the RA if I've made major progress in writing it (which I only do if I'm going to finish it). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)


Good to meet at the WES LSE event. Andrew D. (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson: - and you! Had a look at your userpage post-event and realised I missed a chance to talk about article creation. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
In the last week, I've created: Beach cleaning; Davies White; Elizabeth Georgeson; Harold George Jerrard; Mordaunt Cohen; Political Achievements of the Earl of Dalkeith. I now realise that that's not quite one a day so I should increase my pace to match the prodigious Jess Wade. So, while I'm in this mood, it's still a good time to discuss article creation. What's on your mind? Andrew D. (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC>

you havent seen anythingEdit

unless you have seen {{welcome-menu}} JarrahTree 12:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: - I feel that I'm missing a joke (unless this is just a very specific wiki-advertising piece), but can't remember what it was in reference for - apologies for any humour foiled. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- the sheer volume of links via that template outdoes any concern about links -( -I dont think many people take much notice of guidelines anymore never apologise - see my user page on that - we all are terribly serious here... JarrahTree 00:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC>

Draft:Eugene Maynard FreedmanEdit

I notice you put Draft:Eugene Maynard Freedman under review. I was also digging into it, and would strongly recommend declining it because it cherry picks from the available sources to memorialise him rather than being a neutral profile. It whitewashes by giving undue weight to positive things while ignoring those that are negative. I'll elaborate in a concurring (or dissenting) opinion when you finish your review. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Worldbruce: - I passed it as I felt it wasn't so drastic as that it would fail AfD - however my reading of the two good sources (plus a little bit in a couple of books I found when looking for an additional source) do indeed indicate significant hostility towards the man. I planned on cutting the gordian knot by just adding a paragraph myself Nosebagbear (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi ,I have corrected errors and removed all the external links on the main text of my article . I would like to know if there are other parts i should correct or add as well Rumbidzainokutenda (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017 Stockholm truck attackEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Stockholm truck attack. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Hope that answers your questionsEdit

Hope that answers your questions. If you have any others, feel free to ask. Buffs (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

AfC ResponseEdit

Hi , i have

all unnecessary links in the main text . please can you advice if there are other part I should correct as well 

Rumbidzainokutenda (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Translation from Russian to English the article about The LitRes companyEdit

Thank you for your answer here

1. > Firstly, you need to fix the copyright, as you've declare it's a translation of another wikipedia version. Please make a blank edit and in the summary add a URL link to the view history of the article you've duplicated this from

- Can you please explain to me what the "blank edit" is? And if it's not difficult for you to provide me more details how I can do it?

2. > While this comes from another Wikipedia, that doesn't mean it meets our rules. Wikipedias can set different rules, and en-wiki has strict notability rules for companies, so better sourcing is needed.

- But what if sources are in Russian not in English?

3. > While it's not extreme promotionalism, it reads more like what they'd say on their website, listing all the good things they do/offer. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

- Can you please explain what the article should be about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashashko (talkcontribs)

Firstly, please make sure to sign your comment with ~~~~ - I do lots of AFC stuff so helps me track do who I'm talking to :)
1) A blank edit is just an edit where you don't make any substantive change, in order to put something in the edit summary. You have to change something so people often fix a typo or add a space somewhere. You edit in the same way you would normally add content. You want to add the URL of the history of the article. (e.g. if you were duplicating content from Politics of Asia you would cite )
2) Sources in Russian (or any other language) are fine.
3) For this I'd suggest having a look at some other company articles. You should find a few yourself - you don't want to look at massive pages like Google, but smaller ones like AWB Limited, which you'll see gives a more balanced summary both about the company generally but also good and bad representation in the news. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fairness ProjectEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fairness Project 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


I've seen you mention your distaste for the oversighter icon in a couple places and I'm curious what about it you find so "creepy"? I'd say the pending changes icon is far more unsettling, and what I thought you meant at first. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I actually quite like how creepy the oversight logo is - I just find it entertainingly Orwellian - the logo gives the idea that there are bits and pieces of the encyclopedia being taken out without anyone knowing (I realise on a very literal, minimalist sense, this is accurate).
I find the pending changes logo a bit odd, but without the well crafted sinisterness Nosebagbear (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I misread then. I always thought the symbolism was kind of clever, but now that you put it like that I agree that it is kinda creepy to think about! Best, Wug·a·po·des​ 23:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn't have said you misread - creepy isn't generally a positive description to give something! It definitely is clever symbolism, and it's interesting to see how it gets interpreted (perhaps I have too much paranoia). Cheers Nosebagbear (talk)

Your GA nomination of Fairness ProjectEdit

The article Fairness Project you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Fairness Project 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 The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 10:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Southern strategyEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern strategy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Service awardEdit

This has been long due. Thanks for being such an amazing all round contributor. --DBigXray 17:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This editor is a Veteran Editor II and is entitled to display this Bronze Editor Star.
@DBigXray: - that's very appreciated, though I feel a bit ridiculous claiming my technical length as an editor - 18 months ago I'd only made about 150 edits! But I was really happy to get my GA, I'd fallen a bit away from content creation so it was nice to do some more. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
I would not worry about technicalities. It's hard to stay away from Wikipedia even if you are not editing, unless ofcourse you are in a cave, (in that case, you will have better things to worry about). IMHO, you have already compensated the years with your edit counts. So be proud. I had read your recent rfa votes and was glad to see us sitting on the same side  of the fence, no matter which. Shows that we think similarly. Congratulations on your GA. It makes you a step ahead of me since I am yet to get one. I will be glad to collaborate if you find yourself overwhelmed with a GAR. Cheers. --DBigXray 18:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

New evidence regarding the notability of ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_PlayerEdit

I am respectfully requesting that you change your "Delete" vote regarding ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player, in consideration of the following new information that has just surfaced:

I just discovered that Classical_Archives (the largest classical music site in the world), has endorsed the product that this article describes, for the past two years. The following website contains the statement " is the ONLY Online Midi Editor":

Considering the following facts, I can't imagine a stronger indication of notability:

  • does not accept any advertising or user-entered editorial .
  • Their website does not mention any other Midi Editors, so they are not a "Midi Directory" website.
  • I have no relationship whatsoever with

The following webpage shows that this endorsement has been prominently displayed on their website since at least April 26 2017

The reason you gave for your Delete vote was "I still don't think sufficient sourcing is available". I hope you agree that that reason no longer stands.

Thank you for your consideration. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Betty Cantor-JacksonEdit

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nominationEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Betty Cantor-Jackson at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi There i don't know if this is the right place to ask you about the submission process of our article: But i though might as well give it a try here?

So i was wondering about your comment: "The first source is interesting, it's in effect an indirect circular reference to ourselves (or our German siblings) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)" What does this mean exactly. I could not make sense of it. Do you mean we are referencing wrong or that the resource needs to be removed. Also i don't know why the article was rejected as it is a translation from a german Wikipedia article that is already published in the german Wikipedia.

Please help us understand what to do here.

Thanks (Heute marko (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC))

@Heute marko: - hi there.
So you can't cite to Wikipedia (either ours or the German version). This source seems to specifically duplicate what is in wiki, though I can't tell if it does a check of what it says. As such, I was wondering whether it "picked up" the unreliability of wikipedia or not. It wouldn't need to be removed, but it won't add to notability, which leads us to -
The draft was declined (not rejected, which is more final), for not showing sufficient notability about the individual. This is a judgement on there being enough reliable, in-depth, independent, secondary coverage. Most of your sources are "primary" (rather than secondary media like newspapers, books etc), so can't show notability. Your last source is good.
It may be suitable for de-wiki: different wikipedias have different rules.
Generally, if you want to ask your reviewer why you were declined in more detail (often worth doing), go to their talk page User talk:Theroadislong. If you think that reviewer was wrong (I don't believe so), then go to the AFC Help Desk. That's only if it should have passed as it was, rather than if you make some changes. If you find some more sources, resubmit with the blue button in the red box. Good luck. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


over Signpost comments. WBGconverse 11:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Regarding page Draft: Shripad VaidyaEdit

Respected Sir, As per your valuable guidance on the Afc help desk dated 5 August, 2019, I have selected 4 best sources which are as follows. I hope these justify the notability of the subject but your suggestions are welcome. If your authority feels that the topic is notable then I will move forward to reduce the references as per your previous advice. I have always made the changes as per the suggestions of previous reviewers. You may check accordingly. Please do the needful and kindly inform the changes required. The above mentioned references are as follows: 1) 2) 3) 4) Please Guide. Thanks. MA$HRVA (Talk) Write Right!! 17:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@MA$HRVA: - thank you for getting back to me. I would say those references probably make him notable. Notable enough that at least the community as a whole should judge on the matter. The other issues, named both by me and the other article reviewers, remain. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: Thanks a lot. I do not know how to proceed further because the page review button of the page has disappeared. So, as per the guidance of your authority I will make the changes in the number of references. After making the changes I will again contact with your authority. Meanwhile, if anything in addition which I can do, please inform. Thanks.MA$HRVA (Talk) Write Right!! 17:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

As per the instructions of your authority, I have re-written the article and have removed many references. Kindly go through it. As per my understanding, I have tried my level best to follow the instructions by you and previous reviewers. But, your valuable guidance is always welcome to make this article more correct. Please inform about how I should now proceed further. The guidance from your side will be highly appreciated. MA$HRVA (Talk) Write Right!! 10:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have read the comment left by your authority. I will wait for the review. As you feel that the references should be somewhat less, I will try to minimize them. It is a pleasure to get your valuable guidance for writing the article (This is the first article I am trying to write). With regards. MA$HRVA (Talk) Write Right!! 09:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I have made the changes as per the review instructions received. I have removed number of references and also made the article readable. Kindly go through it. Your suggestions will be highly appreciated. Can you please help me to edit the article? I am thinking of resubmitting it for review after making satisfactory changes by following the wikipedia article guidelines. With regards. Thank you. MA$HRVA (Talk) Write Right!! 18:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
@MA$HRVA: - while I can see that you have removed some sources, you still have an absolutely unnecessary 50 sources after the career paragraph. Do 50 indicate that 5 couldn't? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. I will try to make the improvements accordingly. MA$HRVA (Talk) Write Right!! 13:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: As per your guidance, I have tried to make the changes as far as possible. I feel that if further I reduce the references, it may appear as lack of references. But if your authority feels the requirement of any change, then please inform. If it is okay, then can I submit it for review? Please oblige. With regards. MA$HRVA (Talk) Write Right!! 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@MA$HRVA:, that's definitely an improvement - I don't know whether the other concerns editors raised still apply, but you're welcome to submit it and see what people think. If nothing else it will get the ball rolling which is worthwhile with the current backlog Nosebagbear (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: Thanks a lot. I will proceed accordingly. MA$HRVA (Talk)Write Right!! 17:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
Thank you for your help. Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

AfC submissionEdit

Hello sir, I hope you are doing well in life. I writing this message because I saw that you are an active user in the AfC helpdesk. I wrote there but I did not get any answer yet. So, I writing directly to you hoping that you can answer my questions. The draft ( that I am working on was declined but I updated some of the references, can you lighten me aboute on the notability issue? what kind of sources would you consider reliable and independent? or what part of the article is poorly referenced and should be cut out? are Articles from Techcrunch, yahoo finance and business insider considered unsuitable? I have seen articles from other finance companies that use them such as venmo and BitPay, btw, the undisclosed template that was added to the article is not right because the former editor and me both have disclosed payment. Thanks. JamesRodir (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@JamesRodir: - you might have more luck contacting your reviewers directly, but my looking over your sources points out the following: the BI (is it worth it) one mainly talks about how to use it, but more importantly, has a huge number of quotes and indirect quotes. This means there's not that much secondary content about Plastiq itself, though it's still a possible source. The Yahoo source is a duplication of a PR release, so doesn't count. The other BI source, once you've taken out the quote, definitely doesn't meet Significant coverage. Forbes has proven time and again to only be reliable if created by a staff writer, not a contributor, so won't qualify as reliable. CNBC's is also heavily about usage, but might have enough on the company. Sources almost entirely about raising capital are routine, so don't aid notability. I personally don't think it warrants its rejection, but corporate notability is high enough that it probably doesn't meet that level. It having been heavily created by an undisclosed paid editor may be making 50-50 calls go against it. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me. I messaged my reviewer but I got nothing. I just updated the product capabilities section and the references taking in consideration what you said. I am thinking of resubmitting. I am afraid that the connection with its former editor its going to harm the article, It shouldn't because he had disclosed his connection with plastiq team and I think he was blocked for other reasons apart from this draft which he started before he got involved in a shady business. JamesRodir (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you think the article would be better if I remove the 'funding rounds' section?
@JamesRodir: - the funding rounds section is nice and short, it's fine as is. There is another former reviewer of your article you could contact on their talk page. It's worth leaving 2-3 days, not everyone checks wiki daily. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Cool, I am going to let this rest for the weekend. JamesRodir (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: Hello! following up, I added new sources. And in fact, Plastiq is a company with many clients, press, great partnerships, and there are more than 70 results of Plastiq in google news, this has to count for something. Do you think the company is notable enough and its worth it to resubmit to AfC? JamesRodir (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
@JamesRodir: - I've resubmitted on your behalf. I'm not sure if it passes NCORP, but it's improved enough that it's no longer clear. The number of clients and partnerships is irrelevant, and high google news numbers can be forced fairly easily. I would suggest removing a couple of poorer/marginal sources (those with only a few lines, especially if only about the venture capitalism). We'll see how it goes Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Nosebagbear: Thanks I think I am going to be lucky this time, I cleaned up product capabilities section to have a more neutral tone because someone might have found it a bit promotional before. Do you think is okay if I remove COI and notability templates? JamesRodir (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for your reply and input. I guess I'll be paying someone to figure this out for us. I cant understand how the person I'm writing about is mentioned several times on his bandmates page, he is a founding member, linked to references proving this and other facts is decliend when some people are on wikipedia with incorrect infomration... I give up:( Thank you anyway. TVaughanSoCal — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVaughanSoCal (talkcontribs) 18:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Newb SPA COI takes his shotEdit

I alert you to this ANI incident claim.

As you may know, waves of SPAs have whitewashed this page since 2015. Most have very similar and consistent goals. Should I write a diff-heavy walkthrough of the whole history in COIN? Did I use the term "boomerang" right? The BLP subject also has a similar long pattern of whitewashing on one key claim (which the SPAs target with increasingly slick spin):

The latest SPA is meaner and quite determined. I will write incredibly clear and meticulously researched talk sections, and hope that's enough. Many suffered because it is true, but did it get in the Kirkus Review? Mcfnord (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Your help desk questionEdit

You didn't get an answer to this question. You already said you didn't think the talk page related to the information would be satisfactory. I'm out of options because I don't know anything about the subject, but maybe there's something else you could try.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019Edit

Hello Nosebagbear,


Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.


A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of IranEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Silence Day Deletion for second time.Edit

You may wish to be aware that Winged Blades of Godrick has renominated Silence Day with an Afd. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Silence_Day_(2nd_nomination). As part of your comments on the original, you discussed the notability of an article added as a reference from The Telegraph of 10 July 2011. Winged Blades of Godric removed that reference as citing ROS. I intend to re-include it. I feel that Winged Blades of Godric has a POV agenda, and is pushing into making a point with his AFDs. WP:POINT. I appreciate the comments you made on the earlier AFD. Please have a look at the current state. Thanks. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

/* Amit Ramani */Edit

Thank you for your feedback. We have added more reliable links to support the content.

Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chirag-Behre (talkcontribs) 10:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Sore throat...Edit

*cough cough, splutter* WormTT(talk) 09:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

+1 GABgab 02:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

what's in a name?Edit

I was wondering if you would share the reason for your name. It wouldn't change my vote either way - just wondering, it is unusual. — Ched (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ched:, hi there. Don't mind at all, but since another user has since asked the question in the RfA I thought I should answer it there (it's Q9).
If you want to ask me anything more specific just let me know here (or indeed, anywhere else) and I'd be happy to clarify. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

You've got mailEdit

Hello, Nosebagbear. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

You are now an administratorEdit

Pursuant to your successful request for adminship, you are now an administrator. I took the opportunity to review the major points of opposition. The founded concerns largely centered around your understanding of policy and experience in dispute resolution and content creation spheres. Please be sure to consider and address these concerns as you step into your new role. I would also encourage you to review the Wikipedia:Administrators' guide and subscribe to the administrators' newsletter. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions! Happy adminning, –xenotalk 19:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! As the person who is the second newest sysop there are no doubt many others who can offer you better help and advice but if I can be of any assistance you know where to find me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: Thank you thrice over - for your support in the RfA, but also your warming words 2 days ago and for your offer above. You also win a cookie for your spot on estimate. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Happy adminning :) WormTT(talk) 19:58, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Your RFAEdit

Welcome to the admin corps.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:42, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Successful RfAEdit

  • Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Congrats..The admins' T-shirt for you. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, I shall wear it with my xkcd tie and be dressed for all occasions. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for making yourself available and of course congratulations. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Cheers, and thank you for your support Nosebagbear (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


  • Thank you all! Right now, I want to thank each group in my RfA: those who showed such a level of trust; but also those that opposed or balanced the two - none of the objection points in my RfA are disputable - they all state clear issues to work on. Which I shall.
I've created a lessons learnt (and to to be learnt) page that I hope to work on in the next couple of days. I may pester a couple of hopefully willing volunteers for some specific help on that, and a few more when I actually turn to mopping.
It might be a little delayed - my next 4 days involve a family wedding, a piece of minor surgery, and me moving house. Thus making it the 11 days I'm most likely to turn into a film. Thanks again, all! :) Nosebagbear (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I also conducted an RFA post-mortem, feel free to adapt the structure for your own. –xenotalk 19:53, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Xeno: - that's excellent, thank you, should make it much clearer Nosebagbear (talk)
@Nosebagbear: Congratulations on adminship. You will do great with the mop. I hope to see you around and work with you. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:34, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @AmericanAir88:, and thank you for your question Nosebagbear (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

This is good news on which to end my wiki-day! Welcome to the ranks of the mop-handlers! Yunshui  21:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Felicitations -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Congratulations and best of luck. My talk page is always open if you have any questions   TonyBallioni (talk) 04:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Nosebagbear (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

A belated congratulationsEdit

  The Admin's Barnstar
Well done on gaining the bit, Nosebagbear, and welcome to the admin corps. I did oppose, but only on WP:NOTQUITEYET grounds, and obviously the community disagreed so I'm sure you'll be absolutely fine and hopefully no hard feelings. If you need any advice or tips from me, don't hesitate to let me know. All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
@Amakuru: - thank you! No hard feelings, as well as being legitimate, the oppose list was also generally amazingly pleasant. I definitely plan to reach out to a few of the opposes after I've done a first draft of my washup. Currently moving house so lots of juggling atm! Nosebagbear (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

RfA WashUp v1.0 DoneEdit

I've just concluded a first draft of my RfA consideration of lessons learnt and lessons to be learnt.

I've covered 4 main issues and some early stage thoughts on what I can do. Please feel free to either just comment on it directly, or here, or by email.

Thank you again to those who provided areas to look at and to those who gave some advice on how to go about doing that.

Nosebagbear (talk) 22:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Belated congrats! Been busy offline. Hope you always enjoy the feeling of being trusted by the community. P. I. Ellsworthed. put'r there 09:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Right-wing populismEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Right-wing populism. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Admin's Barnstar
This is for your outstanding performance in Wikipedia as an administrator. I appreciate your selfless effort in serving Wikipedia. Your efforts are really grateful. Your quick troubleshooting abilities are a gift for Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 05:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi, if you have time, can you check the User talk: page - claiming to be a wiki administrator? Thanks Denisarona (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

@Denisarona: - definitely odd. Obviously admins are not prohibited to edit when logged-out (if in line with the normal rules). It is, however, prohibited to claim permissions that one doesn't have - which since we can't verify, this would probably be a case of.
Even if they are an admin, that's irrelevant - you were completely right to warn them from their unpleasant behaviour. Their "defence" would really concern me if they were an admin, as it seems to suggest that they shouldn't be being judged for it; when they should be judged more severely.
I can drop a neutral concerned message on their (that is, the IP's) talk page if you'd like. Alternatively we can leave it for the moment and see what happens - they've not edited from that address in a few hours. Let me know your preferences Nosebagbear (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Let's see what happens. Many thanks for your help. Denisarona (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

A request to considerEdit

Now that GS's RfA is over I want to note that I let out a rather large sigh when I saw your question and then ultimately it made me smile as I realized the absurdity. First that it's obviously not so traditional as several recent RfAs didn't include the question including one you might be familiar with and if that's not enough that the question has mutated from one weakness, to two weaknesses, to two weaknesess with a whole bunch of framing caveats. Girth is a going to be a great sysop and he answered it like a pro, so it wasn't really about him and I am on recent record as suggesting (as you seem to be) that questions aren't a deterrent to people running. But I also think that despite writing that people should have answers ready to questions - including that one - before running that it's not actually a useful question. To me the question is trying to get whether the person answering is self-reflective and willing to admit fault and that there are better ways - including from other questions during RfA. It's mutation to some level of absurdity (at least for me) is showing this very thing - that it has proven not so useful in what was attempting to be assessed. I'm not sure what your motivation in asking it was (especially after having already supported) - I have no doubt it was well meaning. But I hope the recent trend of not asking that question at RfA becomes even clearer and we put the question to rest and would ask you to consider joining this trend by not perpetuating this question at future RfAs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49:, in terms of a general purpose to assess self-reflectiveness you are of course right that there are better ways of assessing it. This is probably how I interpreted the question and answer in the earlier RfAs I either viewed or participated in. More recently, the question is frequently pointless (or at least, duplicative), but can end up giving bits of other helpful knowledge, such as genuine potential relevant weaknesses. I actually think it would make more sense to ask something along the lines of "what area are you poor at now but might actually want to involve yourself in the future", which GS's answer actually touched on. There's also been some other relevant info. So in the sense that I could do away with the question (and close variants), you may well be right and I will consider it. I do think there is benefit in some style(s) of self-directed competence query, but I'll have to put a bit more thought into that field.
In terms of asking questions when I've already !voted support, that's usually down to me either thinking the question will be primarily helpful to others (undecided or opposing), which was less the case here, or knowledge that I felt was worthwhile despite it being unlikely to change my !vote, which was this case. Obviously I could just email the candidate, but I'm generally concerned that that risks being an evasion of question oversight and mean on the candidate - in many cases I'd be unhappy about others asking questions in that style, so I avoid doing so myself.
There is one other aspect that the question would/does provide (which is pointless to ask in an RfA) but would be useful as a general admin survey would be to find out what fields active admins felt they were a) Interested and expert in, b) interested and competent, c) competent but not interested and d) lacking skill in - but that's a consideration for a different discussion. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Your new best LTA friendEdit

Since you recently (and WP:AGFing correctly) declined an RFPP request regarding Charles X of France and as a rather belated welcome to the admin ranks, it's my privilege to introduce you to an LTA, tentatively and maliciously code named the "Louisville Loon" – not to be confused with the Denver Dodo. Some day I'll find the time (and diplomacy) to write up a proper LTA file. This specimen specializes in articles about French and American potentates, hurricanes, and Matthew McConaughey. Truly a person of catholic tastes. The pattern of disruption is exactly what was seen on the reported article, and once they get going they don't stop until the article is protected. Originally, they used IPs from the Louisville area, but now they have diversified into using proxies – possibly because of the substantial number of range blocks bestowed on the Bluegrass State. Editing is almost exclusively with IPs, but one "good hand" account, ThanToBe, has been eliminated. So, in the hope that I haven't completely ruined your faith in Wikipedia's slice of mankind, I wish you happy admining! Best regards, Favonian (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@Favonian: - wikipedians bring me the nicest presents! Obviously with the new IP this sunny Sunday afternoon (I'd ask if they have anything better to do...but here we are! ;)) protection became clearly necessary. I don't suppose there's any consistency with which proxies they're using? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Proxying has come as a recent revelation to this one, but it's all the rage among their kindred spirits, so we should expect more. Something better to do? Guess Mom's basement offers few alternatives. Favonian (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


Hello N. Excellent edit summary!! Thanks for the smle. MarnetteD|Talk 19:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD:, thanks! I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw it on the RFPP list. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Latest auto-protection on cloud articleEdit

I see you've place a new albeit temporary level of protection on the cloud article because of recent excessive vandalism. On the edit page, it says that auto-confirmed users can still edit the article without interruption, but this doesn't appear to be the case. I've been auto-confirmed ever since it was first introduced and never had an edit blocked for review until now, not even during periods of temporary enhanced protection. My edit has now been accepted, but I still have to wonder if I have lost my status as an auto-confirmed user. Do you know anything about that? Many thanks!~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31:, there is something odd going on here. The article is currently both semi-protected and on pending changes, which is quite common - in effect, it gives the same results as being just semi-protected.
However, you are not just autoconfirmed but Extended-confirmed, so I am at a loss as to what is going on. Could you edit a few other pending changes articles and see if you're having issues there and get back to me? At that point I'll probably ask someone with more experience in user permissions Nosebagbear (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nosebagbear: I've been looking around for other pending changes articles but not found any for which I can do any constructive edits. Obviously I'm reluctant to do what would amount to purely "test" editing as this is usually treated as vandalism if it doesn't produce any constructive results for an article. I appreciate you taking an interest in the incident, but this elevated level of screening/blocking edits is only for a few more days during which I don't expect to be making any further edits to the cloud article. I'm not taking this incident personally, just treating it as an accident/error for now, but you can be sure I'll raise it again if it happens again!~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 22:56, 02 November 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31: - no problem, that seems like a good route to take. If it does show up again I'll need to pause doing it until I've settled the issue, so it would be of some significant concern. Cheers Nosebagbear (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

trick or treat?Edit

Suggested edit to talk header. Of course feel free to revert, tweak etc. –xenotalk 12:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Xeno: that's fine, thanks for the edit Nosebagbear (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

copy of deleted articleEdit

Hi. Would you kindly send a copy of Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on my email please? —usernamekiran(talk) 09:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Usernamekiran: - just letting you know that I'd seen this - it'll be a short while before I get the opportunity to handle it, but please pester remind me if I've not got back in touch by Thursday Nosebagbear (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019Edit

Hello Nosebagbear,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 726 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.


Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)


....Atsme Talk 📧 09:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Atsme: - thank you for your message. I've read it but I guarantee you that I'll give it and the links a more thorough going over and make a more final decision in the last 24 hours. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, NBB - I know you will. It's heartbreaking to see what's happening to such a kind and generous person. He does not deserve that kind of treatment. Atsme Talk 📧 14:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Lina caceresEdit

Why would you delete Lina Caceres I was still updating it? There are a lot of other articles that have less sources or information and you guys dont delete it!

Topmartz (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Topmartz: - I deleted it because that was the consensus at Articles for Deletion - they key bit being not just that there weren't enough sources atm, but there weren't enough reliable secondary sources available elsewhere to show notability. It did run for a full week to give a chance to add extra sources. The status of other articles is somewhat irrelevant - they may well warrant deletion as well, in which case anyone (including yourself) can recommend them for deletion: but it would be impossible to work our way bottom-up. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

If you believe is not relevant enough I can ffix it but please transfere it to draft I spent months writting the article and now is all lost.

Topmartz (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

DRAFT Rika IshigeEdit


Thank you for responding to my comment about Rika Ishige Draft.

Is there any way I can get in touch with the editor who rejected my page?

I did not refer to Rika as a mixed martial artist. So how can my article be declined for not meeting mixed martial arts requirements?

And the editor's comments are vague. It would make sense for me to talk directly with that editor.



JohnWolcott (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@JohnWolcott: - you can go to their talk page here. Just hit new section to ask a question Nosebagbear (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

AfD statsEdit

You mention them at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/EvergreenFir. How to find one's AfD stats? TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Piotrus: - there's a direct link here. Put the username of the editor you're reviewing in the top box and (usually) 500 in the 2nd. In RfAs, there's also a little box with links to things like this directly above the support !vote section. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


A rep for Centurion Ministries will be updating information to the Wiki page. Please do not undo these edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LShareefW (talkcontribs) 16:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


Hi there, I'm a volunteer for Centurion and I'm trying to help them build a more comprehensive wiki page by adding additional information to what was previously a sparse and (in many cases) completely inaccurate page. I think their work should be more accurately represented. I will be linking out references - please do not revert my work as I will be adding sources and references in the coming days. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@LShareefW and - I would not suggest massive changes and saying to add refs later, as we have no idea what timescale to work off and it still would be breaking the sourcing rules for anyone who saw it in the interim. A larger number of small, referenced, changes is advisable. Given the page has been heading to an edit war and there's a clear COI, I suggest working via the talk page. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mark LevinEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mark Levin. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


Just as a note (since you were the one that started the conversation), and in case you (or you) aren't watching WT:AFC, I split the "Very old" AFC category into the relevant months. It should give some better handling of how old things really are. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)


Thank you for telling me the problems with my idea in a polite and concise way! Puddleglum2.0 Have a talk? 01:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Nosebagbear".