User talk:RL0919/Archive 2019

Precious
	<img src="//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Cornflower_blue_Yogo_sapphire.jpg/60px-Cornflower_blue_Yogo_sapphire.jpg" decoding="async" width="60" height="72" class="mw-file-element" data-file-width="1490" data-file-height="1792">
Two years!

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Administrator changes

Galobtter

Orangemike

BorgQueen • Davidruben • Ocee • Revolving Bugbear • Theda • There'sNoTime • Timc • Tijuana Brass • Tristessa de St Ange

Bureaucrat changes

Addshore

CheckUser changes

Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

AGK • Joe Roe • SilkTork

Euryalus • Newyorkbrad • There'sNoTime

Guideline and policy news

There are a number of new or changed speedy deletion criteria, each previously part of WP:CSD#G6:

G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

The Wikimedia Foundation now requires all interface administrators to enable two-factor authentication.
Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.

Technical news

Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:

At least 8 characters in length
Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
Different from their username

User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.

Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
{{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Following the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: AGK, Courcelles, GorillaWarfare, Joe Roe, Mkdw, SilkTork.

Miscellaneous

Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of stakes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of stakes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. RobThomas15 (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Kissing Candice (band)

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would you userfy Draft:Kissing Candice (band) to my userspace? The tv show of the same name clouds search results but I think the draft might be salvageable. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Restored and moved to User:Godsy/Kissing Candice (band). --RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:OppzSec

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You missed Draft:OppzSec (Opposite Security Team) when you deleted the main draft. Just a FYI. Whispering^(t) 19:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Now deleted; thanks for the heads up. I've been using the XFDCloser script, and didn't notice that it overlooked the additional page. --RL0919 (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Happy 2019! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #026, 20 Jan 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Well, here's the first issue of the new year. Enjoy...

New participants

A hearty welcome to new arrivals to the portals department:

Harvesting categories tool prototype

DannyS712 has created a user script prototype, User:DannyS712/Cat links, that can pull members from a category, a functionality we've been after since the project's revamp last Spring. Now, it's a matter of applying this technique to scripts that will place the items where needed, such as with a section starter script and/or portal builder script.

New portals since last issue

What else is going on

There have been some discussions at Wikipedia talk:Portal guidelines.

DreamyJazz is working on a bot to place links to portals on root articles, category pages, and navigation footer templates.

Portal bugs are getting dealt with soon after they are reported.

Lots of wikignome activity (using Hotcat, etc.).

Keep up the good work. — The Transhumanist 09:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Steve Lee

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can you transfer the text and code of Steve Lee (artist) to my userspace? I want to work on the article -- Thats Just Great (talk) 05:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Thats Just Great: Userfied to User:Thats Just Great/Steve Lee (artist). Please remember that WP:BLP still applies even in user space. --RL0919 (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

MfD

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, I submitted an MfD for an IP user page and didn't respond in time before it was closed. I thought it would be better to discuss it here before considering a deletion review. Currently, the user page contains a suspected sock template that was posted some years ago for that IP and my previous username.

Regarding the MfD comments, as far as I can tell, there was no sock investigation, sock records, block log or other action besides the template posted on the IP user page. To provide some context, I believe the user page was originally created by another editor to post a sock template while we were discussing article content on the article talk page some years ago. That editor had an edit war with the IP editor at that article before our talk page discussion, and had started a new section about the edit disputes. I had jumped into the discussion after the IP editor had replied to the other editor. It seems the editor thought I was the same user as the IP, and after some contentious discussion, posted a suspected sock notice on the IP user page while not notifying me on my user talk page. It seems there was no follow up after the editor posted the sock template. Recently, I found the IP user page while preparing for a username move and requested a deletion shortly after the move. I do not edit from that IP and I believe the sock notice was added without good cause and unsubstantiated by the article's edit history. For privacy reasons, I submitted an MfD requesting that the IP user page to be blanked and deleted.

Would this be acceptable rationale for deleting the page? Thanks. 02:58, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Blanking is something you could have done without MfD and probably no one would have cared or even noticed. Possibly that would still work. But I doubt you will be able to convince the commenters at MfD to support deleting the page history without first showing the original tagging was erroneous. That's going to be difficult to do and probably would just draw unnecessary attention to a minor conflict from years ago. My best advice is blank it and forget it (and if the blanking is undone, just let it be). --RL0919 (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #027, 28 Jan 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Portal styles

For a visually intensive portal, see Portal:Hummingbirds.

If you find any other portals that stand out, please send me the links so I can include them in the next issue. Thank you.

Conversion continues

There are about 1100 portals left in the old style, with subpages and static excerpts. As those are very labor intensive to maintain (because their maintenance is manual), all those except the ones with active maintainers (about 100) are slated for upgrade = approximately 1000. We started with 1500, and so over a quarter of them have been processed so far. That's good, but at this rate, conversion will take another 3 years. So, some automation (AWB?) is in order. We just need to keep at it, and push down on the gas pedal a bit harder.

You can find the old-style portals with an insource search of "box portal skeleton".

Flagship portals: the portals on the Main Page

Speaking of upgrades...

The following portals are listed in the header at the top of Wikipedia's Main Page, and get far more traffic than all other portals:

Of those, all but one have been revamped to an automated self-updating single-page design.

The remaining one, Portal:Mathematics has manual maintainers, and has been partially upgraded.

As these are our flagship fleet, they need to be kept in top-notch condition.

Check 'em out, and improve them if you can.

And be sure they are on your watchlist.

New portals since last issue

Keep 'em coming!

Deorphanizing the new portals

As you know, thousands of the new portals are orphans, that is, having no links to them from article space. For all practical purposes, that means they are not part of the encyclopedia yet, and readers will be unlikely to find them.

What is needed are links to these portals from the See also sections of the corresponding root articles.

Dreamy Jazz to the rescue...

Dreamy Jazz has created a bot to place the corresponding category link to the end of each portal (if it is missing), and place a link to each portal in the See also section of the corresponding root articles.

That bot, named User:Dreamy Jazz Bot, is currently in its trial period performing the above described edits!

To take a look at the edits it has made so far, see Special:Contributions/Dreamy_Jazz_Bot.

It shouldn't be long before the bot is processing the entire set of new portals.

Good news indeed.

Way to go, Dreamy Jazz!

And, that's a wrap

That's all I have to report this time around.

No doubt there will be more to tell soon.

Until then, — The Transhumanist 13:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Notice!

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! Despite closing the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi cricket team records as delete, the article hasn't been deleted. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, now fixed. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --RL0919 (talk) 13:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you please review the article about Robin Hawdon?

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello RL0919 ! I saw on your profile that you are interested in theaters, writers and plays, so I thought that maybe you could help me by reviewing the article about Robin Hawdon? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Robin_Hawdon

Thank you! NMGS19 (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Administrator changes

Enterprisey • JJMC89

BorgQueen

Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

Enterprisey

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #028, 04 Feb 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Here's a quicky status report:

Old-style portals: 1,018

Single-page portals: 4,367

Total portals: 5,385

But of course, there has been more going on than just that...

Dreamy Jazz Bot is up and running!

Dreamy Jazz Bot has been approved and is now up and running.

What it does is places missing links to orphaned portals. It places a link in the See also section of the corresponding root article, and it puts one at the top of the corresponding category page.

We have thousands of new portals that have yet to be added to the encyclopedia proper, just waiting to go live.

When they do go live, over the coming days or weeks, due to Dreamy Jazz Bot, it will be like an explosion of new portals on the scene. We should expect an increase in awareness and interest in the portals project. Perhaps even new participants.

Get ready...

Get set...

Go!

Another sockpuppet infiltrator has been discovered

User:Emoteplump, a recent contributor to the portals project, was discovered to be a sockpuppet account of an indefinitely blocked user.

When that happens, admins endeavor to eradicate everything the editor contributed. This aftermath has left a wake of destruction throughout the portals department, again.

The following portals which have been speedy deleted, are in the process of being re-created. Please feel free to help to turn these blue again:

And the corresponding talk pages:

New portals since the last issue

Keep up the great work

Until next time, — The Transhumanist 09:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #029, 13 Feb 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Where we are at:

Single-page portals: 4,704

Total portals: 5,705

The Ref desks survived the proposal to shut them down

You might be familiar with the Ref desks, by their link on every new portal. They are a place you can go to ask volunteers almost any knowledge-related question, and have been a feature of Wikipedia since August of 2005 (or perhaps earlier). They were linked to from portals in an effort to improve their visibility, and to provide a bridge from the encyclopedia proper to project space (the Wikipedia community).

Well, somebody proposed that we get rid of them, and the community decided that that was not going to happen. Thank you for defending the Ref desks!

Here's a link to the dramatic discussion:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Indefinitely_semiprotecting_the_refdesk#Proposal_II:_Shut_down_the_Ref_Desks

The cleanup after sockpuppet Emoteplump continues...

The wake of disruption left by Emoteplump and the admins who reverted many (but not all) of his/her edits is still undergoing cleanup. We could use all the help we can get on this task...

Almost all of the speedy deleted portals have been rebuilt from scratch.

For the portals he/she restarted (many of which were done mistakenly, overwriting restarts and further development that had already been done), and/or tagged as the maintainer, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Emoteplump&oldid=881568794#Additional_Portals_under_my_watch

10,000 portals, here we come...

We're at 5,705 portals and counting.

New portals since issue #28

Prior to 2018, for the previous 14 years, portal creation was at about 80 portals per year on average. We did over 3 times that in just the past 9 days. At this rate, we'll hit the 10,000 portal mark in 5 months. But, I'm sure we can do it sooner than that.

What's next for portal pages?

There are 5 drives for portal development:

Create new portals
Expand existing portals, such as with new sections like Recognized content
Convert or restart old-style portals into automated single-page portals
Link to new portals from the encyclopedia
Pageless portals

Let's take a closer look at these...

1: Creating new portals

Portal creation, for subjects that happen to have the necessary support structures already in place, is down to about a minute per portal. The creation part, which is automated, takes about 10 seconds. The other 50 seconds is taken up by manual activities, such as finding candidate subjects, inspecting generated portals, and selecting the portal creation template to be used according to the resources available. Tools are under development to automate these activities as much as possible, to pare portal creation time down even more. Ten seconds each is the goal.

Eventually, we are going to run out of navigation templates to base portals off of. Though there are still thousands to go. But, when they do run out, we'll need an easy way to create more. A nav footer creation script.

Meanwhile, other resources are being explored and developed, such as categories, and methods to harvest the links they contain.

2: Expanding existing portals

The portal collection is growing, not only by the addition of new portals, but by further developing the ones we already have, by...

Improving and/or adding search parameters to better power the Did you know and In the news sections.
Adding more selected content sections, like Selected biographies.
Adding and maintaining Recognized content sections, via JL-Bot.
Adding pictures to the image slideshow.
Adding panoramic pics.
Categorizing portals.

More features will be added as we dream them up and design them. So, don't be shy, make a wish.

3: Converting old portals

By far the hardest and most time-consuming task we have been working on is updating the old portals, the very reason we revamped this WikiProject in the first place.

There are two approaches here:

A) Restart a portal from scratch, using our automated tools. For basic no-frills portals, that works find. But, for more elaborate portals, as that tends to lose content and features, the following approach is being tried...

B) Upgrade a portal section by section, so little to nothing is lost in the process.

4: Linking to new portals

Or "portal deorphanization"...

Dreamy Jazz Bot is purring along.

And a tool in the form of a script is under development for linking to portals at the time they are created, or shortly thereafter.

5...

See below...

New WikiProject for the post-saved-portal phase of operations...

Saved portals, are portals with a saved page.

What is the next stage in the evolutionary progression?

Quantum portals.

What are quantum portals?

Portals that come into existence when you click on the portal button, and which disappear when you leave the page.

Or, as Pbsouthwood put it:

...portals that exist only as a probability function (algorithm) until you collapse the wave form by observing through the portal button (run the script), and disappear again after use...

Introducing...

Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals (see it's talk page).

Keep on keepin' on

...'til next time, — The Transhumanist 10:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:REFUND request

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hello RL0: please restore all the Portal subpages you deleted via WP:CSD G6. Since there are now assessments as to whether the single-page or multi-page versions are better for the encyclopedia, the only way these assessments can proceed is if the subpages are restored. Thanks in advance, UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

That's quite a few pages and I'm pretty busy elsewhere in the first part of this week, so it may take a couple of days. Can you point me to where this assessment of single-page vs. multi-page portals is taking place? --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, the discussions are taking place here and here. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Just checking on the status of this; we have portals with redlinks to pages that need WP:REFUNDing; is there anything further you need from me to complete my request? Thanks in advance! UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Administrator changes

Evad37

There'sNoTime

Alex Shih • Brian • Mushroom • Nakon • Oscarthecat • PeruvianLlama • Ragib • Reaper Eternal • Rossami • Tom

Interface administrator changes

Evad37 • Galobtter

Ritchie333

CheckUser changes

There'sNoTime

Keegan • Ks0stm

Oversight changes

There'sNoTime

Ks0stm • Sphilbrick

Guideline and policy news

The RfC on administrator activity requirements failed to reach consensus for any proposal.
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.

Technical news

A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
- paid-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
- checkuser-en-wp wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2019 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Base, Einsbor, Jon Kolbert, Schniggendiller, and Wim b.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #030, 17 Mar 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Previous issue:

Single-page portals: 4,704

Total portals: 5,705

This issue:

Single-page portals: 4,562

Total portals: 5,578

The collection of portals has shrunk

All Portals closed at WP:MfD during 2019

Grouped Nominations total 127 Portals:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/US County Portals Deleted 64 portals
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Districts of India Portals Deleted 30 Portals
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portals for Portland, Oregon neighborhoods Deleted 23 Portals
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Allen Park, Michigan Deleted 6 Portals
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cryptocurrency Deleted 2 Portals
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:North Pole Deleted 2 Portals

Individual Nominations:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Circles Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Fruits Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:E (mathematical constant) Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Burger King Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cotingas Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Prostitution in Canada Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Agoura Hills, California Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Urinary system Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:You Am I Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Cannabis (2nd nomination) Reverted to non-Automated version
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Intermodal containers Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adventure travel Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Adam Ant Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Benito Juárez, Mexico City Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Spaghetti Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Wikiatlas Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Greek alphabet Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Accounting Deleted G7
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Lents, Portland, Oregon Deleted P2
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ankaran Deleted
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Jiu-jitsu Deleted G8
Portal:University of Nebraska Speedy Deleted P1/A10 exactly the same as Portal:University of Nebraska–Lincoln also created by the TTH

Related WikiProject:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals Demoted

(Attribution: Copied from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Portal MfD Results)

WikiProject Quantum portals

This was a spin-off from WikiProject Portals, for the purpose of developing zero-page portals (portals generated on-the-screen at the push of a button, with no stored pages).

It has been merged back into WikiProject Portals. In the MfD the vote was "demote". See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Quantum portals.

Hiatus on mass creation of Portals

At WP:VPR, mass creation of Portals using semi-automated tools has been put on hold until clearer community consensus is established.

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Hiatus on mass creation of Portals.

The Transhumanist banned from creating new portals for 3 months

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal 1: Interim Topic-Ban on New Portals.

Until next issue...

Keep on keepin' on. — The Transhumanist 10:24, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Administrator changes

Reaper Eternal • ThaddeusB

Bogdangiusca • Christopher Parham • Necrothesp • Schneelocke • Siroxo • Sarah

Mentifisto → Lofty abyss

Interface administrator changes

Mr. Stradivarius

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad

Kingturtle

Technical news

In Special:Preferences under "Appearance" → "Advanced options", there is now an option to show a confirmation prompt when clicking on a rollback link.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee clarified that the General 1RR prohibition for Palestine-Israel articles may only be enforced on pages with the {{ARBPIA 1RR editnotice}} edit notice.

Miscellaneous

Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals update #031, 01 May 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Back to the drawing board

Implementation of the new portal design has been culled back almost completely, and the cull is still ongoing. The cull has also affected portals that existed before the development of the automated design.

Some of the reasons for the purge are:

Portals receive insufficient traffic, making it a waste of editor resources to maintain them, especially for narrow-scope or "micro" portals
The default {{bpsp}} portals are redundant with the corresponding articles, being based primarily on the corresponding navigation footer displayed on each of those articles, and therefore not worth separate pages to do so
They were mass created

Most of the deletions have been made without prejudice to recreation of curated portals, so that approval does not need to be sought at Deletion Review in those cases.

In addition to new portals being deleted, most of the portals that were converted to an automated design have been reverted.

Which puts us back to portals with manually selected content, that need to be maintained by hand, for the most part, for the time being, and back facing some of the same problems we had when we were at this crossroads before:

Manually maintained portals are not scalable (they are labor intensive, and there aren't very many editors available to maintain them)
The builders/maintainers tend to eventually abandon them
Untended handcrafted portals go stale and fall into disrepair over time

These and other concepts require further discussion. See you at WT:POG.

However, after the purge/reversion is completed, some of the single-page portals might be left, due to having acceptable characteristics (their design varied some). If so, then those could possibly be used as a model to convert and/or build more, after the discussions on portal creation and design guidelines have reached a community consensus on what is and is not acceptable for a portal.

See you at WT:POG.

Curation

A major theme in the deletion discussions was the need for portals to be curated, that is, each one having a dedicated maintainer.

There are currently around 100 curated portals. Based on the predominant reasoning at MfD, it seems likely that all the other portals may be subject to deletion.

See you at WT:POG.

Traffic

An observation and argument that arose again and again during the WP:ENDPORTALS RfC and the ongoing deletion drive of {{bpsp}} default portals, was that portals simply do not get much traffic. Typically, they get a tiny fraction of what the corresponding like-titled articles get.

And while this isn't generally considered a good rationale for creation or deletion of articles, portals are not articles, and portal critics insist that traffic is a key factor in the utility of portals.

The implication is that portals won't be seen much, so wouldn't it be better to develop pages that are?

And since such development isn't limited to editing, almost anything is possible. If we can't bring readers to portals, we could bring portal features, or even better features, to the readers (i.e., to articles)...

Some potential future directions of development

Quantum portals?

An approach that has received some brainstorming is "quantum portals", meaning portals generated on-the-fly and presented directly on the view screen without any saved portal pages. This could be done by script or as a MediaWiki program feature, but would initially be done by script. The main benefits of this is that it would be opt-in (only those who wanted it would install it), and the resultant generated pages wouldn't be saved, so that there wouldn't be anything to maintain except the script itself.

Non-portal integrated components

Another approach would be to focus on implementing specific features independently, and provide them somewhere highly visible in a non-portal presentation context (that is, on a page that wasn't a portal that has lots of traffic, i.e., articles). Such as inserted directly into an article's HTML, as a pop-up there, or as a temporary page. There are scripts that use these approaches (providing unrelated features), and so these approaches have been proven to be feasible.

What kind of features could this be done with?

The various components of the automated portal design are transcluded excerpts, news, did you know, image slideshows, excerpt slideshows, and so on.

Some of the features, such as navigation footers and links to sister projects are already included on article pages. And some already have interface counterparts (such as image slideshows). Some of the rest may be able to be integrated directly via script, but may need further development before they are perfected. Fortunately, scripts are used on an opt-in basis, and therefore wouldn't affect readers-in-general and editors-at-large during the development process (except for those who wanted to be beta testers and installed the scripts).

The development of such scripts falls under the scope of the Javascript-WikiProject/Userscript-department, and will likely be listed on Wikipedia:User scripts/List when completed enough for beta-testing. Be sure to watchlist that page.

Where would that leave curated portals?

Being curated. At least for the time being.

New encyclopedia program features will likely eventually render most portals obsolete. For example, the pop-up feature of MediaWiki provides much the same functionality as excerpts in portals already, and there is also a slideshow feature to view all the images on the current page (just click on any image, and that activates the slideshow). Future features could also overlap portal features, until there is nothing that portals provide that isn't provided elsewhere or as part of Wikipedia's interface.

But, that may be a ways off. Perhaps months or years. It depends on how rapidly programmers develop them.

Keep on keepin' on

The features of Wikipedia and its articles will continue to evolve, even if Portals go by the wayside. Most, if not all of portals' functionality, or functions very similar, will likely be made available in some form or other.

And who knows what else?

No worries.

Until next issue... — The Transhumanist 01:25, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email
Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak
Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Administrator changes

HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS

Necrothesp

Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman

Interface administrator changes

Pharos

Bureaucrat changes

Primefac

CheckUser changes

Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"The Decent Rogues" - request for page deletion to be reversed.

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Good evening,

The page entitled 'The Decent Rogues' has recently been deleted for reasons I fully understand looking through some of the protocols. However, I was just writing on the off-chance to see if it could be reinstated, for now at least. Typically, and the irony of the timing hasn't escaped my attention, it's just been picked-up for its first professional London performance. Obviously anything to help maintain its awareness in the public eye would be splendid, of which Wikipedia is a fine example (and especially since new British music theatre is such a rare and difficult thing to protect!)

I'll leave it entirely to your discretion but it you're okay with that, I'll buy you a pint at its West End opening night!

Regards and thanks,

Jo sabine (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I was the one who proposed deleting the article, but the deletion was carried out by User:Explicit, so it would be more appropriate for them to respond to your request. If they don't respond to my mention, you can ask at their user talk page. Since the deletion was done under the simple proposed deletion process, it shouldn't be a problem to restore the page. However, I would encourage you to add mention of any third-party news coverage about the London production as soon as possible. If there are not new third-party sources, then the next step would be an Articles for Deletion discussion, and that kind of deletion would be harder to come back from. --RL0919 (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful reply. I’ll wait to hear from User:Explicit and we’ll go from there.

Very best wishes. Jo sabine (talk) 06:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration on list of political philosophers

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi RL0919, thank you for your contributions to the List of political philosophers talk page. I think we may be in need of arbitration. I don't know the protocols for doing that, however. Would you be able to step in as a third party? I added authors to the page with references meeting the criteria that you proposed as modified by Snowded. You asked for one source connecting the author in question with political philosophy. For instance, you stated: "Fortunately, your latest effort should help progress things. For example, the existence of a book like Barrett's Persons and Liberal Democracy seems like a pretty good indication that John Paul II could be included here. I can't speak for everyone who watches this list, but my suggestion would be to pick one solid source for each entry and include that as a reference." Snowded followed up by saying everyone should have two sources. Fair enough. I took this to be a consensus criteria since the active contributors all said their bit without any objections.

I proceeded to add authors providing more than the required number of citations. Now, Snowded has deleted the added authors as well as the reference section, stating he doesn't want references on the main page, but only in the talk page. He has also continued to not provide any alternative criteria for inclusion despite me asking for one multiple times. Polsky215 (talk) 13:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Improvement of deleted article / New draft

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear RL0919, following the feedback and advice on my first article, I have finalized a completely revised draft for Rice Powell in my sandbox. You can find it here for review. As you will see, I have added new reliable sources to establish better notability and meet all of Wikipedia's guidelines. Your feedback is much appreciated! Thank you. --Stefanie at FMC CorpCom (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Publishing a previously deleted Draft

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi RL0919, I'm currently looking to create a draft for Catz 'n Dogz (I have been working on the article in my Sandbox). As a previous version of this Draft was deleted by yourself, I wanted to check with you why this draft was deleted and whether there is a reason for me not to publish it ? I have checked WP:NMUSIC and believe that the artists are notable as they have released on an important indie label and have been placed in rotation on a national radio station, but please advise if you believe otherwise. Here is the page for the deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Catz 'n Dogz. (For full disclosure, I have a COI with this act, therefore I will be disclosing this in the talk page and submitting the draft to Articles for Creation rather than publishing it directly) Littletishtash (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@Littletishtash: I deleted the pages as the outcome of the discussion, so personally I don't have a particular opinion about a new draft on this specific subject. So I'll just give some general advice: The key is to provide two or more independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. So for example, "independent" means not the artist's own site or a reprint of a press release, "reliable" means not individual's blogs or sites that publish submissions by random people with no significant editorial review, and "significant coverage" means not just the artist's name on a bullet list or a note saying a track was released. (Music articles tend to have a lot of those "not" sources.) The non-independent and non-significant sources could still be used to verify specific details, but without the independent significant coverage, most likely the draft won't go anywhere and could end up in another deletion discussion. All the sources should meet the reliability criteria, especially for an article about living people. None of that is specific to your draft, but I hope it is at least a little helpful. (As an aside, I don't usually change other editor's comments, but I changed the link to the deletion discussion so I won't have a footnote floating at the bottom of my talk page. Hope you don't mind.) --RL0919 (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Delreview

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

So atypical request, but I keep thinking about this. On the first of March, you deleted per this MFD. I was a bright young wikipedian and couldn't articulate my points well, but I knew something wasn't right with that MFD. None of the delete arguments were founded in policy. Someone cited WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:NOTFORUM, like huh? We have too many Wikiprojecte already -- Is that really a good reason? The nom cited a 3 year old MFD discussion where half the participants (who are also both now blocked btw) voted to keep and no deletion rationale was even provided. I don't see why that was a reason to delete either.

So I have to ask... why did you close the MFD as delete? What was your own rationale if you can remember?

This seriously has bothered me for months. Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The core argument for deletion was that this WikiProject was never really active, and therefore there is no purpose to the pages continuing to exist. Since WikiProjects are functional entities for coordinating editors, not part of the encyclopedic content, this is a legitimate argument for deletion and one that five of the seven participants agreed with. One editor mentioned NOTWEBHOST and NOTFORUM to counter your alternative suggestion that the pages be userfied, not as their primary reason for supporting deletion. The only other non-deletion argument was SmokeyJoe's suggestion to "archive" (which is essentially a "keep" since there is no archiving function), but he undercut the credibility of his position by pinging all the former project members with zero response. So seeing a clear majority with an acceptable argument and no compelling counters, I closed with the majority. --RL0919 (talk) 04:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Part of the problem with my arguments for keep was that I was so new and inexperienced I couldn't properly articulate. Were I able to argue for the restoration of these pages, I would have said that the Assyrian-Syriac conflict/debate has since died down from the time the cooperation board has been created. Tagging it with {{Historical}} should have been the first option rather rushing to delete. This way future editors could get a better sense of what the disagreement was about and help guide future decisions (like this proposed page move). Having the pieces for how we got here is important for knowing where we need to go and why. That's the gist of it at least. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a typical argument for why these types of pages should be kept. Looking at the histories of the deleted pages, you could probably make a decent argument on those lines for restoring Wikipedia talk:Assyrian-Syriac Wikipedia cooperation board. It's the only one of the deleted pages that has a substantial contribution history. --RL0919 (talk) 21:08, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

That being the case without the principle page, the talk page is liable to be deleted per WP:G8. Either way, as closing admin would you consider restoring? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think unilateral restoration would be appropriate. You are making a different argument now than you did then, but I don't know what the responses would be from others; they could have new counterarguments as well. So the appropriate thing is to let others weigh in at a WP:Deletion review discussion. If just the talk page is restored, there are ways the G8 problem could be dealt with (for example, recreate the associated page as a note explaining what was done), so I don't believe that should be a significant barrier. --RL0919 (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac Wikipedia cooperation board

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac Wikipedia cooperation board. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Thank you for your advice! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:55, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Bureaucrat changes

28bytes • WJBscribe • Wizardman

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ • TheDJ

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox • BU Rob13 • DoRD • GB fan

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks re Ayn Rand

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for your friendly and helpful approach to my formatting screwup. I've tried to leave the thing less of a mess. Hope it worked! Socsciedits (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks much better this time, thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Technical undeletion request

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could you please undelete Category:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board per the outcome of this DRV? schetm (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion in the DRV focused on restoring the primary project page and (more importantly) the associated Talk page, which had a history of discussion that the community would like to preserve. I'm not sure the category, which has no such history, was intended to be part of that. But it's probably better for you to ask User:Sandstein as the closer of the DRV how he interprets it. As the deleting admin, I certainly don't object to restoration if Sandstein believes it is covered by the DRV. --RL0919 (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Frank Matcham FAC

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

All comments addressed, with sincere thanks. An excellent set of comments. Cassianto^Talk 21:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Review

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi RL0919. The article on Loubna Bouarfa has recently been deleted after a discussion on notability. Sources of higher notability have since been added to the article, with multiple sources stating the same facts. As this is article is on a member of the EU High Level Expert on AI, which is a relatively new position (since June 2018), but their contribution to the European and global artificial intelligence policies are growing in influence and notability. This is the link of the discussion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Loubna_Bouarfa . Please reconsider and advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.17.166.110 (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. This article was deleted yesterday. There were edits adding sources that happened during the deletion discussion, and many of the same sources were listed in this comment in the discussion. The additions were responded to in the discussion, and the consensus continued to favor deletion afterwards. I would not reverse a closure based on information that has already been considered during the original discussion.

If you believe there are even more new sources that indicate notability, you could use that new information to create a draft article, which could be considered in a deletion review to allow recreation of the article. --RL0919 (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Word

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for the message, thanks for keeping an eye out! I'll try harder in the future to make constructive edits.

Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.147.112 (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Review

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, RL0919. You recently have deleted article on Pinky Campbell could you help me if I rewrite article properly or restore the previous article with proper sources, I don't know why this article was deleted as she was an actress worked a lot of famous movies till 2012 in India until she moved to the USA so I can find only sources which are from 2012 when media was talking about her during that period.Krohitk (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Krohitk: I don't think I would be of much personal assistance in improving the article, but I could restore it as a user space draft for you to work on improving it. If you can get it to the point where it has sufficient sourcing that is independent, reliable, and provides significant coverage, then you could request a deletion review to allow the updated version back into article space, or you could submit it through the articles for creation process. --RL0919 (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@RL0919: Thanks, so I got some magazine and newspaper article on her but it is not available on the internet can I upload it on Wikimedia for reference? also, can I use USA people Locator/ Directory as a reference for her birth date and additional information?Krohitk (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@Krohitk: Published articles from reliable sources can be used as sources regardless of whether they are available online, although you might get some additional questions about them. A "directory" might or might not be considered a reliable source, depending on how it is compiled. You can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard if you want feedback on a specific directory. Also, I went to restore the article as a user draft, only to find that you already have a draft at User:Krohitk/Pinky Campbell. If you prefer to continue from the draft you already have, we can leave the previous article version deleted. If you prefer to work from the previous article version, I can either delete your current draft and replace it, or I can move the article to a slightly different page name in your user space. Let me know what you prefer. --RL0919 (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

@RL0919:Hey I have made an article of User:Krohitk/Pinky Campbell can you please review it and help out with the errors(talk) 20:35, 04 Aug 2019 (UTC)

File:Live and Let Die by Guns N' Roses US single.jpg

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. You deleted the previous versions of the image and then renamed it. However, I just found out recently and would like the file to be reverted back to the US commercial cassette please. I would also like to upload the CD single cover to be uploaded as a newer file. I plan to use both the US tape and the UK CD covers concurrently. George Ho (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The original file name of File:Live and Let Die by Guns N' Roses US cassette.jpg is now an unused redirect. If you want to have the cassette cover at that name, I could delete the redirect so you can upload the file to that name. But to "revert" everything since your earlier upload effectively means deleting the existing file at File:Live and Let Die by Guns N' Roses US single.jpg, which isn't necessary for you to upload the other files. If the result of your efforts is that the existing file becomes unused, it will eventually be deleted as a WP:F5, but that's a different thing from me deleting it just because I was asked to. So if you are good with just the redirect being deleted, let me know and I can take care of that. --RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Deleting the redirect sounds fine then. George Ho (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. --RL0919 (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Now what about the cassette single? George Ho (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Not sure I understand the question. File:Live and Let Die by Guns N' Roses US cassette.jpg is where the cover of the cassette single was previously, and the name is now available. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

~~I'll elaborate: Can you revert the version back, or you can't? George Ho (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)~~ Never mind. I re-read your earlier reply; I'll upload the tape cover in that former name soon. George Ho (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Administrator changes

Johnuniq • Kosack • Valereee

Ad Orientem • Ched • Gadfium • Jonathunder • Nick • Yelyos

Bald Zebra • Beetstra • Doug Bell • Journalist • Ruud Koot • Splash • Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes

RickinBaltimore

Oversight changes

Beeblebrox

RickinBaltimore

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the page Wikipedia:Office actions has been changed from a policy page to an information page.
A request for comment (permalink) is in progress regarding the administrator inactivity policy.

Arbitration

Editors may now use the template {{Ds/aware}} to indicate that they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for a topic area, so it is unnecessary to alert them.

Miscellaneous

Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Adam Everett Livix

Latest comment: 4 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

I want to ask you to reconsider the delete decision based on a majority of editors who do not think the policy reason to delete was correct. In addition the editor on the AfD who was tendentious in pushing the theory that you accepted has been blocked as a sock. I would ask you if you could either extend the AfD or use the WP:CONSENSUS or WP:NOCONSENSUS policies to guide a decision. Lightburst (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The majority of editors who participated in the discussion did not agree with deletion in the first place. I knew this when I closed the discussion, so nothing has changed because some of you have chosen to continue pressing the issue on the AFD's talk page. I also re-re-read the discussion, discounting the sock editor, and the substantive result is the same: most of the delete comments (not just those from the sock editor) appeal to WP:BLP1E; the keep comments make no attempt to refute the applicability of that policy and do not raise any alternative policy/guideline that would override or even contradict BLP1E. Since "These processes are not decided through a head count" (WP:DELAFD) and "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments" (WP:CLOSEAFD), and no new arguments or evidence related to the policy issues have been offered, there is no reason for me to alter my decision. --RL0919 (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I am often reminded that AfD is not based on votes and I am clear on that policy. However Wikipedia has contradictory policies: on this issue and it appears you chose the side of the minority ivoters and minority opinion. BLP1E does not override WP:GEOSCOPE See:Richard Jewell and others like him. In effect I am saying you used your position to cast a supervote which overrides the majority opinion. Also, why is blanking necessary? The subject is already widely published in book, and international RS news. Lightburst (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have contradictory policies. BLP1E is policy. GEOSCOPE is a guideline. There's a difference. You lose credibility by exaggerating - for example (and this has already been pointed out to you), the subject is not "widely published in [a] book" - the book describes itself as a "chronology" and simply repeats what was published in the newspapers without adding any independent opinion and as such, we discount it as a new source and instead only count the original published AP source instead. You also lose credibility for being obtuse - the article on Richard Jewell meets the notability criteria because of sustained significant in-depth coverage and not (as you suggested) that he was accused but not convicted of a crime. Finally, at some point in time, you need to understand the difference between "majority opinion" based on a headcount of !votes and how consensus is reached based on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Sadly High King...I am not one of your loyal subjects waiting for pearls of wisdom to fall from your lips. You are combative and often wrong in your assertions. I was discussing the matter with the closing administrator and your confrontational comments are unwelcome. Have a nice day in the castle. :) Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

GEOSCOPE is about the notability of events; BLP1E is about whether we should have articles about a (possibly notable) living person who is covered in sources because of a single (possibly notable) event. So in a sense you are correct: one does not override the other, because they are about tangential subjects. Since the article in question was a BLP, the BLP1E policy is the relevant one. Whether some other article does or does not meet the criteria of BLP1E is not relevant; you are welcome to open a separate discussion about deleting another article, or about changing/abolishing the BLP1E policy. Since you mention supervoting, I'll add a quote from the essay at Wikipedia:Supervote: "[I]f the majority view at an AfD is based on a position that would clearly violate ... BLP concerns, the majority is wrong." Absent some new information (such as "the subject has died" or "here's coverage unrelated to this event that shows he is notable for something else"), that seems to be precisely the situation here.

Courtesy blanking is appropriate so that Wikipedia does not repeat and magnify unproven WP:BLPCRIME allegations, or supplement them with additional speculations made by editors in the discussion. In any case, that is a separate matter from deletion. An article can be deleted without the AFD being blanked, or vice-versa. --RL0919 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

RL0919Thank you for the rational and measured response to my questions and comments. Even though I disagree with your opinion on this AfD, I respect how you got to the decision. In lieu of a deletion review do you have an objection with creating an article based on the events, and or indictment? The theft of IDF bomb making material and other items, along with conviction of the other party? Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that would be acceptable, provided that an article about the event can't just be a coatrack or pseudo-biography to reproduce the same content about Livix. It is generally accepted that we can have articles about events even in cases where BLP articles about involved parties would not be appropriate. Based on things said in the Livix AFD, I suspect the event may also be challenged as not notable, but if so that's a matter for a different AFD. I did not reach any conclusions about the notability of the event since it wasn't necessary for closing the Livix AFD. --RL0919 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

RL0919 - sorry to butt in - the two events in question are a minor weapons charge (dime a dozen, with a little bit of coverage in June 2015 - would not pass GNG), and the arrest of our BLP subject for discussing with various people a wild and crazy plot. The "plot" itself consisted of talk (without cooperation of others) and a acquiring a few flashbangs. The BLP subject was determined to be psychotic, was committed and subsequently was released. Beyond lack of CONTINUEDCOVERAGE (for good cause) - I can't see how we can describe the psychotic ramblings here without BLPCRIME issues here (particularly given the lack of coverage following the mental eval).Icewhiz (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

It's possible that you are correct and there is no meaningful article that can be created without significant BLP problems. If there isn't adequate information in sources to create an acceptable article, then either the editors working on it realize that and don't go forward, or it's back to AFD. Regardless, that's not really for me to say at this stage – I'm not suddenly the content master for this subject because I closed an AFD. --RL0919 (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you RL0919. And Icewhiz...Lol...stealing two kilograms of explosives is a minor crime? Yikes where do you live icewhiz? I will likely accept RL0919's recommendations and sober assessment of the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Per SMH street value of 625$ (of which only 125$ were paid). And - such minor grade stuff is stolen from army bases all the time. Six months military prison time is minor, yes.Icewhiz (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate everyone's enthusiasm for the subject matter, my user talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss it beyond my actions as the closing admin for the AfD. --RL0919 (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to do the courtesy blanking? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Everett_Livix Thanks, Nick Humley (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. I held off while there was active discussion of the closure, but that seems to have tailed off. --RL0919 (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of stakes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:RobThomas15 has asked for a deletion review of List of stakes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 02:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Jay Schneiderman Article

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and looking to be a regular contributor in whatever way possible. However, my timing was almost perfect. I recently went to add to the article on Jay Schneiderman and found that only recently it had been discussed and deleted here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jay_Schneiderman

I have since familiarized myself with the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and more and I am confident that what I was planning to do will be sufficient for it to remain as a standalone article. I was planning to update the content with recent material of regional significance, as well as add a significant number of reliable, independent, and secondary sources. This would include the replacement for the primary source hyperlink that has since be deactivated and cited as evidence for the proposed deletion.

More specifically, material will be submitted that will easily demonstrate that the article subject is a "major local political figure who has received significant press coverage" and who "meets the general notability guidelines" of Wikipedia.

Gracias, Señor Omnisciente (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Señor Omnisciente: I could do something for you called "userfication". I would restore the deleted article but place it in your userspace at User:Señor Omnisciente/Jay Schneiderman, with a {{Userspace draft}} template at the top of it. When you have added the material that you think shows his notability, you can click the "Submit your draft for review" button on the template. It will go into the Articles for Creation queue for another editor to review the updated article. (This may take a few weeks if there is a backlog.) If the reviewer agrees that the article indicates notability, it will be published as an article again. If not, you may need to find some additional material to make your case. If this approach seems acceptable to you, let me know and I will proceed accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. that would be most appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Señor Omnisciente (talk • contribs) 19:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Señor Omnisciente: Done as I described. --RL0919 (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will get to work on it.

Update as of 9/25/19: Good morning. I'm sorry to bug you again about this, but I wasn't sure who else to inquire with. I submitted changes and rewrote this article via the UserSpace Draft you prepared for me. (Thank you again). I submitted on September 5. I know you said it "may take a few weeks if there is a backlog," so it being right at 3 weeks I thought I would check in with someone, even though it is being reviewed by another admin. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Señor Omnisciente (talk • contribs) 15:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Señor Omnisciente: Looking at the stats for the AFC backlog, it looks like 3 weeks is about the median wait right now and 2/3rds are less than 7 weeks, so it seems likely that someone will get to you soon. Unfortunately I can't make any promises, since like other things on Wikipedia it's an all-volunteer activity, and each reviewer gets to pick and choose what they want to review and when. --RL0919 (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, btw. I realized I hadn't responded. This is very helpful. It's my first one so I'm eager is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Señor Omnisciente (talk • contribs) 14:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Camp Tel Noar (3rd nomination)

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Regarding your close of this as keep. As I stated in the AfD, all the sources found are passing mentions. I asked for people to identify which sources provide the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG but no one did. Could you let me know which "specific sources were surfaced to establish notability"? I don't see how the keep arguments outweigh the delete ones here. Thanks. ----Pontificalibus 09:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This one is a full page spread about the camp; this article is about it; this is about an event at the camp, which you discounted, but others did not. Even discounting the arguments not based on sources, these sources and others brought forward in the discussion were convincing to several participants, so I don't see a good case to disregard the clear majority favoring keep. --RL0919 (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. The article begins "Camp Tel Noar is a Jewish summer camp for children ages 7 through 16". It follows that other events held at the camp's location have no bearing on the notability of the summer camp for children. Whilst the first source is therefore fine, the other two should be disregarded. However if no other contributors to the AfD bothered to consider this point, then I guess it's best to reword the article's lead to make it clear the article is about the campsite, not just the summer camp held there.----Pontificalibus 10:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello RL0919. I'm inclined to agree with Pontificalibus here. Of the keep !voters, only one mentioned any new sources that might establish notability. Since both Pontificalibus and I questioned that those sources provided significant coverage of Camp Tel Noar, I don't think a consensus to keep was yet established. Would you consider relisting the AfD so that a more in-depth analysis of the sources could take place? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I slept on it, and reviewed the discussion and sources again, and I'm still not inclined to re-open the discussion. The sources provided by RebeccaGreen seem to establish the existence of multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage (the basic GNG requirement), even if not every source she listed qualifies as such. --RL0919 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Adobe Photoshop version history

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hint hint 👌 ——SerialNumber54129 05:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Apparently an XFDCloser script failure combined with my own failure to notice that it failed. Thanks for letting me know. --RL0919 (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The vote was to merge the content into Adobe_Photoshop#Version_history but this hasn't happened Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The result was definitely not "merge". Most participants thought the detail was excessive; only a couple even suggested the conditional possibility of merging. I think a redirect would be OK if you want to create that. --RL0919 (talk) 11:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for the correction. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Winnie Harlow

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey Much Love as a friend, How are U? They forgot to add to Winnie Harlow 's Wikipedia page on the television part, that Winnie Harlow appeared on The Kim Kardashian episode of Jimmy Fallon, where they play the phone game, I'm watching it now. TelleyTell (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

False positive

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Look at this diff [1]. You misinterpreted the last name Guarente as a typo of Guarantee. I already fixed but please be more careful next time. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's an AutoWikiBrowser typo fix that was mixed with find/replace changes, and I guess I overlooked the context in the long diff. Thanks for catching it for me. --RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for today!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

	Justice Award
	Today is better than yesterday. Thank you for that! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

deprecated

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hardly a big deal, but since your JWB edit summary is popping up all over the place with your name on it (here's one), maybe you'd like to fix the spelling. Thanks for updating the CS1/2 params. Mathglot (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ha, I'm pretty much done for the moment, so I will have to live with my shame (and note for the future that spellcheck apparently doesn't work inside the JWB settings). --RL0919 (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

deadurl

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's Monkbot 16 going through those already. I suggest letting the bot handle those to reduce watchlist cluttering. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I know. But it has tens of thousands of articles to fix and is going in (sort of) alphabetical order. I focused on the highest traffic articles from the past two weeks, then the 1000 level 3 vital articles, many of which the bot won't touch for weeks. But those are done now, so I'll be taking a pause regardless. --RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Theatre project banner

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Musicals and musical theatre actors get the Musical Theatre project banner, not the Theatre project banner. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

According to whom? --RL0919 (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC) And also, how would this justify removal of the project from actors who have also appeared in non-musical plays, such as John Barrowman? --RL0919 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

request article you deleted restored to my draft space

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Games_with_ray_tracing I'd like to have it restored so I can then do a full history export and then import it at at the list wikia as I have other list articles that have been deleted. [2] Dream Focus 15:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Done; you can find it at User:Dream Focus/Games with ray tracing. --RL0919 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

kPa → KPA

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In this edit to Korean War, you changed several instances of "KPA" to "kPa"-- the proper capitalization for Kilopascal. While the Korean People's Army did try to exert pressure on the South, I changed these all back to "KPA". Can you check if you have other edits like this? Thanks. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
Diversity winner
Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please restore the AFD at Mark Conaghan

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I was about to make this comment when I got the edit conflict message.

"*Maybe keep. His performances in works are reviewed in the press ([3]), [4]) and even in this journal article: "Adapting Australian novels for the stage: La Boite Theatre's versions of Last Drinks, Perfect Skin, and Johnno.", Joanne Tompkins, Australian Literary Studies, April, 2008, Vol.23(3), p.305(13). He was the main subject of this article in The Queensland Times and this article in The Daily Examiner. From the resume it looks like he was a resident artist at the Queensland Theatre Company which is a professional Australian theatre. There productions are regularly reviewed in the press, so there is bound to be more coverage behind the paywalls of newspaper websites in Queensland. It's a borderline call. I could see people making arguments either way."

This needs more time. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Conaghan. --ST47 (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Having additional sources to discuss is a perfectly legitimate reason to reverse the close, so I've reverted my close, restored the article, and relisted the discussion. For future reference, this sort of thing does not require a WP:ANI discussion, just a little patience to let me finish dinner and see your request. --RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I've now also restored the incoming links taht were removed when I deleted the article previously, and the (unused) redirect at Conaghan, Mark. --RL0919 (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

AfD for Rogers Bank

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I was kind of surprised you relisted the AfD for single sentence Rogers Bank since it had been fully one week with no objections. Since this so clearly lacks notability, can I possibly convince you to please just proceed with the deletion? It's also, I believe, already mentioned in Rogers Communications, and it would be nice to have just a clean deletion. No one would have a problem with this. Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: There was no discussion at all, so a relist would be the typical next step. If you want a quick deletion with no discussion, you should try proposed deletion instead of opening an Articles for Deletion discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

RL0919, I've yet to find one I've done that hasn't been de-PRODed. Do admins, by default, almost always de-PROD deletions and/or CSD deletions, or just the latter? Doug Mehus (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

RL0919, Also, I saw some cases where other admins gave an AfD only one week and, seeing no objection, said soft delete WP:UNDELETE applies. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: I can't account for every admin, but personally I have more commonly deleted articles with either kind of tag, but also sometimes declined them if the tagging is outside guidelines or the deletion seems likely to be controversial. In contrast, I usually only soft delete from a no-discussion AFD if it has been relisted at least once. I don't know the statistics for admin activity overall, but I believe my approach is well within the norm. --RL0919 (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

RL0919, Oh okay, thanks for clarifying that. So, there's definitely some variance in closure approaches between admins. At any rate, when I explained my rationale, the user supported my proposal. Thanks for your reply. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rupert Dover

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User:習振英 has asked for a deletion review of Rupert Dover. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 05:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

AFD close

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Since you closed the AFD for List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters earlier today, I am letting you know that it was already been renominated for deletion. BOZ (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@BOZ: Thanks for the heads up, but there's probably no action on my end. Rapid renomination after a no-consensus close is allowed, although it's often not the wise choice, and same-day seems particularly hasty. It's the nominator's choice if they want to take the flack they may get for it. --RL0919 (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Please

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

abide by WP:NOQUORUM in your AfD closes. ∯WBG^converse 16:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: That's a bit vague, especially when linking to a guideline that says things like "the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement". If you have a specific suggestion, you might want to state it more explicitly. --RL0919 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

If a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion, and the article hasn't been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD. Generally, this will result in soft deletion.

This was the result of a RFC that explicitly asked closer(s) to prefer treating unopposed AfDs as PRODS rather than go on about relisting them, in light of gradually decreasing traffic at AfDs and other miscellaneous reasons.

You (obviously) maintain a discretion to relist but that fails to be considered as a discretion, when you are (literally) relisting every unopposed AfD after about a week. ∯WBG^converse 17:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. I will take your feedback under consideration. --RL0919 (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, as well :-) ∯WBG^converse 16:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

List of Ender's Game series planets

Latest comment: 4 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

@RL0919: There is a companion which contains these information and can be used for the article. Is it possible to restore it? I have the book, so I can help fixing the problems. Please forgive me if I used a wrong place to write it down. Regards, Bencemac (talk) 18:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Bencemac: I have copied your comment from Talk:List of Ender's Game series planets to my user talk page, which is a more appropriate spot. The talk page of the deleted article is subject to speedy deletion since the article no longer exists. Regarding your specific request, I don't believe the source you mention would resolve the core issue. It is an "authorized companion" written with Card's approval and published by the same publisher as his books, which means it is not an independent source that would help establish notability for the list. Sometimes famous authors or media franchises have books or articles written about them by independent scholars. (For example, the Twayne's Masterwork Studies series includes many famous genre novels.) If you know of something like that where the fictional planets from the series are discussed, that would be more to the point. Since a non-independent companion book doesn't change the situation from the deletion discussion, I can't use that as a justification for reviving the article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, I understand your point. Just one more thing; could you send me the content of the page if it is possible? It could be useful later. (I used the talk page because “comments should be made on [...] the article's talk page”, sorry about that) Bencemac (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I should be able to send via email later today. --RL0919 (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Sent via email. --RL0919 (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Bencemac (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

NAC

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Hello! I was wondering if this strikes you as a correct WP:NAC? I've asked the closer to reverse it.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It has been reversed. Thanks.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of the List of devices with video output over USB-C page.

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, this is my first time around the inner workings of Wikipedia so bare with me.

I'd like to ask that the article with the List of devices with video output over USB-C be restored. How should I go about doing that?

It was the only available list with that content online. And believe me I searched a lot for it. While most computers are easy enough to find out if they have alt-mode active over usb-c there was no other resource available with the smartphone section. Even if in the distant future the page becomes redundant, at the moment, it's a very niche function that very few devices have activated. It was important enough for me that I had it bookmarked (of course it's not something I check every-day) but it's quite important. Devices wikipedia page's rarely include that particular specification, even the manufacturer's pages many times don't mention it. Like the LG phones that got it from the latest major Android firmware update.

Thanks

--N19h7M4r3 (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@N19h7M4r3: You can appeal deletion decisions at Deletion Review (DRV). DRV typically focuses either for a mistake in the process that led to deletion (in this case the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of devices with video output over USB-C) or for significant new information that was not known at the time of deletion. A reader saying they found the material useful isn't the sort of thing that would typically get a deleted article restored. If you simply want a copy of the list for your own use, I (or any willing administrator) could send you the deleted text via email. --RL0919 (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@RL0919: Eh... I don't have time to learn all the language and etiquette... But I don't agree with the articles of deletion and almost everyone there just said it was useless (to them). I wonder how many of the people involved in the deletion have a tech background. Flowing dreams does acknowledge that it is useful for a handful of people like a lot of other very specific pieces of information on Wikipedia. I see hundreds of lists and tables for comparison on Wikipedia, this information was just presented differently. Instead of listing devices that don't have the feature the page only had a concise list of devices that support it. Maybe the list would work better integrated into the USB-C page but I have no idea how to do that and time to learn either. I guess that information will remain hidden. Best regards --N19h7M4r3 (talk) 12:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Why was this article deleted?

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

You deleted "List of unused highways in Californa", why is this? This article is very informative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unused_highways_in_California — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:4E7F:C131:1482:86FD:26CA:C66B (talk) 02:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It was deleted as the result of a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unused highways in California, where the opinion of participants was unanimous for deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I know you're just following process but I find it sad that about ten people (judging by that delete history) who for the most part don't find such an uncontroversial matter to be interesting can completely obliterate the work of many, many more who do find it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C50:4E7F:C131:1482:86FD:26CA:C66B (talk) 05:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book)

Latest comment: 4 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

It was not known to me that the article creator can vote on Afd, otherwise i did vote, I think you should give a relist of 7 days to make concensus, i also propose/request you to give me the article as draft if it will be deleted after relist of 7 days, so that I can rewrite the article changing the title as "Muhammad in the Hindu scriptures". Loves. Lazy-restless 05:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lazy-restless: Since this is the second time an article on this subject has been deleted at AFD, and you did comment in the most recent discussion, I do not see what would be gained by a relist. However, if you want the text as a userspace draft to use as the start of a new article, I can do that. --RL0919 (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I will be thankful to you as a user if you do that, because it will help me to create the new article Draft:Muhammad and Hindu scriptures. I will also request/propose for 7 day relist of the afd so that I can be completely assure myself that the article is completely worthy of deletion. Lazy-restless 03:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Lazy-restless: I have restored the content for you at User:Lazy-restless/Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book). As suggested in my earlier reply, I do not agree with your suggestion for a relist of the AFD, so I will not be doing that. If you want to press that point, you can raise it at Deletion Review. However, my best advice would be to focus on your new draft. The broader subject seems much more likely to be notable than an individual book about it. --RL0919 (talk) 20:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 30. —Cryptic 21:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Bat-Cow

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. A heads-up that I've rolled back your conversion of content to a redirect; this piece was substantial enough that it needs to run through a standardized community deletion process (PROD or AfD) rather than being unilaterally put to the sword. I share your belief it is not gonna pass GNG, mind you; I only differ with the process used here. best, —tim //// Carrite (talk) 19:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Carrite: AFD created, although this seems like discussion for the sake of discussion if you don't actually disagree with the idea of redirecting. A redirect with no deletion and no protection is something any interested editor could have reverted, if there is any active editor who does disagree, so the sword in this case was made of foam. --RL0919 (talk) 20:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Process is important. Carrite (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rupert Dover

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Rupert Dover. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SCP-2000 (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Administrator changes

GermanJoe • Girth Summit • Kees08 • Nosebagbear

DESiegel • GB fan • MSGJ • Voice of Clam • WilyD

DeltaQuad • Fang Aili • Pakaran

Bureaucrat changes

DeltaQuad • Pakaran

Interface administrator changes

MSGJ

CheckUser changes

L235 • Mz7 • SQL • ST47

Ivanvector

DeltaQuad

Oversight changes

L235 • Mz7 • ST47 • Stwalkerster • The Blade of the Northern Lights • Xaosflux

DeltaQuad • DGG • Julia W

Guideline and policy news

An RfC was closed with the consensus that the resysop criteria should be made stricter.

The follow-up RfC to develop that change is now open at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2).

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

Arbitration

Eligible editors may now nominate themselves as candidates for the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The self-nomination period will close November 12, with voting running from November 19 through December 2.

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

Besnik Sulaj

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi RL0919, this article has just been recreated at Besnik Sulaj after it was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Besnik Sulaj. scope_creep^Talk 13:58, 8 November 2019 (UTC) scope_creep^Talk

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

YT diss tracks

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Certainly didn't expect to see the list plopped in its entirety in the other article. Can I presume this was just for efficient resolution rather than something which should have any weight? Certainly when I said merge that's not what I meant. Pinging the other merge !votes: @Squeamish Ossifrage, DarkGlow, and Ajf773:. My intention was for the notable examples (the actually notable ones rather than those in an article with "notable" in the title) to be included in the existing table, not to have two tables in the article... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Personally, I prefer YouTube having a separate section to other diss tracks. The key difference between the two is that a "diss track" can be streamed, bought, downloaded and played on radios – "YouTube diss tracks" cannot. However, I'm open to discussion. – DarkGlow (talk) 16:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

?? They are songs. You can download songs from YouTube, you can stream music on youtube (indeed, it's my main source). Likewise there are plenty of other platforms that make downloading difficult but which host songs. If a song originally released on YouTube gets radio play, what happens to it? Listed in both tables? It seems very silly indeed to make a distinction based on which platform it was released on, as though it is bound to that platform. If we have a separate table for YT, why not for SoundCloud, radio, live, mixtapes, records, etc.? Being released on one platform doesn't make it a subtopic any more than a song released on record is different from one released on SoundCloud. Regardless, a column in the table for "release platform" or something would allow easy sorting accordingly without breaking it up into separate tables (doing so prevents other kinds of sorting, like by year or artist). It'll also be less sizable once the not-actually-notable examples come up. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The level of discussion at AFD doesn't resolve which ones belong or don't, or how they should be organized. The article is open for editing so folks can reorganize the content as they see fit, and the article's talk page is available to discuss as needed. --RL0919 (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Football International

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello RL, to clarify, is your no consensus closure with or without prejudice against speedy renomination? – Teratix ₵ 05:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Given that it was due to lack of input, speedy renomination should be acceptable. --RL0919 (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Habito page

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Heya, sorry why did you delete the page that was written for our company Habito? It was just a basic page with a bit of company info and a description.Esavage123 (talk) 16:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Esavage123: The article was deleted as the result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habito. You might also want to review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). --RL0919 (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@RL0919: Thanks for your reply, very stange, I suspect we are a victim of some negative PR. We are cited on multiple large independent sources, some are listed below. Is there an appeal process? Thanks

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8] ^[9] Esavage123 (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

@Esavage123: You can appeal the result at Deletion Review (DRV). However, an "overturn" from DRV seems unlikely since the discussion was unanimous to delete. What might work better would be to create a new draft article, either as a user subpage or in draft space (e.g., Draft:Habito or Draft:Habito (company)). If the draft has substantially better sourcing than the one that was deleted, a reviewer could accept it as a new article. (If the reviewer doesn't think the sourcing is good enough, then it could be rejected, and even after an acceptance the new article could be subject to further deletion discussion. There's no "slam dunk" option here.) If the reviewer is reluctant to accept the draft due to the previous deletion, you could ask at DRV for an "allow recreation" ruling based on the new draft. The key in either case is to have the strongest possible draft, where strength comes from having independent, reliable sources that show significant coverage of the company, and a neutral, non-promotional tone. RL0919 (talk)

@RL0919: Thanks very much, appreciate you putting the time in to respond. I will go with the route suggested and hope it works out. Thanks!Esavage123 (talk) 08:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

DC Duplication

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It seems like there's some overlap between the List of theater and entertainment venues in Washington, D.C. and the List of theaters in Washington, D.C. The former seems like it was intended as a list of venues whereas the latter contains (mostly) producing organizations. I'm not 100% sure what to do, but it seems like we ought to move the venues on the second list over to the first list, unless you think we should consolidate them both into a single list. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 07:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@GentlemanGhost: Consolidation to a single list seems reasonable. I don't see any clear reason why two lists are needed. --RL0919 (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll propose that. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 08:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Firdaus Kharas

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hello RL0919. I am user vinlev

I am writing to ask if you are the editor that deleted my Firdaus Kharas page. I have done extensive editing on it during the past few days as per another editor's requests for more citations. Almost all have been viable and noteworthy citations from universities and major publications. So I am wondering what has gone wrong to make the Kharas entry deletable. Thank you for your attention. Vinlev — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinlev (talk • contribs) 19:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

@Vinlev: Looking at the changes you made and the comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Firdaus Kharas, I think there are two main problems: 1) You added citations but said nothing about it at the AfD page. Once a deletion discussion starts, it becomes important to tell the participants if you have made changes that you think make the article worth keeping. They may not be watching the article itself, and if they don't know about your changes, they have no chance to reconsider their positions. 2) Many of the citations added don't seem to do much to show the notability for Kharas. To support notability, a citation should be to an independent reliable source (not a press release or material from an organization he's involved with) that provides significant coverage about him (not just a brief mention). At least one editor commented after your addition, and still supported deletion, which suggests he wasn't impressed by the additional sources.

Anyhow, since I just closed the discussion a few hours ago, I can undelete, re-open and relist to allow more time for discussion of your additions. It will be up to the participants to say whether they believe the additions make enough of a difference. --RL0919 (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi RL0919 -- The Kharas AfD page should be closed or deleted. Even with the new edits it's still WP:BLP1E and that's a stretch. Shall we have a revote on the new article? Dr42 (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

It is relisted and undergoing discussion now, and I don't see any great harm in letting that play out for the usual seven days. --RL0919 (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Plasma weapon AfD

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed that you recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plasma weapon (2nd nomination) as redirect, but I feel that one point I raised in the discussion may have been overlooked by everyone (including during the closure). This article was not recreated in 2015; it was moved to this title after the original article at this title was deleted (and to my knowledge is still deleted – see the page history), so it is unsound to compare the two AfDs. Additionally, the nominator's rationale was not clear; concerns about WP:OR were valid, and I am not opposed specifically to creation of a redirect, but the original nomination read like WP:DINC. Could you please clarify here if this needs further attention, or consider reopening the AfD to hold a broader discussion? Thank you. ComplexRational (talk) 15:58, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I definitely did see your point and did not rely on the earlier AfD for my close. However, while your argument did cast doubt on the original nomination, it did not establish a firm basis for keeping the article (no independent reliable sources or other basis for notability was provided). Rorshacma's argument for redircting was convincing and reasonably consistent with both the nomination and the other commenter's argument for merging, so I went with that. As they all suggested, if the article can be rewritten to be a sourced article about something real, the redirect could be undone. But for now it is pointed to an acceptable target and the history is preserved in case any of it is useable. --RL0919 (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Jann of the Jungle / Jungle Tales

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi. Would there be any way of retrieving the text of the defunct Jann of the Jungle articles, so that pertinent parts of it can be incorporated as a paragraph or so into Jungle Tales? Since Jungle Tales began as Jann of the Jungle, we need t least a sentence or two to describe the titular protagonist from when it was that series, as well as whatever background we had on its creation, as well as the GCD and related links. I'd hate to have to research/write all that from scratch. Thanks for any help. (I'm afraid I've been off Wikipedia for about 10 days.) --Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

The article was redirected but not deleted, so the text is still there. [5] Cheers, GentlemanGhost (séance) 21:28, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that's right. Thanks for the intercept while I was otherwise occupied. --RL0919 (talk) 23:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Review Banbouk Music

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Banbouk Music was deleted by you.Without any discussion or consensus. Please review your decision and restore my page. I want to improve it @RLO917: Sourav tiwary (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Review deletion of Banbouk Music

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Banbouk Music was deleted by you. It was nominated for deletion but there was no discussion or consensus. Please review your decision and restore my page. I want to improve it. @RL0917: Sourav tiwary (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

@Sourav tiwary: It was handled as a soft deletion because no one (including you) objected to it being deleted. If it is nominated again, my best suggestion is that you should participate in the discussion to explain why you believe the article should be kept. In the meantime, I have restored the article per your request, as is standard for soft deletions. --RL0919 (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Sourav tiwary (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラ PはRL0919たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ P 04:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

request deleted article "Camp Interlaken"

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, i noticed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Camp Interlaken with "delete" decision. Could you please provide a complete copy of the article with its edit history intact, to my userspace, i guess to User:Doncram/Camp Interlaken? I want to revisit this, in part due to existence of lots of sourcing available about it under "Camp Coniston" name, which I mentioned in the AFD but seems to have been ignored, in effect, by the way this AFD worked out. sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

@Doncram: Done as requested. --RL0919 (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Indigenous Australian Inter-tribal Wars and Violence

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

You closed the MfD. Where has this been moved to? (I am also a little puzzled by the close, as it seemed to me that the nomination was based on ethnic considerations; I therefore intend to do all possible help in developing it into an article. ) DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It was moved during the discussion to User:Austhistory99/Indigenous Australian Inter-tribal Wars and Violence. I should have stated the new location in my close, so I fixed that, and thanks for asking. --RL0919 (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

[1] ttps://www.thesun.co.uk/money/10130561/new-habito-tool-first-time-buyers-cash-offer/

[2] ttps://www.ft.com/content/c8250df6-a19a-11e9-a282-2df48f366f7d

[3] ttps://www.mirror.co.uk/money/habito-vs-trussle-vs-dashly-17476624

[4] ttps://www.cityam.com/habito-launches-its-own-range-of-mortgages-after-green-light-from-regulator/

[5] ttps://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/buy-to-let-mortgage-offers-10-days-digital-broker-habito-targets/

[6] ttps://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-7227635/Mortgage-adviser-Habito-lender-borrowing-change.html

[7] ttps://thefintech50.com/habito

[8] ttps://www.uktech.news/featured/habito-launches-open-mortgage-api-20191101

[9] ttps://www.mortgagesolutions.co.uk/tag/habito/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]