Nomination of Air China Flight 1350 for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Air China Flight 1350 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air China Flight 1350 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:46, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018Edit

The Signpost: 31 July 2018Edit

The Signpost: 30 August 2018Edit

The Signpost: 1 October 2018Edit

The Signpost: 28 October 2018Edit

The Signpost: 1 December 2018Edit

The Signpost: 24 December 2018Edit

Test editEdit

Xinbenlv (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2019 (UTC) test edit

Draft:Swarm(distributed storage)Edit

 

Hello, Xinbenlv. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Swarm(distributed storage).

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89(T·C) 04:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019Edit

The Signpost: 28 February 2019Edit

Your thread has been archivedEdit

 

Hi Xinbenlv! You created a thread called How to continue translation after a few section is tranlated at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


Did you find the solution to this problem? I don't know how to, but I did see you didn't get an answer. Yes, it took me this long to read the archives.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019Edit

The Signpost: 30 April 2019Edit

BAGBot: Your bot request Xinbenlv botEdit

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Xinbenlv bot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT 01:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

The Signpost: 31 May 2019Edit

WikiProject Numismatics newsletter - June 2019Edit

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This issue of the newsletter was sent to you because you are new to the project. If you would like to receive future issues, you will have to subscribe to the newsletter. - ZLEA T\C 01:14, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject NumismaticsEdit

This is a continuation of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/newsletter#Great newsletter.

Recommended reading for the WikiProject is as follows:

A list of tasks can be found here, but it has not been updated for about a year. I would suggest reading currency articles until you find one you would like to improve. You could also create an article for the project. - ZLEA T\C 23:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@ZLEA:, I plan to focus my efforts on articles related to the emergence of Euro, including all kinds of previous organizations and treaties that lead to the birth of it. Xinbenlv (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
A good place to start would be History of the euro. - ZLEA T\C 19:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@ZLEA: yeah, I added a few to [[Category:Euro]] (how do I literally mention a Category without mistakenly add the current page to the Category like using a [[]]?) Xinbenlv (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Xinbenlv To add a link to a category without adding the page to said category, you add a colon (:) to the link after the first brackets ([[:Category:Euro]] links to Category:Euro). You do the same thing to link to an image ([[:File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg]] links to File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg). The colon doesn't show in the text. - ZLEA T\C 22:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@ZLEA: that helps a lot! What are your latest interest of space in editing? Xinbenlv (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I've recently taken an interest in the commemorative coins of the United States. I'm currently working on splitting up Early United States commemorative coins and Modern United States commemorative coins by decade. - ZLEA T\C 11:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@ZLEA: cool, I am going to ask my questions about commemorative coins

tatyour talk page. Xinbenlv (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

HelloEdit

Please stop editing my drafts in my userspace. It is not finished and what looks like errors to you are abbreviations for future content. You look pretty great on your other editing activities and I hope to see you around making improvements. Best Regards, Barbara 12:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): oops sorry about that, thanks for taking the effort to notify me! I should consider it bug in the software of WikiLoop Battlefield and it should filter out user namespace stuff. - I will fix it immediately. Sorry about that and thank you! Xinbenlv (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!Edit

WikiProject Numismatics newsletter - July 2019Edit

sent by ZLEA (talk) 00:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Edit conflict?Edit

I assume you had an edit conflict here and did not deliberately remove my comments. DuncanHill (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@DuncanHill: Yes, it was a conflict of edits. Sorry I didn't know that will occur. Please kindly add that back. I was commenting on another sub-thread Xinbenlv (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I've restored it. DuncanHill (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

WikiloopEdit

Hey there. Am of course looking forward to seeing how your Wikiloop Battlefield project comes along, but I wanted to point out that you might get quite a few incorrect results as the user's edit summary is currently hidden in Wikiloop's user interface. Edit summaries often contain an explanation for why an edit was made, so it's not really possible to decide if reverting is the right action.

The tool's edit summary is also a bit off at the moment (containing "vundefined"), maybe it could be changed to a more descriptive "Identified as test/vandalism using [[m:WikiLoop Battlefield|WikiLoop]]"?

Again, hope to be able to see your finished project soon, --83.240.234.220 (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. vundefined is a bug, it should be something like v1.0.0-alpha-4 etc. I will update the comment and also display summary. Thank you for suggestion! (I can't ping you because you didn't login, hopefully you will see it.) Xinbenlv (talk) 04:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I have taken down your suggestion and put into issue tracker, should be rolled out next release. Thanks again for reaching out! Xinbenlv (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
@83.240.234.220:, update after your report:
  • Edit summary is now displayed
  • vundefined(version number) is now fixed. Xinbenlv (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019Edit

WikiProject Numismatics newsletter - August 2019Edit

Sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archivedEdit

 

Hi Xinbenlv! You created a thread called How to create an edit tag at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


Did you get the help you needed? I just saw the question.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #378Edit

The Signpost: 30 August 2019Edit

WikiProject Numismatics newsletter - September 2019Edit

Sent by ZLEA via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019Edit

WikiProject Numismatics newsletter - October 2019Edit

2019 US Banknote ContestEdit

  US Banknote Contest  
November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.


If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019Edit

WikiProject Numismatics newsletter - November 2019Edit

Wikipedia:WikiProject BlockchainEdit

Hi there! I stumbled across Wikipedia:WikiProject Blockchain, which looks like a proposed project that never got started. Any objection to me moving it back to your userspace for now? You're certainly more than welcome to launch or propose it any time. I hope all is well! Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: support, please go ahead, thank you for letting me know in advance xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 15:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  Done, now at User:Xinbenlv/WikiProject Blockchain. Thanks for the quick reply! Ajpolino (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach processEdit

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019Edit

WikiProject Numismatics newsletter - December 2019Edit

The Signpost: 27 December 2019Edit

WikiProject Numismatics newsletter - January 2020Edit

Your thread has been archivedEdit

 

Hi Xinbenlv! You created a thread called Ask for feedback at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


WikiLoopEdit

If you could put me on the whitelist for direct revert that would be cool. Seems like a good tool, only thing I've noticed is that it opens another tab to revert the changes. Would be more fluid if it reverted it automatically. CatcherStorm talk 00:37, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Please subst your wikiloop invitationsEdit

Hi there! I see that you are inviting people to participate in a project. When you add the invitations to someone's talk page, please do it like this:

{{subst:Xinbenlv/InviteWLBF|user=username|tool=toolname}}

That will put the actual code of the template on the page, and add your signature. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archivedEdit

 

Hi Xinbenlv! You created a thread called Querying Wikipedia logs from Special:Logs at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)


The Signpost: 27 January 2020Edit

Thanks!Edit

Thanks for your support on the outbreak discussion! Hoping we can find some consensus on a short-term fix that makes everyone a little happy and reduces the volume of RMs in this topic and all of the branched topics. Not sure if it's possible but certainly worth a shot.

- Wikmoz (talk) 06:46, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wikmoz: haha like-wise xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 06:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Numismatics newsletter - February 2020Edit


  The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar
Congratulations, Xinbenlv

You have been recognized as the monthly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name,
a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org)
for the month ending at 2020-02-24.


On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected.
Cheers, 22:35, 26 February 2020 (UTC)




WikiLoop Battlefield Champion BarnstarEdit

Thanks for the Barnstar, It's a great honor Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! @Alexcalamaro:, I am starting to create Barnstar and other award messages for WikiLoop Battlefield, and the current idea is to have weekly/monthly/yearly champion. Hope people like it. Your feedback is welcomed! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The WikiLoop Battlefield weekly barnstarEdit

  The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar
Congratulations, Xinbenlv

You have been recognized as the weekly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name,
a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org)
for the week ending at 2020-02-01.


On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected.
Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)



The Signpost: 1 March 2020Edit


The WikiLoop Battlefield weekly barnstarEdit

  The WikiLoop Battlefield Barnstar
Congratulations, Xinbenlv

You have been recognized as the weekly champion of counter-vandalism of WikiLoop Battlefieldseeking new name,
a crowdsource counter-vandalism patrol and label tool (http://battlefield.wikiloop.org)
for the week ending at 2020-03-01.


On behalf of the team and community of WikiLoop Battlefield and as Wikipedians, we like to appreciate your contributions, and look forward for more in the future. Also don't forget to bring your Wikipedian friends who you think are also passionate of keeping Wikipedia protected.
Cheers, xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 04:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)




Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chhattisgarh Youth CongressEdit

Hello, Xinbenlv. I noticed your odd "Shadow Closer" note at this AfD. WP:NAC says: For practical purposes, non-administrators should not take formal action in discussions whose outcome would require the use of administrator tools. Deleting an article certainly does require admin tools so non-admins such as you & I should not attempt to close those discussions for "delete". There is no mechanism for or position of "intern for closing discussion" due to this fact. If you want to contribute to AfD discussions, please do so. It would be advisable, in fact, for you to simply contribute !votes to the discussions there. I notice you've contributed to 119 AfD discussions but you seem to have only expressed a preference in those discussions 9 times. That is a slim basis for making closing decisions on AfD discussions. You really should have a much larger base of experience before you attempt evaluating the consensus of the !voters. I don't think what you're doing is damaging, per se, but it isn't especially helpful at this time, either. If you want to be able to close Afd's freely, then you should work towards becoming an admin because "Shadow Closer" simply doesn't exist as a position. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn:, Thank you for education, yes, this is the first time I am trying to help closing AfD, and what I was doing is trying to go to all the old discussions, as it was my first time, I err on the cautious side and only try to closed when 1. it was non-delete. (For delete i only attempt to interpret, but not actually take action), 2. Dominant keep or seems no consensus after multiple times of relists. For the rest I relist for longer time. Thank you for AFGed me. And i appreciate all education you could give. Feel free to revert any closure or relist you think i did it wrong. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 13:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I AGF because I think I can see what you were trying to do: reduce a backlog. I think that is an admirable goal and I work on a few of those myself. I am still concerned, however, about the outcome of that attempt. Most of what you say above is reassuring but when you invite reversion of your closure it suggests you haven't read all the policies that apply completely. Non-administrators closing discussions says: Closures may only be reopened by the closer themselves; by an uninvolved administrator...; or by consensus at deletion review. This is why Zxcvbnm below has made their requests here. I don't want to discourage you but jumping into an area that tends to attract strong opinions like AfD without testing the waters first is seldom a good experience for anyone. I would like to suggest that you stop making NAC's at AfD for the time being. Spend time instead familiarizing yourself with the reasons and etiquette for deletion discussions and with the arguments to avoid. Then start watching and reading discussions as they progress. When you feel you have a handle on the standards in AfD discussions, both the formal written standards and the informal unwritten ones, then start contributing !votes. Work your way up to closing AfD's, in other words. It will probably be a better experience for you and for others, as well. Good luck. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, let me try to revert myself! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 15:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Eggishorn:, actually, before I proceed to revert individual revisions, is there a way to massive revert/rollback a timerange / revision range conducted by me as suggested by @Zxcvbnm: xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 15:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
As far as I am aware there is no tool available to non-administrators that will revert edits made by a user (including yourself) across multiple pages. You will need to go to each individual AfD to revert, I'm afraid. I could be wrong, though, so you may want to ask about it at the Help Desk. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Eggishorn:, @Zxcvbnm:, I think at this point I will first revert all the 4 BADNACs you mentioned, for the rest majority are relisting, would it be OK to leave them there for now? If any keep or merge or no consensus are incorrect, I will revert accordingly again xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 15:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Eggishorn:, the Chhattisgarh Youth Congress is handled by admin @Tone:, which is a Delete, which means my interpretation of consensus for that particular discussion is correct? xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 16:06, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
I never intended for you to read the above as a request to revert on Chhattisgarh Youth Congress. Your comment there had no practical effect (which was my point) and therefore a revert wasn't really necessary. I don't want to speak for Tone but either treating your comment as a "Delete" !vote or ignoring it would likely lead to the same outcome. I personally don't treat any admin close of any AfD as an endorsement or indictment of my !votes and I wouldn't suggest that to anyone. As to the leaving the relists not mentioned below alone, I think that's fine for now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwarf (Dungeons & Dragons)Edit

Hi, please reverse the close of this AfD. It was a WP:BADNAC and should have been relisted, because at that moment it was at the very least a No Consensus, but more likely a Merge outcome. If the close is not reversed, I will most likely go to WP:DRV.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)   Done xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 16:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

While you're at it, please reverse the close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WildStar (Image Comics) too. It was also a WP:BADNAC, in my opinion. The two deletes had valid rationale, the three keeps did not. At the very least it should have been relisted an additional, second time or decided by an actual admin with experience.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:35, 21 March 2020 (UTC)   Done xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 16:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potions in Harry Potter (3rd nomination) was also improperly closed and should have been a "merge to Magic in Harry Potter" per the predominant consensus. At this point I think you should just reverse any recent closes you made entirely and let others handle it, as there is clearly a lack of understanding of how AfD works.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)   Done xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 16:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm: Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I am new to conducting closures, please help me revert them, if you think my interpretation of consensus is incorrect. Thank you for the education. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 13:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
As explained above, I am not allowed to revert them - the closer must be the one to do it per Wikipedia policy. In any case, I think Eggishorn explained the situation well. If a discussion has even the slightest hint of controversy or debate, a non-admin should not be the one to close it. NACs are reserved for totally uncontroversial discussions where keeping it around would be pointless.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@Zxcvbnm:, thanks for explanation! xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 00:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)


Learn to interpretEdit

@Zxcvbnm: and @Eggishorn: thank you for your kindly reaching out to me and correct me for BADNAC. I want say that here what I am doing is practicing to interpret the consensus. I have been involved in AfD debate and presented my reasoning before. And I felt that debating AfD is a different skill from learning to interpret the consensus of a AfD and hence that's what I am practicing. I understand that for various reason that I shall not close delete consensus and shall be super careful to close any AfD that has a slight feeling of controversy. For those, I will express my interpretation and I will make it even more obvious that by no means my practice of interpretation shall be considered a recommendation or influencing the actual closer. e.g. Special:Diff/947348810. Does this time my comment look better? Again, thank you for being super kind to educate me. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 19:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Xinbenlv, you are right about contributing to AfD's and closing them being different skills. That said, closing any discussion is not merely a matter of counting noses. You need to know what arguments are irrelevant or illegitimate and you need to know how much to weight different positions expressed by the contributors. The rules on these factors are not (and could never be) hard-and-fast rubrics. They require interpretation informed by experience. You need to start off, therefore, by being a contributor to AfD discussions and learn through experience what arguments work and what doesn't. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:NAC and WP:RELISTBIASEdit

Can you please explain this relist? Praxidicae (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

for this one, delete seems to be consensus but some argument arises of recreating the list, unsure if that would be rejected or lead to a redirect xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Also having looked at the last several comments on your talk page from others, I'd strongly suggest yo8u stop dabbling in administrative areas of WP:AFD. Praxidicae (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm just going to come out and say it - based on the FBS relist and the very large number of concerns expressed in the last week or so, stop closing discussions. And yes, this includes relisting. You say you want to get more experience at AfD, but you should do so by commenting, NOT administrating. Primefac (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Primefac: Could you help me take a look at my explanation of relist? xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:04, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
My apologies for the delay in replying, I didn't see the ping until just now. Quite simply, there were reasons that the information in the pages might be recreated and/or put into a new format (listing, WikiProject subpages, etc) but there was not a single person who advocated keeping those lists as they were in the article space. Redirects can be created without having the original article there. The very strong consensus was to delete those articles. Relisting on the somewhat-off-chance that someone might want to turn the page into a redirect or otherwise recategorize the data is giving preference to a very small minority and ignores the majority. While I understand your interest in wanting to make sure "all" of the voices get heard, an AfD (or any consensus-building discussion) will have people who are not happy with the outcome; you can't please everyone, and making sure the consensus is a 100% everyone-is-happy outcome is just not possible. Primefac (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
And same for this relist. Please explain. Praxidicae (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae:: I left in the relist comment that

 Discussion began with argument for "valid encyclopedic topic", and the counter-argument started to evolve. I believe this discussion is in the middle of forming consensus, and needs more time, hence the relist. 

is this the explanation you are looking for, or do you want more explanation in any particular aspect? xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

In either of the cases I've pointed out, your relist was not detailed as per accepted reasons to relist. And in the last one it's pretty damn clear what consensus is. Praxidicae (talk) 18:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Praxidicae:, if you refer to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Traditional_fishing_tackle_of_Central_India i respectively disagree and genuinely believe at the time of my relisting, a consensus has not converged. I may be new to NAC and agree with many of your kind advices of improving my skill on interpreting judgment starting with commenting rather than closing, but I respectively stand with my judgement for this one. It's ok that you disagree with me and I look forward to be convinced and educted, but merely saying it's damn clear, didn't help explaining why you believe it is a clear consensus or if i have a relistbias. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
You are not new to admin because you are not an administrator. Please stop relisting and NACing AFDs per mine and Primefac's request. Praxidicae (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Praxidicae: Yes I could do that - stop closing, as per you and Primefac's request. I am genuinely here to contribute to Wikipedia not damaging it so I still want to learn why you believe there is a already a clear consensus at the time of my relisting? xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
@Sandstein:, @1292simon:, @Bearian:, @Dream Focus: adding a few other participants of the original discussion. Would you help educate me why it was a clear consensus at the time of my relisting as per @Praxidicae: xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 18:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I will repeat what I said above: it's clear you want to be helpful but you don't have the experience to be doing what you are doing. It is useless to ask for education if you're not going to accept that advice. The only way to gain the education you seek is, as I said before, through experience discussing AfD nominations. Not in closing them (and yes, relisting is part of closing). The fact that an actual administrator (Primefac above)) directly told you to stop closing or relisting and your response is to ask for help on how to close or relist is very worrying. If you continue to close or relist, you will certainly be blocked or banned and that would not help anyone. There are a million and one things you could be doing instead that would be helpful. This is not one of them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll comment on this relist as well, since I'm here. While consensus-building discussions are never a straight head count, overturning (or even relisting over) a 5:1:1 discussion keep:draftify:delete argument would meant that the "keep" votes had to be almost non-existent (e.g. only a keep and a signature) or completely refuted by those deleting. However, this is not the case here, as even the deleted !vote says "it could be a notable topic" and essentially advocates for blowing it up and starting over.
As above, I understand the need to take everyone's input into consideration, but if a relist basically needs to pull a 180 to reverse what looks like the "obvious" consensus (i.e. the headcount of 5-1-1), then it shouldn't be relisted; in other words, a relist would have required at least three new people to advocate for deletion before it even got close to a "no consensus"; the only times I've seen that happen is when the last !vote before relisting was invalidating a significant portion of the given sources (which didn't happen here). As above, it's not necessarily that you made a terrible relist, but it was pointless because it the outcome is more-or-less guaranteed regardless of the relisting. Primefac (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Thank you @Primefac: for a clear explanation.
First off. I like to ensure everyone that I am going to take your advice and plea to impose a self-sanction to stay away from NAC for 60 days or any longer time you would otherwise advise. In the meanwhile, I will continue to join the discussion of AfDs and make myself a bit useful and more experience in the area.
I like to highlight that while I have been conducting a good amount of delete, move and other reviews and debate, I have learned a lot from actually conducting NACs and understanding what it means to be an obvious consensus and what is not yet, and the concept of "relist", which I would have never learned by merely participating the discussions/debates themself. I am going to say it's an important way to learn by actually doing it.
In retrospect I felt what I did wrong primarily is probably doing to a bit too fast and too many at this point. Here is what I could have done better:
  • begin with enough participation of debate, such as 100 times (or a suggested number).
  • make sure do NACs only in an appropriate frequency, like at most 3 - 5 times a week, allow experienced editors to discover them, while giving them enough time to help steer the course or alert you if anything goes wrong.
  • proactively ask for advice or supervision, and
  • whenever an advice are given, take actions like revert quickly
  • I believe this would make it safe and still a helpful experience.
I also like to thank everyone else for giving me advice on this. Again I assure you I am going to cease performing NACs and conduct a few more comments before coming back to keep on learning closing. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)


  • There is no reason to relist when everyone or most everyone agrees on what to do. Also I thought only administrators could relist things. Dream Focus 18:57, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
    Non-admins can do pretty much everything except close as delete, though it is perfectly acceptable for an admin to unilaterally overturn a NAC if they have a reasonable justification. It is strongly discouraged for NACs to take any action on "contentious" or "close" discussions, though in practice this is rarely the case. Primefac (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
    I have no idea. Sorry. But thanks for the ping. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No quorumEdit

Hi, when relisting at AfD, instead of relisting discussions with little participation and no one opposing deletion, please let a closing administrator treat the nomination as an expired PROD for deletion. I.e., lack of participation does not necessarily warrant relisting. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 15:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020Edit

RelistingEdit

Regarding your relist at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Basketball#Mikey_Williams, WP:RELIST suggests that debates should not be relisted more than twice. However, that was its third. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, T.T. I self-crossed out the relist per your comment. xinbenlv Talk, Remember to "ping" me 01:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Numismatics newsletter - April 2020Edit