User talk:Another Believer/Archive 26

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

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of
  Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here
  .

Arbitration

• Voting in the
  2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page
  .

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
• Wikipedia policy
  two-factor authentication. A committed identity
  can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

• Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Tremor of Bliss until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Qwirkle (talk) 21:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Draft:The Conjugal Conjecture requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Swapped draft with mainspace redirect, this isn't necessary.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

A tag has been placed on Draft:The Matrimonial Momentum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Swapped draft with mainspace redirect, this isn't necessary.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article "Shallow" (Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper song) has been completed.

In the Development and Composition section this sentence, "A slow-burning, country[19] and folk pop[20] power ballad, "Shallow" features instrumentation mainly from Nelson's acoustic guitar and Cooper's piano with Cooper and Gaga trading verses." In the film, as I recall, Cooper is only shown playing guitar on stage. If so "Cooper's" piano should read "Gaga's" piano. I'll leave this to you.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Thanks for reviewing the article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@IndianBio: I just wanted to make sure you saw the above comment. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes AB I saw it. Thanks for submitting it and I do apologize again for the nuisance I created around it. Still feel bad about throwing a fit :( —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 21:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@IndianBio: Don't feel bad, we all have our moments of frustration. Just keep in mind, I'm never purposely trying to annoy you, I promise. Consider me a fan of your work, just trying to collaborate and help when I can. :) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words AB :) —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Another Believer

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_eXJcEhLKioNHuJv

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Why do these articles have only one sentence? And one entry in the infobox?

• All Can Work
• American Dreamers: Voices of Hope, Music of Freedom
• Diamond Cut (Tia Fuller album)
• Heart of Brazil
• If You Really Want
• Live in Europe (Fred Hersch album)
• West Side Story Reimagined

Vmavanti (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

... because someone hasn't added a second sentence yet? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Is that a joke?
Vmavanti (talk) 02:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Remember Warsaw until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. –

This month: A general update.

The current status of the project is as follows:

• Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
• I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
  • If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
• Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 31, October – Novemeber 2018

• OAWiki
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The file File:NBBJ - logo.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused logo with no article used, it's also can't move to commons because of an unused logo will be deleted as of out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Willy1018 (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully request that you cease creating articles which contain only one sentence. You have the experience on Wikipedia and the education outside of it to write an article of substance, fully sourced and consistent with Wikipedia rules and documentation. Why you have chosen to avoid doing so is unknown to me. Such a method amounts to piling unnecessary work onto the shoulders of busy editors. The most important currency we have is time. I would like to see editors spend their time more wisely rather than be smothered by pointless busywork. Cheers, mate. It's a good day to turn over a new maple leaf, eh?
Vmavanti (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Vmavanti: What work is being created for other busy editors? If you could be specific about some task that this editor or another willing editor can add to their article creation process and thereby reduce the burden that you claim exists, that would be helpful information. Is there some guideline or policy being violated by the creation of these new stub articles? Many excellent articles have begun as very short stubs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Come on. Don't call me a stalker. On what page should I have brought up this subject?
Vmavanti (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I thought I was talking to AnotherBeliever. I don't know if you are breaking any rules or not. That's not the point. I work on the jazz Cleanup Listing which is released every Tuesday here. Most of the work is done by me and another guy. There are nearly 4500 articles that require serious work. This backlog goes back ten years. There are at least two approaches: to clean up problems and to prevent them from recurring. This latter role necessarily involves a degree of correction. One correction I would like to make is encouraging people to avoid creating stubs. An experienced editor, a mature, educated, responsible adult knows that a lot of effort goes into producing an article of substance. It's easy to create an article, add one sentence, then maybe a source, or not, then leave it to others to do the rest. I don't know where you grew up, but where I grew up that's called lazy and irresponsible. One doesn't volunteer others for work, particularly if one is capable of doing more. I'm not saying it has to be perfect. But is one sentence your idea of a good article?

It's hard for me to take a comment like this seriously: "If you could be specific about some task that this editor or another willing editor can add". Yes, how about adding content? Is one sentence your idea of adequate content? The most recent Cleanup Listing (Jan 1, 2019) has six articles under "Context needed". They were created by AnotherBeliever. Every one of those articles is one sentence long. The infoboxes have one or two entries. Why isn't the point I'm making obvious? I'm getting this information from the Cleanup Listing, by the way, not from stalking Talk pages, and frankly that's a dumb, paranoid, insulting accusation. One sentence doesn't cut it. If someone handed you a broom to sweep a floor, how much of that floor would you sweep? Six inches? I'm genuinely curious about how this has become an acceptable practice on Wikipedia. I'm being generous by calling these articles inchoate. I can think of less flattering words. Either do more to give beginning articles a good foundation or don't create articles. Don't create crap. Capece?
Vmavanti (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Vmavanti, Jonesey95 was not calling you a talk page stalker, they were self-identifying as a talk page stalker. I acknowledge your request, but I won't commit to not creating stubs. Also, you make it sound like I create sub-stubs about jazz often, when really I just created a handful of stubs for albums recently nominated for Grammy Awards after viewing the list of nominees. Not a big deal, in my opinion, and these articles will be fleshed out at some point. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. But what's the problem? I have a ten year old backlog of almost 5000 articles which someone created, probably thinking they "will be fleshed out at some point". It's the old "If not me, who?" and "If not now, when"? Woulda, coulda, shoulda, as a friend of mine used to say years ago.
Vmavanti (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Dropping in after this is collapsed to point to this recent consensus saying that keeping (as opposed to userfying or draftifying or deleting) short stub articles about notable topics have the support of the community. – Jonesey95 (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

However, that "keep" consensus takes nothing away from the position put forth above – and with which I agree – that such "articles" should not have been created in the first place. SJ Morg (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

From the consensus summary: any mainspace content is better than hiding it away in draft or user space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Editors will forever disagree about stubs. I don't have a problem with them and believe having something is better than nothing. Call me lazy, that's fine, but I will continue to create stubs when I believe a notable topic has been overlooked. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

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
  WP:CSD#G6
  :

1. db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages
   .
2. db-redircom
   }}; the text is unchanged.
3. db-blankdraft
   }}.

• The Wikimedia Foundation
  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.

Hi and thanks for your help. I am just getting to learn my way around and wasn't finished with the wiki page information you deleted. I was still putting information under the correct headings and making sure all my cited links were correct.Asr1014 (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC))

@Asr1014: Sure, just please don't continue to use the official website as a source. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

@Vmavanti: You might want to take a look at this article as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:33, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

What about it?
Vmavanti (talk) 01:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thought you might like to see the expansion of one of the stubs mentioned above. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:23, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I was unaware that official website are not sources and will replace with citation from outside publications.(Asr1014 (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC))

@Asr1014: Yes, please do! Sources like newspaper and journal/magazine articles are acceptable. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and Happy New Year (2020?). Do you know template coding? Two templates, {{Evelyn De Morgan}} and {{Daniel Chester French}} are both missing their "view, edit" links at the top left. Can't figure it out, so wondering if you or someone else can reveal the nonexistent buttons. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: Hmm, I'm afraid I don't know the solution here, except to find a similar template and compare code. I assumed navboxes displayed these links automatically. If you can't figure it out, maybe post a quick note here? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, will do. I've already looked at the coding of it and other templates, nothing there (at least what I can see). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: I fixed the Daniel Chester French template by correcting the top 2 lines. Will look at the Evelyn De Morgan template as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:30, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check the changes out for future use (missed whatever you caught, my eyes must be in the shop). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Glad I could help! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Another Believer,

Question about sources - since TriMet opted to use Flickr to update folks on the PMLR project, how would we use it in a citation, if possible? I'm more after the picture's caption and the date it was posted to indicate approximate construction start date. Here is the link. --Truflip99 (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Truflip99: Hmm, I'm not sure I'd use Flickr as a source for any inline citation, but User:SounderBruce may have an opinion on whether or not Flickr can be used as official confirmation by TriMet. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

This is regarding Southeast Bybee Boulevard station. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards saying that Flickr (even from an official post) would be a less-than-worthy source. Surely the construction updates were provided on a real webpage or mailer that is archived on the Wayback Machine. I'd even consider a tweet from TriMet to be more worthy. SounderBruce 22:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. @Truflip99: Hope this feedback helps. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both. --Truflip99 (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in discussions about

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Not sure what this means but ok... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It's because you added an infobox to a featured article that didn't have one, and shrank the image to accommodate it while the image size is being discussed on talk. That kind of thing is covered by

discretionary sanctions, but for it to be actionable, we have to post these DS-alert templates. My apologies for using the template when I'd prefer just to leave a note. SarahSV ^(talk)

20:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. Thanks for clarifying. FWIW, image widths can be defined within the infobox. Frustrating editors are immediately opposing infobox inclusion simply because the default image width is smaller. The 600px-wide lead image looks ridiculous. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not acting as an admin here. I'm posting the alert only to make sure you're aware the article is covered by DS, because the DS rules require it. As for the image size, I don't know what you see on your brower, but on mine it looked tiny. Normally 300px is large enough for the lead, but in this case it isn't working for some reason. When you factor in that the article is about the image, you can see why the main editors want a larger size. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I understand, and appreciate the notification, just so I'm aware. I'm not set on 300px, but I'm just saying what Wikipedia's manual of style says, and the article could benefit from having an infobox. But, I'm done caring and I'm moving on to other articles now. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I created List of United States cannabis regulatory agencies after creating New York Office of Cannabis Management and realized the compendium had not been done. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bri: Thanks for the heads up! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

A few existing agencies could be added to the WPC redlist for WP:420.

• Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission
• Michigan Bureau of Marijuana Regulation
• Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands Cannabis Commission
• Tulalip Tribal Cannabis Agency

Plus a few more that are as-yet unnamed.

• Maine cannabis regulatory agency (in rulemaking)
• District of Columbia cannabis regulatory agency (via 2019 proposed legislation)

I might go do this later today. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems you've added, so I'll collapse this for now. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:16, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to bury the hatchet. We got off to a bad start on the Bacon micro stubs way back, and it went to bad from worse from there. Life is very short, and we obviously have a lot of shared interests, so olive branch. To your credit, and I fully acknowledge, the infobox on the Goya you were offering was about as minimalist as I've seen; Malevich would have been impressed! But he is dead and we are not. Who knows, we may be able to offer each other advice on various projects. Ceoil (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ceoil: More than happy to bury the hatchet. We may have disagreed, but we both meant well, and want Wikipedia to be the best possible project. My suggestions for the Goya artwork article were just recommendations based on what I thought were artwork article standards, and I'm perfectly fine with editors disagreeing. Olive branch accepted, and I hope we can work together on other articles. Happy editing! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm delighted, this was long overdue. Happy editing also. Ceoil (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Now that we are friends, can I say that where the problem on the Goya talk arose was the insistent pushing of "artwork article standards". Yes I see the need for them, and 99% of the time follow, but in instances reader utility is more important and necessitates ignoring all rules. That article took 10 years to take to FAC, in part because I'm a lazy bastard, but mostly because presenting the images was extremely difficult with wiki mark up, which seems exclusively designed for portrait formatted images. Grr! Ceoil (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I totally understand. I wasn't really trying to go against consensus, but I was getting frustrated when I would ask "but why?", and people would reply, "because", without really giving reasons or pointing to when/where decisions had been made. I was more trying to get feedback than attempting to implement my preferences. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, ok that makes sense, and made worse by the fact that in the past were talking past each with an ears closed approach to "discussion". We are both frustrated by this so lets not do it any more. As a practice measure, so we dont become so again distant, if you have an issue with a page of interest, raise it on my talk page, and well take it together from there. Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

ps: I think your a pretty damn fine and dedicated editor otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 23:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Please, I need your input. There is a conversation about splitting an article because of its size, but I don’t care which way you would vote on if it should be split or not. My issue is that the other editor and a companion-in-arms are misusing, mistranslating Wikipedia:Article size. These two are reducing the size of the largest articles in Wikipedia, which sounds like a noble goal, but when I asked what limit there should be on an article size, the response was 100 kB characters. The Wiki-guideline does state that readable prose should be less than 100 kB, but readable prose is the article minus citations, lists, tables, footnotes, and images, so I find the interpretation dangerous. The other editor said to get articles down in size, a yearly list could be cut down in half, in quarters, or even monthly. I cannot picture the easy usage of lists that is divided by month for multiple years. The guideline mostly states lists and tables are excluded from the guideline, so my objection to the split is that there is no justification except a misused guideline.

Basically, I think these two editors are going beyond being useful in improving Wikipedia and are moving into damaging Wikipedia, so I would like you to come to Talk:List of 2017 albums#Request for comment, read the discussions in the two section above it, especially Talk:List of 2017 albums#Redux, and provide feedback. I do not care if you say split or oppose, but to me the discussion is not about the split but the misuse of the Article Size guideline, and I want your and others I respect feedback on the conversation and the proper use of the guideline. Mburrell (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

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
  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
  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.

The article ZoomCare has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The available references are just press releases

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Use Google next time. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZoomCare until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Good grief... ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:24, 7 February 2019 (UTC)