User talk:SoWhy/Archive 24

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Happy New Year!

SoWhy,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Anyone who cites

WP:NOTINHERITED

, the article will always to meet the "credible claim of significance or importance" standard and thus be ineligible for A7 deletion.

I am (due to my busy private life no doubt) not aware of such discussions. Can you point me to one? I doubt the essay can become a guideline though. Regards SoWhy 19:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@

WP:NOTINHERITED. I have explained to them why I think it is a credible claim of significance (including a link to a Google search based on the claim, which turned out quite a lot of stuff), but they're not having any of it (yes, I have pointed out that that essay is about notability, and also not even about CSD. They even said it doesn't matter what a search reveals!). I can see that article going to DRV. I mean okay, it's not exactly a featured article, but I believe it did have a credible claim of significance. Discussion on the deleting admin's talk page has so far gone nowhere. Adam9007 (talk

) 00:04, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Four years ago ...

questions and help
... you were recipient no. 202 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

I am asking you to unblock a deletion of a page written for musical artist Paneye from 2011. Paneye has gained considerable fans and publications since 2011, making it a suitable inclusion for Wikipedia. Paneye is mentioned on other wikipedia articles such as affiliated record label Orchid Tapes.

Orchid Tapes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchid_Tapes

I look forward to your positive response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sisterfog (talk • contribs) 11:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there Sisterfrog. I'm happy to unprotect a page if an article can be created that shows that the subject is

a notable musician. Unfortunately, a quick Google search does not turn up any reliable sources. If you recreate an article without such sources, chances are high that the page will be speedy deleted again. As such, I would suggest you use the Article Wizard and create the new page in the Draft: namespace (there is an option for it at the end). If the draft meets the guidelines, I will happily move it to the mainspace. Regards SoWhy

11:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm honored you asked me but unfortunately I'm too busy in real life to properly review your edits and I am sure it's neither in your nor my best interest to do it only halfheartedly (at best). Good luck though! Regards SoWhy 19:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Perfect not an issue and sorry got late to reply actually I was also too busy in real life. Cheers –

talk

) 15:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, SoWhy. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

"extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion

with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016,

a request for comment

established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Wishing Lepricavark (talk ) 03:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Please note that

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at

Hello, SoWhy. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

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

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't clear: sorry. My point was that admins ought to have a vague idea how they'd respond in such a situation, since for practical purposes we're the most privileged people (in the Privilege (computing) sense) at one of the world's top websites. As major users, we're more easily identifiable than the average user (in the incident of which I spoke, the entity in question discerned my identity and made its demands via a note to my private email address) and in the 1984 sense, more equal as well. Sure, the details of your response will depend on the situation, but you should have a basic sense of how you'd try to respond if possible. Nyttend (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I understood you but Hawkeye7's question did not ask that, at least not clearly. There is a difference between how one would respond and what rules govern such a response. As for the latter, I don't think we have a rulebook, do we? As for the former, I know how I probably would respond (given my professional background and knowledge ) but I can't fathom there is any "right" answer for every candidate. Do you think there is? Regards SoWhy 08:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that this essay is causing me big problems. It's to the point that I may end up having to nominate it for deletion! Like before far too many people believe

As you say, it's an essay. It reflects my point of view and interpretation of policy and might not be as accurate today as it was when I first wrote it eight years ago. Consensus can change. Judging from the examples you mentioned, I believe it's still valid.

WP:CSD

clearly states that any user who is not the creator may do so.

If you believe that following my essay lands you in trouble, no one forces you to do so. But if you want my advice, you might want to restrict yourself to the more obvious mis-taggings. Saving Dan Avidan for example was a good job while Shreyansh Jain SK (mentioned at ANI) was imho correctly tagged as A7.

As for the fate of my essay, I can't stop you from taking it to MfD but remember that MfD rules say that "User pages about Wikipedia-related matters by established users usually do not qualify for deletion." Regards SoWhy 11:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I really don't want to do that (mfd). But I keep annoying others even if I cite the same claims. There are times when your essay seems highly problematic, and this is one of those times Adam9007 (talk) 13:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I understand that you are saying that to make a point but nevertheless. I'm sympathetic to your cause, I truly am, but I fear you misunderstood the point of an essay. It's merely a collection of indicators that served me well in the past (and judging from

WP:COMMONSENSE

).

As an experiment, try this: Next time you remove an A7-tag based on my essay, stay and check whether you can find some sources to prove the subject is notable. Otherwise, try and merge/redirect to the notable thing we do have an entry on. And remember, to use {{

WP:ATD could save us many an AfD. Regards SoWhy

18:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe it's my Asperger's but the way I see it is that something is either a claim of significance or is not. If it is, then any article that credibly makes such a claim is not an A7. I do understand the point of essays, but if it is about the application of policy, it may cause problems for those following it if it is too far outside consensus (I don't think it is by the way. But following essays should be optional, not forbidden, if you know what I mean?). I have wondered if people think of deletion purely in terms of keep or delete, which would explain the overzealous A7 taggings if they don't think an AfD will result in keep. Not long ago, a user gave me a hard time despite me making a possibility of a merge or redirect clear (even after I voted merge, although it was ultimately kept), and I think people get "suitable for inclusion" confused with "deserves its own article". Adam9007 (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I see you've updated your essay with merge/redirect recommendations. The reason I was blithering on about deletion is not because I wanted it deleted (I don't want it deleted), but because something had to be done (though I think the fact that I was frustrated may also have had something to do with it. We all know we say things we don't really mean whilst in such a state...), especially as your essay is in the "Essential further reading" section of

WP:FAILN. Regards. Adam9007 (talk

) 03:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

On 17 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pablo Hidalgo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that J. J. Abrams consulted Pablo Hidalgo up to three times a day while filming Star Wars: The Force Awakens? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pablo Hidalgo. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pablo Hidalgo), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I just noticed the removal of "Johanna Larsson (disambiguation)." Might I ask why? There are two Johanna Larsson's on wikipedia and usually I would see some sort of disambiguation page to direct me to the correct one. Is it because there are only two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fyunck(click) (talk • contribs) 06:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. The page you mentioned had no incoming links, so there was no way anyone would land on it without explicitly seaching for it. Readers will usually search for

WP:TWODABS for a more detailed explanation. Regards SoWhy

07:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

You declined the speedy deletion of Mercado de Campo de Ourique, saying:

Decline speedy - a market is not a company or organization, plus it might actually be notable. Use PROD or AFD instead.

I have to disagree with this rationale. The term market can refer to:

• an area where several merchants assemble to sell there wares
• a store that sells a variety of goods

Clicking the link provided as the sole reference for this article, I find that the Mercado de Campo de Ourique appears to be a garden-variety supermarket, which does qualify for an A7 deletion. Further, the A7 deletion criterion refers to an article that "makes no credible assertion of notability". I.e., whether a topic may or may not be notable is not at issue; what is at issue is that the article has made no assertion of notability. However, as you have declined the speedy deletion, I will move the matter to AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You are of course correct that the term "market" can apply to both. I don't speak Portuguese, so I can't check sources for myself but can see that there are quite a few GNews hits for this topic. Plus, according to

TripAdvisor it ranks 4th in shopping destinations in Lisbon [1] with a lot of people discussing it, so I figured there might actually be some RS discussing it as well. Thus I thought the possibility of notability exists, thus the decline. I'll try to make it clearer next time. PS: Please do remember though that an "assertion of notability" is not required, just significance or importance, which is explicitly a lower standard than notability. Regards SoWhy

21:22, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

PPS: It seems it's not a supermarket but an in-door market area, so A7 really doesn't fit. Also, before you take it to AfD, might I suggest checking for

WP:ATD? I'm pretty sure deletion is not required by policy even if you are right, if the page could be turned into a redirect. Regards SoWhy

21:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did you nominate the Main Page for deletion? Are you in control of your account at the moment? Patient Zero^talk 12:40, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Gutsy. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I am. Sorry for that. I tried to nominate an article for AfD but the script I use seems to have gotten choked up by the article's title and just added "". If someone is still concerned, please feel free to check my committed identity. Again, sorry. Regards SoWhy 12:43, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for explaining, it's OK. I was just a little confused and my first thought was "that account is clearly compromised". I think that's a reasonable explanation as you're an admin in good standing. The Rambling Man: what's the video? I'm in school, YouTube is blocked. Patient Zero^talk 12:44, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, one of the finest scenes in Top Gun where Mav gets a nod from one of his colleagues despite being torn a new one by Charlie when he did the inverted 5g roll and flicked the bird... "Gutsiest move I ever saw man".... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

You are probably too young to have seen that ;-) BTW, it's been at least five minutes, where is my

WP:TROUT? SoWhy

12:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks TRM. By the way, I am 17. Is it an 18 then? oh and

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

 :-), and thanks to Od Mishehu for actually knowing what to do and for taking the time to explain. Patient Zero^talk 12:51, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

No, it's a 15 in the UK I think. Only one vaguely naughty scene with Tom and Kelly. Tame by today's standards. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

That's good The Rambling Man - I'd like to watch it now - not for the naughty scene though! Patient Zero^talk 13:05, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I figured it must be a faulty script. As soon as I saw the main page, I knew that the first priority was to fix it (this, of course, required checking that it was the main page itself, not a transcluded page, where the template was located), second priority is to check if we need to be concerned about a compromized admin account; as soon as I opened your recent edits, I could tell it was a malfunctioning script. All otrher actions I was going to do (including looking at my talk page, which would otherwise be top priority) would be below these. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Serves me right for trying to use a ten-year-old script to nominate AfDs. Thanks for your quick thinking, Od Mishehu. . I'll go back to work now, hopefully without deleting the files there. Regards SoWhy 12:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Glad to see you've not been compromised! I happened to go to the main page at the time of the incident, but was unable to do anything as a) I'd had to delete all my cookies earlier, logging me out, and b) left my mobile at home, with authenticator for

Pek the Penguin

) 15:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Broken script"... sure. That's what they all say. ;) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  Even if you have prbolems

  assuming good faith

  here, I see 3 theoretical possibilities:

  1. Some person broke into his account, did no admin-level action other than adding an ugly tag to the main page, and disapeared leaving the account's owner to change the password.
  2. An established admin goes crazy, and for no reason adds an ugly tag to the main page, adds an odd-looking transclusion to the main
     WP:AFD
     page, and then returns to doing only normal edits.
  3. A broken script.

  Of those options, #3 is the only reasonable one, in my opinion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

  Muahahaha, they don't suspect anything!!! My evil plan is taking shape!!! Muahahahahaha!!!!

  SoWhy 20:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Enjoy your trout! :) Also, have you considered Template:Trout me for your user page? MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 02:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Good idea, I probably need that. Regards SoWhy 07:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello. First let me say, I understand, why you had to delete the page, that's the rules of wikipedia. But I don't understand why you didn't inform me prior to the deletion! I came here today to copy most of the page and create an article about Collin Bowman in the German WP - and had to realize, everything has gone. I don't insist on restoring the page, but maybe you can somehow send me the article for named purpose?

It's not custom to inform people of the deletion itself. Also, seeing as you were already aware of the likely outcome, I wouldn't have any reason to believe you didn't already do that. That said, I'm happy to

User:WLinsmayer/Collin Bowman. If one day he meets the notability guidelines, you can just add more sources and move it back to the main space. Schönen Abend noch Regards SoWhy

20:09, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

My deepest apologies, I only now realized what happened (which is still very stupid of me, but I thought I'd provide an explanation): I clicked the wrong one. I meant to CSD under A7, non-notable individual (which hopefully at least makes sense; if you would've still declined it, please let me know). "Article claims coverage in reliable sources" is definitely not a good reason. Again, sorry about that! --Nerd1a4i (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:GNG), significance/importance exists if the article credibly claims such coverage exists. See Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance

for a more elaborate overview.

To put it another way: A7 was created to weed out high school kids' auto-bios, articles about someone's garage band or website etc. Everything else should not be handled by speedy deletion;

WP:CSD

even say so in the beginning: Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.

If you want to continue tagging pages for speedy deletion, I have written

WP:10CSD, another essay of mine that lists usual mistakes new new page patrollers tend to make. Be sure to also read the "see also" pages. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Regards SoWhy

21:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy Thank you for your response! I was actually reading through your essay as I waited for a response, and it cleared up what I now recognize as major confusion about the purpose of A7. I had thought (as you mention) that it was about notability, but the idea that A7 is for a lower standard than notability makes much more sense to me. I will be much more careful with A7 in the future (I have had no problems with the other CSD reasons - I've been mainly looking for spam/vandalism) and try my best to instead of just looking for CSD, look for ways to improve. Thank you for writing those two essays, they are incredibly helpful (and in my opinion should be required reading for new page viewers =) Sorry for the trouble, --Nerd1a4i (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

(

WP:NOTINHERITED confusion at all (he has since updated it to suggest merging or redirecting if not notable if the significance is because of a connexion with someone or something notable. And yes, I have seen articles that could easily have been merged or redirected actually deleted (not just tagged) under A7.). Another thing to point out is that, as user essays, there are strictly speaking merely our two pence (I feel I should point out that I have Asperger's, which means my interpretation is probably much more literal than most others'. Bear that in mind if you decide to read my essay.), no matter how much policies and guidelines support them or how many people agree with them. We really do need a proper A7 guideline, as I don't think essays are cutting it. Adam9007 (talk

) 04:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@

my signature. But there is no need to ping someone if you already use their talk page since they will automatically be notified anyway. But it's a good way to notify users when talking to/about them on other talk pages, hence Adam's and my use here. Regards SoWhy

08:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Please help me remove noindex meta. Thanks.--Rohkum (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

@Rohkum: I have already told you how the noindex tag will be removed, i. e. when someone has reviewed the page. Please be patient. Also, please remember to leave new sections at the bottom of a talk page (using the "new section" button helps). Regards SoWhy 17:54, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

You added a CSD decline of WudStay Travels to your log, but I was the one who declined that. Did you try to decline it at the same time but I did it faster? Adam9007 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Correct. CSDHelper tried to do the decline the same time you did but somehow added it anyway. Thanks for the heads up. Regards SoWhy 21:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

If you click on "Kelsey Grammer" on that Trump endorsement article, you still go right to Grammer's Wikipedia article. In other words, I don't think your intended change to his link got through. Ch4ck it out, and educate me in what's aniss. I will read the article thanks.Lovecats1000 (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Lovecats1000

@

sign using ~~~~ and it will automatically convert to your name and the current time. Regards SoWhy

21:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

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

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

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

Hi SoWhy User:Ron7905/sandbox/Ron Franklin - Drifter was undeleted so that it could be discussed at my RFA, I'm thinking it should probably be returned to the dumpster. You did the undelete, so I thought it best to ask your opinion rather than to delete it myself as some might think it a bit pointy. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Happy to see you are cautious when using the delete button. Regards SoWhy 15:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey there, I saw you had declined the bot report for this IP. I wanted to let you know, that's a block evading IP, the edit filter is triggered by this user who has been spamming this NN person lately in various articles (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Randikasyap/Archive). RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

If it's sock puppetry,

WP:AIV says, it should only be used if the sock puppeteering is obvious, which does also apply to bot reports. As such, the report was in fact incorrect. That there was another block reason does not change that. Regards SoWhy

15:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your review of my DYK nomination. The article has been corrected to conform with your suggestions, and I believe that your input regarding the hook is a fine improvement. But it doesn't appear any other reviewers have seized upon the opportunity to complete the (now) simple review process. The nomination seems stuck in a backwater eddy. Any suggestions? Gulbenk (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that your nomination has not been reviewed yet. Unfortunately, with the current backlog, there is not much we can do, unless maybe some talk page stalker of mine feels like doing it (*hint* *hint*). Since I wanted a second opinion, I can't finish the review myself unfortunately. Regards SoWhy 20:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I saw that at

The point of the block is to stop the user in question from interacting with others except when it comes to the block itself and possible unblocks. While

WP:BLOCKEVASION does not specifically mention WP:IRC, the chat rooms do serve a semi-official purpose and are explicitly mentioned here multiple times, so using IRC to further your agenda is imho no different than using another account here to do it. Apparently, @Slakr: thought so as well. Regards SoWhy

11:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't consider using IRC block evasion (I mean, we have #wikipedia-en-unblock, after all, for helping people to discuss their blocks), however that user, in particular, used IRC, drew attention to themselves (in a negative way), and then the evidence on-wiki for the specific IP that they were using was clearly conclusive that they were block evading anyway (independent of their IRC activities). --slakr^\ talk / 22:18, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this specific case. I do still think that using IRC to circumvent the block is no different than using another account to do so on-wiki (using #wikipedia-en-unblock is imho the same as using the talk page to discuss the block, so that's not really a circumvention). Regards SoWhy 07:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

If you guys don't mind me chipping in, it sounds like the matter of where IRC stands in terms of Block Evasion, could be the kind of thing where there isn't yet a clear consensus, and an RFC on this to establish some consensus could benefit the encyclopaedia. @Slakr and Huon: and SoWhy, any opinion on this idea? MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 17:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to adding a sentence that clarifies that using other channels (not just IRC) to continue harassing behavior can lead to an extension of an on-wiki block. OTOH, since such cases are probably rare and can already be addressed by the current policy, with a healthy dose of IAR, I doubt there will be consensus to implement such a change, seeing as many users frown at what they perceive of as

WP:CREEPy language. Regards SoWhy

20:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Welp! Never came across WP:CREEP before I'll be honest. In the words of https:// youtu.be/Qdp5DDaPDUU , "I know I learned something here today!" Cheers SoWhy! MM ('"HURRRR?) ^(Hmmmmm.) 09:50, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I see you declined A7 on

Like with tourist attractions, the question is whether the focus of the article is on the building or the organization that runs it. The tricky part in such cases is the

Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod), so A7 didn't apply. If it had been about the organization who runs it, things might have been different, although almost any religious organization will probably have at least some coverage in reliable sources. As GB fan pointed out in the discussion you mentioned, it really depends. I have deleted a number of articles about hotels, hospitals, malls etc. despite the fact that those are also buildings, since the focus of the article is not on those buildings. Regards SoWhy

08:29, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

But it's often difficult to tell which one it is. If in doubt, I assume building, as that's what churches, hotels, hospitals etc are, even if they are also organisations. Am I wrong to do that? There's also the fact I was told that churches are organisations, not that that particular article was about an organisation. I'm sure that's what was said, but I can't remember where. I'll probably have to go searching for it. Adam9007 (talk) 04:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You disobeyed an arbitration committee enforcement so I had to report you to

How did that work out for you? Regards SoWhy

07:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, regarding my declined RPP request about that page, I want to elaborate:

Special:History/Asaram - counting from 1 January 2017, (being generous i.e. counting multiple edits with just a single revert as one) there have been 13 reverts and not a single new user constructive edit. The only edit left is one by 30 Jan which was, by far, done by an experienced editor and the only change in that article besides mine. Compare those reverts with a month, and you get a rate of 2-3 per day approx.

I'll be quick to add that I don't intend to press this issue. The only thing that bothered me is my interpretation of PP being wrong. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ugog Nizdast: I can understand your frustration but since this is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, protection should be used sparingly and only in those cases where dealing with the problematic users themselves or reverting is not a feasible option. With only two such edits this month, there was thus imho no reason to implement semi-protection at that time. If vandalism resumes at a higher rate, consider asking for pending-changes protection instead of semi-protection to allow anonymous users to submit edits. Regards SoWhy 14:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi again.

I noticed a couple of things about this page: 1) Your CSD log says it was tagged for G11 by

Interesting. Thanks for the heads-up, I'll ping

WP:RIA which I did. Regards SoWhy

07:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Houseonbluehill (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at

Thanks, ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Note that this is for clarification, not any allegation of wrongdoing. Still, it involves your action, so you've been noted as a party. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

yes

Jacktime34 (talk) 01:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

...thank you for pointing me to the request for clarification. After reading the wording, and the replies of the arbitrators....I still see a certain amount of disgression for admins. The case in point at WP:RFP would have been adequately protected by semi, imho. And thanks for the heads-up. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 14:47, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I was in your situation a few days back, which led me to be involved (involuntarily) in the first place. As far as I can tell, current consensus is that we should apply ECP as soon as an IP or new editor disrupts any such article but not before that. Personally, I don't think that's correct within the protection policy, so I'm hoping the Arbs will reconsider their approach and make ECP a sanction that should allow be applied when disruption is high. The current wording does prevent many good-faith editors from editing. We will see how it plays out. Regards SoWhy 14:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I remember, as I commented on the protection request for

Regularization Bill...I personally think the more or less automatic triggering of ECP goes to far. Anyway, enjoy your day. Lectonar (talk

) 15:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I highly doubt there is a Grace Wan and a Grace YuYe Wan who just happen to be born on the same day and hail from the same city (and have the same imdb page). So the deletion was correct as a recreation of Grace Wan even if you are not the same person who created the other page, which is again highly doubtful, but I'll let others handle such cases. Regards SoWhy 21:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

I see you declined my speedy delete / move request at Xseed Games. Obviously there's no particular harm in opening up a RM, but I disagree that this speedy criteria doesn't apply. The main criteria is if there is a non-trivial page history - there isn't - and if there was signs of a controversy / discussion. e.g. this shouldn't be done if there was any sort of argument or a previous RM. The original move was done without discussion, and three editors have signaled opposition since (and one person even tried to do a copy-and-paste move "back"). Now sure, maybe the move might be wrong, but then it's on them to open a RM - reverting moves made without discussion to the previous title doesn't usually qualify as "controversial", or, at least, no more controversial than the original move - they're just held up for technical reasons. To do otherwise privileges the "first mover". SnowFire (talk) 23:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

There is no "privileging".

WP:RM instead. Besides, if the page's name has been unchanged for four years, another week or two won't hurt. Regards SoWhy

07:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

What is this apparent evidence of a controversy, though? Am I missing something? You also read the talk page differently than I, as Altava's comment was done shortly after the original move and is basically saying "but this article is only on XSeed Games".

That said, I don't want to focus too closely on this specific article, which I agree, whatever as to if it takes a day or a week. I'm talking more about the use of db-move in general. I believe my use of it is perfectly in line with

WP:G6, which notes specifically that "Deleting redirects or other pages blocking page moves" is a legitimate use case, and the only asterisk is for non-trivial page histories. Editors in good standing can just plain move articles without need for an RM to titles that either consist solely of a redirect pointing the other way, or of nothing. This use of db-move was an attempted move to a redirect pointing the other way with trivial page history - in other words, something that is normally allowed without an RM, at the discretion of the mover. The only difference was the irrelevant technical difference of the trivial page history. Such deletion requests should generally be honored, IMO, especially since if there was a hypothetical third title without history, it could have been moved without incident. Additionally, the original move was done without explanation nor an RM nor with any talk page comment. Such moves don't have any real standing, unlike a previous RM, to stop a technical move. I'm sure it isn't hard to imagine a few cases where Wikipedia did something very non-standard for a year or three without anyone noticing... for one example where I used a few db-moves (albeit being able to cite an RM), see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_11#Category:Royal_Audiences_of_the_Spanish_Empire , where for whatever well-intentioned reason, a bunch of Wikipedia articles were standardized around "Audience" as a very literal English-language translation of "Audiencia", despite nobody actually doing this in real life that isn't Google Translate. SnowFire (talk

) 00:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

As I said, it's not about any existing controversy, it's about whether there might be controversy. As an admin, I believe that any policy that gives us the right to delete pages without discussion should be handled in a way that only the clearly uncontroversial deletions are performed. Here we had an established user performing a move for a reason that satisfied

an underlying assumption that they had a good reason for their edit or action and thus they should not be reverted without prior consultation

unless there is any real problem with the edit or action that has to be fixed immediately.

I also disagree with your notion that moves without an RM or discussion have "no real standing", since there is to my knowledge no policy or guideline that supports such a view. But there is the

WP:TITLECHANGES

policy that says that

"if an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title."

I think four years can be considered "a long time" when it comes to this policy, so I'm afraid we have to continue to disagree. But that's okay Regards SoWhy 07:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, there's "Agree to disagree", and there's "I'm not sure that policy says what you think it says." Which, don't get me wrong, there's plenty of parts of Wikipedia policy I think are wrong too, and there's no problem with arguing that criteria should be interpreted more narrowly. But I think db-move would be a pointless template if it was as restricted as you believe it is. (Let me qualify this somewhat: if, upon investigating the attempted move, you personally felt it was a wrong-headed move, that's fine! It's not entirely clear from your comments if you think so. Of course, in that case, you can just say so and drop off your argument as to why, which immediately makes the move controversial and requiring a formal RM.)

As for the linked essay, this wasn't a casual "eh I don't like it" revert. This was a thoughtful and considered change. I think that taking into account the talk page comments as a negative indicator of the move is troubling, as the spirit of the linked essay is to not revert without explanation. In this case, there was no explanation to the original move, and there was explanation from multiple other editors it might be problematic, arguing against a hypothetical guess at the reasoning (presumably

WP:OFFICIALNAME

). Basically, you probably shouldn't discourage explanation and talk page comments in situations like these, if these useful talk page comments become evidence of a non-existent controversy.

Finally. Wikipedia could just make all moves administrator-locked. They don't. Regular editors can perform moves, under the assumption that if they perform bad ones, they can be easily and cheaply reverted, and that a RM can be opened in event of an argument. The "trivial page history" case blocking a move is a weird edge case that is a technical restriction of the software, not a restriction on editor conduct. This is why the criteria is pretty blunt - trivial page history = db-move is legit = treat this like a "normal" page move. Maybe the move IS wrong, who knows, but it can just be reverted then, or a formal RM filed. Just delete & move on once verifying that there's a trivial page history, and there was not an earlier RM / any sort of potential opposition on the talk page (from actual opponents, not supporters of a move hypothesizing). Editor attention is a finite resource, too; just look at the backlog on

WP:RM. There is genuine value with just letting uncontroversial moves happen, and letting the few that were actually controversial be contested after the fact. SnowFire (talk

) 08:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

In case it was unclear: I personally have no opinion on the move itself but I do think that this particular move might be controversial based on the reasoning above. Based on how

WP:CSD

is written, even the assumption that controversy might exist is sufficient to bar any speedy deletion (except where quick handling is required, e.g. G10, G12 etc.).

The talk page comments just show that there was no real discussion, not more. And especially none that involved the editor who previously did that move, who btw has apparently still not been notified of the RM discussion despite the fact that you are trying to revert their action. The original move contained a reasoning, i.e. "Xseed JKS renamed as Marvelous USA". Again, I'm not discouraging discussion at all, on the contrary, I believe we should have it. I merely pointed out that less than an hour of discussion is not sufficient to let all potentially interested editors participate (you proposed the move on 06:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC) and requested the move at 06:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)).

Of course technically anyone can move pages but that does not change the fact that the aforementioned policy tells us not to do it if the page name has been stable for a long time. I think our disagreement is based on the fact that you perceive the proposed move as a simple "revert" while I perceive it as a new "first" move to which the

WP:TITLECHANGES policy applies. Basically, we seem to disagree what "stable for a long time" means. Unfortunately, without any further rules, that is a piece of policy open to interpretation and I happened to interpret it differently than you did. I'm happy to be proven wrong but so far I can't find any policies or guidelines that say how long is "a long time". Regards SoWhy

10:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Template:PD-Highsmith has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13

Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

• A
  evaluated at AfD
  . Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation
  proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC
  .
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

Technical news

• A
  doing so
  .
• Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
• A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.

Hi,

I saw your comments at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_February_22#Steve_Salis, and get the impression that you, like me, think G11 says the article itself must be promotional in tone, and irreparably? As you may have seen from the DRV, a lot of people seem to think that COI and/or paid editing alone constitutes blatant advertising and automatically qualifies the page for G11. I'm wondering if A reworking of G11 is in order. I'm talking about not only this, but other recent examples:

Fortrade. I couldn't see any blatant advertising here. Is it advertising? Maybe. But is it obvious? I don't see how. In the ensuring discussion on my talk page, the tagger seemed to think that sourcing counts towards an page's eligibility for G11.

And the worst one - Abscription. I declined G11, because I cannot see any advertising of abscription or anything else here. Maybe it's my Asperger's but I just see a load of technical/scientific jargon, none of which I even vaguely understand. Even if I don't understand the subject, I do think I'd recognise "blatant advertising" if I see it. The tagger threw a wobbler and made personal attacks against me, threatening me with a topic ban: 1 2 3

I saw in your

I don't see a reason to change

Cavern Pub existed for 11 years, there is no reason to speedy delete it now. All of them don't seem to understand that speedy deletion is no longer possible if a good-faith non-article-creator disagrees, even if the disagreement might have been for the wrong reasons. PS: I'm not judging but you might find solace in the fact that one of the editors who called you clueless has already been admonished in the past by ArbCom because of civility issues, so you are apparently not the only one affected by this editor's behavior. Regards SoWhy

10:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

How do you propose we go about educating users? I don't think it's possible to educate the majority of editors about G11's scope, because its misuse is now so widespread. The misuse is no longer commonly considered misuse, even though the wording hasn't budged. Same with A7. As for the blatant-unambiguous word change, it seems that it was changed purely to avoid "blatant"'s negative connotation, without changing G11's meaning. As I see it, the prose in, for example, Abscription (I see someone's come to my defence on its AfD) could have different interpretations (such as it just being a load of jargon), and is therefore not unambiguous advertising. It seems to me that all three of these examples are cases of "I think it's an advert", rather than them unambiguously being an advert. Adam9007 (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Messages on talk pages and comments on deletion discussions are oftentimes helpful. Since many new page patrollers request adminship,

WP:ORCP are useful avenues to discuss such cases of problematic policy interpretation as well. Of course, once a large number of editors start ignoring the rules, they will embolden new users to do so as well. Hence me arguing in the aforementioned DRV that we should not react to rule-breaking with rule-breaking. Regards SoWhy

11:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the problem is that once so many editors are breaking the rules, it is nigh impossible to get them to stop. I think it's to the point where they no longer consider their application to be against the rule. We will have a very hard time convincing people that CSD's scope is as limited as it is. It's probably easier to change the rules to reflect common practice, rather than change common practice to abide by the rules. It's possible that

WP:IAR is too often used as an excuse to break a rule because they don't like it or otherwise disagree with it. Adam9007 (talk

) 03:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I ponder if links to publishers are, fundamentally, good or bad.
— I might expand on that, if necessary. But I believe that any experienced wikipedian would see at least a pair of advantages as well as disadvantages with this solution, that in turn required the creation of a stub: Natur & Kultur.

If so, what notability criterion ought to be met for publishers outside of the English speaking countries?

In the particular case of Natur & Kultur, I do not doubt its relevance, but somewhere a line has to be drawn.

Then there are author-links. The questions are the same, although slightly more sensitive, since authors may be still alive:

1. Is it good or bad to link (from source templates) to authors who already are covered?
2. Is it good or bad to go one step further, and create stubs?
3. If so, where to draw the line.
   • Scientific publication in English?
   • Scientific publication in any foreign language (except mother tongue)?
   • Repeated appearances as scientist in radio, tv, major news media?
   • Contributor to printed encyklopedias?
   • ...or somewhere else?

Best regards! /Johan M. Olofsson (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I hope I understood your question correctly (correct me, if not): The notability criteria are always the same, no matter where the subject is from, so I fail to see why a distinction should be made for non-English publishers. Per

WP:NONENG

). Quotes from such sources should be both in the original language and English, not just translated.

As for whether to link to such stubs or missing articles,

WP:REDLINK should cover this quite well. I personally think we should place links when there is a small chance that some reader will be interested to click on this for further reading (or for what XKCD: 214

describes) if the topic is notable.

Thus, any sourced stub about a notable subject is a net benefit to the project since it creates a platform for other users to build an article on. Regards SoWhy 16:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I thank you for your effort and answer. Although I have put quite some time into the issue, I must unfortunately admit that I am (yet) no wiser. Kind regards! /Johan M. Olofsson (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy. I was going through RFPP and I noticed you semi'd User talk:DrStrauss for two weeks (as was requested). I am concerned however that there was not enough disruption to justify protecting the page. From looking at the history it appears that a single IP posted a number of messages and was blocked for making personal attacks. However, as DrStrauss is involved in anti-vandal work there have been a number of legitimate messages from editors asking for clarification, help, or pointing out a mistake DrStrauss had made. As most of these notes were from non autoconfirmed users and are not disruptive I am concerned we are being slightly heavy handed by protecting the talk page and preventing users with legitimate queries from posting. Clearly the IP making personal attacks was correctly blocked, but I wanted to ask if I am missing something else here that underpins why we protected the page? Best, Mifter (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

You are not missing anything. Since

WP:PP#User talk pages and created a separate subpage for those users but I didn't check it, so mea culpa. I'll leave them a message. Regards SoWhy

21:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Mifter, thanks for the concern, I've been experiencing a touch of WikiStress lately and the harassment just pushed it over the edge but I think that a semi could be considered justified under the circumstances.

SoWhy, thank you for the vote of confidence! My bad - I had read the guideline but just forgot to make the subpage, I'll get down to it I've implemented it on the editnotice.

Regards, DrStrauss talk 21:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@DrStrauss:, no worries, I've been there and know the feeling. My concern was just to make sure that those with legitimate questions could still get ahold of you during the protection. SoWhy, thanks for the quick reply, and don't worry about it. Have a great day, Mifter (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Colin Smythe is Pratchett's editor and has emailed the Committee. I'm convinced the username is legitimate and that he is Colin Smythe. I'd like to unblock him. He'll need to have COI issues, etc. explained to him of course. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: No problem. As I clarified explicitly, the block was merely because he was adding/editing links to his company's website and thus it was unclear whether he or someone from his company controlled the account. Regards SoWhy 20:45, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

And as you probably know, Drmies unblocked. It was a good block, I would have done the same. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I was just wondering for further reference and so I do not make the same mistake with CSD G5 nominations, what constitutes a significant edit [by other editors]? If all of the actual article content is added by the blocked user- and then other editors clean things up, then these edits are significant? I guess a better question would be what is an insignificant edit? DJ Blue is what sparked this question. Thanks. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 19:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Usually, I'd like to err on the side of caution when it comes to speedy deletion (G10 excepted). My interpretation is thus: Cleanup that leaves the text largely the same is not significant. Cleanup that changes the text usually is because now another editor has put in work to improve the article. Basically, one has to ask themselves whether they'd go "well, this was a waste of my time" if they noticed the article being deleted later. In this case, large portions of the text were rewritten after the banned editor left the article, so G5 no longer applied. Plus, the article

WP:CSD#Pages that have survived deletion discussions exempts those pages from G5 anyway. Regards SoWhy

20:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The CSD rules are sometimes vague. Thank you for the clarification, it's very helpful. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

You declined the speedy deletion of Eden Wiggins stating "Decline speedy - starring in a notable series indicates significance". A single appearance in one episode as the young version of one of the series' characters hardly counts as a "starring" role. I'll take to AFD. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

You are correct, I meant "appearing". The rationale stands though, someone who has been cast in a named role (not an extra) on a notable show might be significant enough to warrant their own article which is enough for A7. Plus, the article contains a reliable source which alone is sufficient to pass A7's low threshold. Regards SoWhy 16:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough on the declined speedy. I had tried to put the article up for

I recommend using

Twinkle for such tasks. It automates the nomination process and takes care of creating a new subpage if a previous AfD exists. If you prefer doing it manually, you have to create the page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Salomon (2nd nomination) instead and fix all the links. Twinkle is really easier in this case. Regards SoWhy

20:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Kind regards --Intern315 (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@

involved with the subject. Regards SoWhy

05:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eden Wiggins (one of your A7 declines) - "frankly, the rejection of said A7 request was erroneous". Why can't they just accept your decline and move on? It seems I was mistaken in believing that admins are immune to this is the sort of stuff, as it's the sort of thing I keep having to deal with (for the record, I agree with the decline, there is a CCS and it cites a reliable source). No wonder I'm beginning to think our essays are too far outside consensus, whatever that is. After a comment like that, you could be forgiven for thinking it was one of my declines :). I'm frequently accused of wasting time, but the irony is that those who moan and argue with me about it waste more time in doing so. Adam9007 (talk) 03:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Disagreements about the scope of policy are normal and no editor, not even Jimbo, is immune. But if a user who has no discernible track record in speedy deletion and who once tagged a draft as A7 believes I, who has handled thousands of such pages, made a mistake, chances are, they are the ones being mistaken. Sometimes, I am indeed wrong, but this is not one of those times and simply saying "the rejection of said A7 request was erroneous" does not make it so. Remember, the strength of one's argument does not change just because they proclaim it with utter conviction. Regards SoWhy 05:27, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"the strength of one's argument does not change just because they proclaim it with utter conviction" - is this a good example? This comment is also further evidence that our essays do not conform to consensus. Yours especially in this case, as you list "Is a teacher at a notable university" as a CCS. It pains me to say it, but I'm actually beginning to believe your "Common indications of importance or significance" list is disruptive to Wikipedia, as anyone seeking information about A7 may come across it and, in good faith, follow it, as I have been doing, but they will still be treated as if they're

incompetent, because few agree with what you're saying. It may be optional, but nobody should have to worry about anything by following an essay either. There's no point in linking to it in defence because I know exactly what they will say. Adam9007 (talk

) 02:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

As I said before, this essay is merely a collection of CCS from when it was written. You will notice that my point is valid in the example you cited as well. Exemplo347 argues that the A7 decline was incorrect because neither GNG nor NPROF were met and thus demonstrates that he confuses significance with notability in a way that A7 explicitly prohibits. You might take heart in the fact that those making such comments are mostly not admins (and hopefully never become ones if they don't change their interpretation of policy) while those admins commenting, such as Anachronist in the AfD you mentioned, agree that the speedy deletion was declined. Regards SoWhy 07:55, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

As I've been inexplicably pinged here, let me just say that I disagree with the specific rationale used to decline the A7 speedy. Your misinterpretation of my comment is strange, as is your "I hope they never become admins" remark, given that two admins also disagreed with the specific rationale. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I have pinged you because I consider it rude to discuss other editor's comments without their knowledge. As for my "misinterpretation", please enlighten me as to why being a teacher at a notable university is not a

credible claim of significance, considering that with academics in such positions additional research (possibly offline, possibly in specialized sources) might always have a reasonable chance of demonstrating notability. As for my other comment, I stand by it that no admin should confuse A7's requirements with notability and if Drmies meant to imply that they think A7 nominations should be judged by whether the subject is notable or not, then yes, they are mistaken. Regards SoWhy

08:42, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Rather than being drawn into a protracted discussion, I'm just going to say that your opinion is not supported by any policy, any guideline or even a consensus so you shouldn't be surprised when it's challenged - after all, your opinion carries as much weight as any other editor. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:59, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

My opinion is supported by both the wording and the

WP:A7, i.e. to weed out those articles where there is no indication that the subject might warrant inclusion and the discussions about professors at WT:CSD I can find (see here, here, here) seem to disagree with you. Plus, if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#People 2 says that professors have a 50-50 chance at AfD and we shouldn't speedy delete any article that statistically has such a chance of surviving AfD. That said, I'm happy to be proven wrong but if I am, you should be able to point to the policy, guideline or consensus that agrees with your interpretation. Regards SoWhy

09:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• A7 talks about importance--I don't consider being a professor at a notable university to be a claim of importance. Every university is already notable, and most professors are not (and that includes me, certainly). I don't know percentages. Drmies (talk) 13:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

On the core principle, I'd beg to differ. With the path to tenure being tied to publication volumes these days, I'd say that being a professor is a sufficiently credible claim of significance (not importance, the nuance matters here) to support an A7 decline. And the mere fact that this would be a disagreement between admins should be sufficient indication that a speedy deletion is no longer appropriate, and that the question is worth a closer look. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:43, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. If you got the job of professor, in most countries that means you are a top academic and thus there is a reasonable assumption that you are notable per our guidelines, which is sufficient enough. Debate it at AfD or PROD it but A7 should certainly not be used for articles that are statistically not certain deletes. Regards SoWhy 19:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

• I glanced over the rest of the discussion--it's not really my beeswax, but I'll weigh in anyway with two cents: an admin (like SoWhy) who has handled thousands of speedies, one way or another, is to be lent credence (that's one cent), and Adam9007 has, in my opinion, turned down A7 nominations on spurious reasons (that's another). If I had to choose between the opinions of Adam and Exemplo, I'll stick with SoWhy. Drmies (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I notice that virtually all discussions on this subject, including here and in the archives, are talking about "professor" being a claim of significance. But the current language at SoWhy's essay refers to "teachers" at notable universities; that is language I have not seen anywhere else, and it can be interpreted to include every part-time lecturer and every graduate student with teaching responsibilities. I have proposed at the new draft that it be changed to "full-time professor or holder of a similar rank at a notable university". And Drmies makes a good point that "notable university" is not a valid distinguisher because all universities are considered notable; should we change it to "major university"? (P.S. Of course you are notable, Drmies!) --MelanieN (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Something useful for the future?

The above discussion imho shows that there is still some problems with what consensus exists to treat different subjects when it comes to A7. As I have hopefully demonstrated above, WT:CSD and other noticeboards are full of discussions that are helpful in determining consensus. Thus I have started

Yes, I think this is a good idea. I have a suggestion: relationships. For example, having a notable spouse. Although I'm not aware of any explicit consensus it is a CCS,

WP:INVALIDBIO both say that such an article can be merged if the subject is not notable. I know of a few editors who might be interested in this, shall I ping them? Adam9007 (talk

) 22:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

(

WP:INVALIDBIO, everyone else !votes delete, it gets deleted. As I said earlier, consensus and policy only works if everybody respects it. Can I get a second opinion on this - what's the point of declining stuff (I think a claim to be an early 20th century politician, with a possibly reliably source is absolutely not an A7) when another admin is going to delete it anyway? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)}

18:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Second opinion: that one may have run afoul of Melanie's Wikirule #5: "Check an article's history before deleting." (Sorry for cluttering up your talk page, SoWhy, I'll stop now.) --MelanieN (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I had just added some suggestions on this same subject at User talk:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes; I see that similar issues are being discussed here; and now I find you have created a draft, Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance‎, to work out some of these issues. That's very responsive of you; thank you. And thanks for informing me about it, User:Adam9007. I have commented on the talk page of that draft which I hope is the right place to discuss and refine the criteria. --MelanieN (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@

alternatives, and think deletion discussions can only have a "keep" or "delete" outcome. Annoying, but it's the truth. Adam9007 (talk

) 22:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Melanie's Wikirule #6: "Look for a plausible redirect in lieu of deletion." --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I agree. It's basically what I said in my essay. No point in repeating it all here :). Adam9007 (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

y-ep, that's right. Ygm. —

A clarification request in which you were involved has been archived at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 18:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Is there a way to find out what percentage of our CSDs are successful (beyond looking through our edit histories)? I founds some AfD info here, but my CSD noms don't seem to be logged. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@I enjoy sandwiches: The AfD Stats tool works because it can analyze publicly accessible pages and scan them for your !votes. Since successful speedy deletion requests are placed on the page that is deleted, a statistics tool would have to access deleted pages. As adminbot might be able to compile such statistics but honestly, I doubt it would be created or approved. But you can use tools to tag pages and those tools can keep logs. For example, Twinkle can create a log file of all your taggings and you can see from the red links which were deleted. Regards SoWhy 20:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I will go the Twinkle route then -- thanks. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 22:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I am curious to know your reasoning for not blocking User:Ohhfuckyeahahh who I reported at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention. User:Widr has subsequently blocked him. Whilst I realise that Wikipedia is not censored I have never known profanities being allowed in usernames like this as per Wikipedia:Username_policy#Disruptive_or_offensive_usernames Theroadislong (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:UAA is only "for usernames that are such blatant and serious problems that they need to be immediately blocked" (says so right at the top). Profanities can fall into that category but they don't have to. "Fuck yeah!" is, despite the word "fuck", usually a slang for a significant sudden good fortune and not meant to disparage others. Thus, the username itself does not present a problem that needs to be handled immediately. I do not know why Widr thought otherwise but I don't think their decision (to block and overruling my decision) was the right call. Judging from the edits this user was trying to improve the project and while possibly willing to change their username if asked first, might now not want to edit anymore. Since Widr is, like me, apparently not a native speaker, I'm AGF they just saw the "fuck" and issued the block for that without realizing the context. Regards SoWhy

19:11, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I saw the context; that's why it was a soft block only. I don't believe we should allow these types of usernames at all. If we allow "fuck" when they mean well and disallow it in other cases, it will only create unneeded ambiguity. Widr (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I see thanks, it's not an expression I've come across in the UK! I don't think profanities should be encouraged in user names either.Theroadislong (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@

admin-shop. Regards SoWhy

08:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that's accurate, since you didn't take any action in this case. It happens often that patrolling admins at UAA and AIV get their declines overturned (happens to me frequently too), because different admins have different standards and values. Whether to block or not is often a matter of admin's discretion, and I don't think a simple decline is an irreversible admin action. Widr (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully have to disagree. Even as a comparatively new admin you should know that declining to take action is an action itself (a view shared by ArbCom). When one admin exercises their discretion and declines to act - not only does not act - then you should respect this decision and not overturn it without consultation. We work together as a team here but teamwork does not work if we overturn each other's actions without discussion because it erodes trust and increases the aforementioned risk of admin-shopping. I myself have disagreed with many decisions other admins have made but I have - in almost nine years - never overturned any such action without discussion. Regards SoWhy 09:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, that would be ideal, but in reality consulting rarely seems to happen. Declines are overturned frequently, especially at AIV, and not solely by comparatively new admins. However, I'm going to unblock this particular user, because this issue isn't worth the fuss. Take care. Widr (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Please put this news on Main page, the Party of current Dutch PM won the elections. 217.76.1.22 (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you placed this here. If you wish to see news events on the main page,

WP:ITNC is the correct page to request this. Regards SoWhy

14:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. You indeffed the user for

 Done. Some people don't seem to want to learn... Regards SoWhy 13:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi there,

I hope this message finds you well! I am a musician starting to gain some traction online. I saw that you edited some information on the Amazons band Profile and wondered if I could get some advice from you?

A few of my fans have mentioned that they are going to set up a wiki page for me, this is great but obviously I don't know them personally. My only concern is keeping the content relevant and factually accurate. I of course have had various articles written about my music as I know back links are important to keeping the content relevant. Do you have any advice regarding this?

Would be great to hear back from you,

Many thanks, Oli --Forthsix123 (talk) 21:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@

notability criteria for musicians (most don't!), then you can use the articles for creation process to write a draft that will be reviewed by article creation specialists. Regards SoWhy

07:32, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, would you mind letting me know for future reference if

@Nicnote: (talk page stalker) Further investigation reveals it's a copy of UFC 210, and I think the YouTube video description was taken from that article. Adam9007 (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@Adam9007: Thanks! Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 21:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:CCSI#EVENTS). As for G11, it requires promotional language in the article to such a degree that there is no salvageable content. That the article creator has a COI is not relevant, since people with COI are allowed to edit, as long as they follow the rules and the speedy criteria - except G5 - are thus about content, not who created it. Regards SoWhy

06:43, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thanks, I appreciate the time to respond. The article had some links to watch the game on an external website, etc. which was my rationale for G11. Thanks again. Best, Nicnote • ask me a question • contributions 19:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but G11 says "exclusively". Always ask yourself this: If I remove such links and other spammy language per

WP:ATD, will a viable stub remain? If so, G11 cannot be applied. Regards SoWhy

19:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

TheDJ

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

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Thank you Sowhy for your help on building and fixing the Alan Abel (musician) page. I appreciate that so much, as this is the first page I have ever worked on. About the picture that I would like to put on the page, I already uploaded it. I just don't understand how to get it on the page. It is called Alan Abel of the Philadelphia Orchestra jpg. I own the photo and I give it free to all. If you can locate that photo and post it on the Alan Abel (musician) page I would be very grateful. Otherwise, if you will give me instructions, I will do it. Thank you again for your expertise! Brian Del Signore aka Ihavetantrums — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihavetantrums (talk • contribs) 16:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@

sign your posts on talk pages such as this one using ~~~~. It will automatically generate your name and a timestamp. Regards SoWhy

19:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: I cropped the image, you can find the edited version at File:Alan Abel of The Philadelphia Orchestra (cropped).jpg. Also, it would be great if you can find me some more sources for his birthdate. I just found two and they contradict each other. Regards SoWhy 19:50, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello SoWhy,

Thank you for adding the picture to the Alan Abel page. I hope people will come now and add information to the page. The answer to your question about his birth date is as follows: December 6, 1928 is the correct date. You have two references that verify that date. The one that said 1930, is in my opinion, a guess by the author of that book at that time. I made a phone call today and spoke to Alan Abel's wife, She verified his birthday as December 6, 1928. Thank you so very much for helping me get this page started in a proper way! 2602:306:3133:C420:0:0:0:40 (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2017 (UTC) Brian Del Signore aka Ihavetantrums

@

WP:DOB. If you have any more newspaper articles or book sources with information on Abel, feel free to share. PS: Remember to log into your account before editing, otherwise your IP address will be displayed for anyone to see. Also, if you sign using ~~~~, you don't have to manually add your name again. You can simply change the text displayed using Special:Preferences. Regards SoWhy

18:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work patrolling CSD candidates. You denied CSD on Adapti.me so I moved it over to an AfD in case you want to follow it: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adapti.me. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you want this guy to run RfA? He's had a previous one under his old account as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/APerson in September 2015 which ran the full 7 days, closing with straight fail of just under 65% support. Looking back, it does seem like a "not yet" rather than a "not ever" RfA, people suggested they'd be comfortable with a second one in due course. I'd have a read of Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/APerson#Discussion from question 7 and check with SilkTork and HJ Mitchell, who made good oppose votes last time, and see if they are comfortable first, to check there are no obvious unresolved problems. Then if all the standard AfD / CSD / civility / content checks work out, I don't see why we can't make a go of RfA #2. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I was just joking because he made an admin tool without being an admin. But seriously: I did see him around at times and I'd be willing to check his record if he is interested and if he can alleviate the concerns raised at the last RfA. The gist of RfA#1 seemed to have been "not yet", so possibly now is the time. Regards SoWhy 10:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello SoWhy, recently you made a decision on something I did. I just wanted to give you a friendly notice that I had a question on my talk page for you. Thank you. DeVonne (talk) 13:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, this is to let you know that your latest message on GR'"s crat chat is truncated. Given that you have edited elsewhere since then, I'm not sure you noticed. Ideally the unsigned template I put in would ping you, but I'm not sure it does, since I'm not signing, so there... — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 19:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. For some weird reason the last part was removed; I think because of another window that popped up on my PC and stole focus long enough. Can't remember how I wanted that thought to end, so I truncated it. Again, thanks Regards SoWhy 19:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Why was my page deleted and what do i need to do to get it back up

--Jonny Vegas Namer (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2017 (UTC)Jonny Vegas Namer 4/9/2017

Hi

not a place for you to promote yourself and see the message 331dot left on your talk page with more explanatory links. If you believe you can create a neutral, well-sourced article about yourself (you would probably be the first person to do so), I suggest using the article wizard to create a draft version for others to review first. Regards SoWhy

20:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Gee, really? It's only been seven years since I last tried; don't you think people will think too little time has passed? Joking aside, you know me: I'm happy to serve the community in any way I can and if you are willing to risk your good name nominating me, I'm willing to offer my services. Regards SoWhy 13:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd nominate you. If we're going to do this, it'll need to start in about a fortnight, as I won't be about much and think it's unfair to nominate and then bog off, leaving the nominee on their own, no matter how competent they are. I think your comments at BN just now were interesting timing - I'll go disagree with you there. --

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I have no plans of being away in the near future, so whenever you feel the time is right, I'll be there. No pressure at all. Regards SoWhy 14:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you should go for it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy. In a recent RfA someone linked to an essay that you wrote about why accuracy in CSD noms is important. Reading that changed my opinion on the importance of CSD noms when evaluating an admin candidate, so thanks for that. But, since I can't find it again, could you point me to it? Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 16:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

@RegentsPark:. I'm unsure which essay you mean, but probably it's User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes which is commonly cited. All my essays are linked to from User:SoWhy/Essays though, so have a look there if it isn't. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Those are good. But the one I'm looking for has a quote from Balloonman in it.--regentspark (comment) 20:12, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Then you are probably looking for his essay

User:I'm Spartacus!/Why I hate Speedy Deleters. Regards SoWhy

20:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

That's the one. Thanks! --regentspark (comment) 20:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing

Hey SoWhy, I'm considering running for adminship sometime soon, but I'd love to know your opinion on whether or not I should because you're obviously versed in these matters, and are very thorough in your analysis. If you've got any spare time, would you be able to take a look at my suitability? Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 00:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Anarchyte. I noticed your OCRP request and I wanted to comment on it anyway but haven't found the time yet to review your contributions in any meaningful way yet. I'll come back to it but it might take a few days. Regards SoWhy 06:31, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Alright, cheers. Anarchyte (work | talk) 13:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: Okay, I had some time to review your contributions and I have some questions I like you to answer:

• As you probably have gathered, I'm a stickler for correct speedy deletion taggings, especially when it comes to A7. As such, I noticed some of your taggings and I'd like for you to explain them to me. Would you make those taggings again and if so, why or if not, why not?
  • [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]. Also, You may kiss the bride and Wiki-Link-Validator which you tagged A7 but was declined and later deleted at AfD.

Wow, some of these were very poorly tagged (most were over a year ago, though). Here's what I would've done today:

1. Redirected to Return Fire 2 as that's what's listed as being their most famous game, and even today there are no sources on the article and a lack of available ones online, from what I can see.
2. Waterparks aren't corporations, so I wouldn't tag it with that, or anything CSD-related really. It indicates significance through the sentence "It is one of the biggest themed water parks in Europe and it has more than 25 rides and attractions." I tagged that one in May 2016, so I've learned from my mistakes.
3. Redirected to SoftRAM (which is what the admin did anyway)
4. This one was my mistake, as I explained at the ORCP.
5. I think this one is fine, I gave them a fair amount of time, and when I tagged it it fell under what I tagged it with as it only included categories.
6. I'd leave this one alone today. It's fine as it was, it had sources and it showed significance. That was tagged in March 2016, so I've learned from my mistakes since then.
7. This one was pretty early on in my CSD tagging "career," and it was obviously incorrect. There are many claims of significance throughout the article, and if it were today I wouldn't have marked it as patrolled and just added the refimprove tag so that someone else who can speak Chinese could find some sources.
8. Well, this one sure doesn't fall under db-web. Incorrect tag on my behalf.
9. Copyvio claim is incorrect as it's just finding the list of books elsewhere. The A7 tag could be disputed because of his works. If it were today I'd probably just leave that one alone and wait for someone who can speak Japanese to take a look and possibly find more sources.
10. Redirection over deletion, so redirecting would've been better instead of tagging.
11. Video games don't fall under A7, incorrect tag on my behalf. If it were today I would've searched for stuff myself and added the sources myself.
12. Same issue as 11, except I can't find any available sources (today) so redirecting would probably be the best option.
13. You may kiss the bridge: I've discussed this one with Ritchie333 about it on the ORCP page.
14. Wiki-Link-Validator: I can't remember that article all that well, so I can't answer this one, sorry.

I also noticed you are very quick to tag new articles, which might have stopped users from adding the required claims of significance/importance to an article they were still working on. I suggest to wait for a few minutes before tagging (just like with A1 or A3).

Yeah, I was told about this at my last RfA so I tried to slow down my tagging by waiting at least 5-10 mins.

• AfDs:
  • Can you explain why you didn't consider
    WP:ATD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Action Man: Operation Extreme
    ?

    For the first two of these I did

    WP:ATD prior to nominating, but for the first one, the only reliable reference I found was [14]. Looking back, redirection would have been better. This is one of the few recent true muck ups as far as I can remember. For this one I was unable to find much before nomination due to its age (which was an issue), and this one

    was withdrawn by me after it was quite nicely cleaned up; I was unable to find sources for that before nominating, I guess I didn't broaden my searches enough.

  • Did you do
    WP:BEFORE here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vampire video games
    ?

    I did do before for the second one, and I found the following three sites (IIRC): [15] [16] [17]. The first two mention "vampire video games" and because I could only find two sources that mention this genre, I nominated it. The final one and most other sites I found just then by searching say "vampires in video games," which isn't what the article is about (so they're close to useless).

  • What was the policy-based rationale for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Xiaomi?

    This one was completely my bad, it wasn't policy based at all and I've got no excuse for it. Having a look at the nomination now it seems that I based it off a different nomination, which was the wrong thing to do.

• How come you only use edit summaries 89% of the time with minor edits? [18]

  That's from when I was newer to the site. The "last 150" ones have been at 100% for a while now.

That's all for now but I will have a look at your other contributions later. Regards SoWhy 18:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Cheers for looking deeply into my history, I'll try to explain what I did to the best of my ability here. Almost all of the CSD tags were from a while a while ago, and even my most recent screw-up listed there is almost 6 months old. The AfDs you listed, except the first one, were also pretty old (at least 6 months), but for the first one I've tried to explain where I went wrong, and I've accepted the fact that redirection would've been a better idea straight off the bat. Having seen these mistakes and my responses, what do you think my chances of passing would be? Would waiting a bit to make sure some of the most recent ones are older be necessary? Anarchyte (work | talk) 03:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. I am happy to see that you have understood where you went wrong which is a step in the right direction. Except 1 or 2 debatable taggings, your deleted contributions from the last six months show no real errors in judgment, so that's good as well. As for how long you should wait, well, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dane recently took a turn when I mentioned similar mistakes that candidate made (with the last one having been in December 2016). Unlike Dane though, you have not almost stopped tagging for A7, giving !voters a larger range of taggings to review and thus decreasing the error percentage. That and your willingness to admit your mistakes rather than defend them means you will probably pass at this point of time. That said, I'd wait another 2-3 months before running again, since the last RfA was in June 2016 and it makes sense to allow more time to pass between RfAs. Waiting a year usually alleviates fears that the candidate is "desperate for power". Regards SoWhy 09:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thanks for the great points. I didn't have any plans to run this month because I'd like to get opinions from as many editors as possible, just to make sure that I would be ready for what would come. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 15:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on Z1 Radio? I came across it doing the 'patrolling' I mentioned/described on my talk page in (part of the) response to your message and was wondering if it should be nominated for CSD or not based on how it has links within the article (which itself is 4 sentences) with the only reference being the radio station's website and it is in the main namespace. Just thought I would ask before nominating and get your opinion on it. Thanks for your time! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@

WP:ATD is a policy that applies to all deletion processes and as such one should check whether the content can be merged or the page redirected before tagging for deletion. Regards SoWhy

20:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

How can I delete my account? Albert raxx paco (talk) 10:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Albert raxx paco: Unfortunately, you can't. Accounts are required to persists to maintain attribution of your edits (see Wikipedia:Username policy#Deleting and merging accounts). If you no longer wish to edit using this account, just stop using it. Regards SoWhy 10:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Earlier today I restored an author-removed A7 on ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE which you then declined. It's since been deleted G5 but the question of whether a crammer should get the protection from A7 given to schools still bugs me. I've raised the question at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#A7 - Are crammers protected? & I'd appreciate your views. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I had to decline your Prod on On Wah Chang due to an objection on the talk page. But this looks like a solid candidate for AfD if you want to send it along. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I don't think the objection against the speedy tag can also be interpreted as an objection against the PROD tagging but better safe than sorry. Regards SoWhy 08:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

On 22 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alan Abel (musician), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Alan Abel served as a percussionist for the Philadelphia Orchestra for 38 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alan Abel (musician). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alan Abel (musician)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you should consider your decision here:

• (cur | prev) 20:11, 20 April 2017‎ Lordtobi (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (274 bytes) (+236)‎ . . (Requesting speedy deletion with rationale "Article was deleted because the regarding company does not exist, the content, however, was meant for a different company and was restored and moved. This page is a left-over of that move and should...) (undo | thank)
• (cur | prev) 20:15, 20 April 2017‎ SoWhy (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (38 bytes) (-236)‎ . . (Decline speedy - title of the page for years, possible search and link target.Also, redirects are cheap (CSDH)) (rollback: 1 edit | undo | thank)

The company called

There are no links in article space to

@

WP:RFD but since there is no policy-based reason to speedy delete this redirect, I won't delete it and I think you should not either. Regards SoWhy

20:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Good morning from Calabria, I'm writing to say hello to you and know how you are, I'm fine for now, working between fields and on Wikipedia. I am writing to ask you a courtesy, always if you go, and always and in any case returning your courtesy. Please could you give a small translation help regarding these biographies? Right and no more than 5 to 15 minutes of your precious time, maybe I'm asking too much, but I hope you can do something for me. I will be available to you within my limits, for the rest I thank you in advance for what you will do for me. A greeting from Calabria--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino: Salve, Luigi. Sure, I will take a look tomorrow. Do you want these as drafts in your userspace or should I place them in Draft: space for you to work on after translation? Regards Alessandro a.k.a SoWhy 20:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@

verify the information before you can move those pages to the main space. Also, when you move them, make sure to retain the talk pages where I have put attribution templates. Regards SoWhy

09:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Good morning from Calabria, dear Alessandro. I am writing to thank you very much for what you did for me, I hope all right there for you. I'm pretty good, I apologize if I did not answer you right away, but I often have to do with my father who is sick for a month because he fell and hurt two ribs and two vertebrae, being a single male child and Home, they touch me some tasks. I would like to return courtesy, if you are interested in an article you would like to see translated into Italian and its dialect variants, I am at your complete disposal. A fraternal greeting from Coreca, soon!--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

... by your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Oppose (Modify); you say that you strongly disagree with me but then seem (to me at least) to make the exact same argument as me. I'm guessing that I haven't expressed myself very well there, so in the interests of improving my communication skills, can I just check what you think I was saying? I don't think I contradicted the lines of policy you quoted (or at any rate, I certainly didn't intend to), but if you believe I did, I've obviously failed to make myself clear! Thanks in advance, Yunshui ^雲_水 10:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yunshui: Hi there. You wrote that "[i]t is fundamentally not a difficult exercise to create a basic stub article that establishes (or at least claims) notability". That's not only problematic considering that notability is not required by A7/A9, it's also written from the perspective of an experienced user who - in your case - had eight years to learn how to create articles right. Most new users don't and the editing policy clearly says, as I quoted, that a failure to include such claims is not sufficient reason for removal if improvement is possible. If you actually meant the same as me, I'm sorry for the comment but it sounded to me (also with the use of the word "rubbish") that you favor deletion of any sub-par articles, not only those that cannot be fixed. Regards SoWhy 11:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. What I meant by that statement was that creating an article that isn't eligible for A7/A9 is actually an easy thing to do (even for new users, as long as they spend a couple of minutes reading YFA - it certainly didn't take me eight years to figure that out!). I think where we agree - and what I failed to emphasise - is that if a new article is eligible for A7/A9 then it will continue to be eligible, and so keeping it around isn't going to magically make it notable (as you put it Even a week won't be long enough to add any claims of significance or importance to many A7 candidates simply because it's clear from the start that such claims don't exist, which was the point I was trying to make). I can see, reading it back, that my comment could have been construed as "we should get rid of any articles that don't immediately meet the C-class criteria from their first iteration", so it could have been phrased better - that first sentence ought not to have had parentheses around " or at least claims", for example.

Type in haste, repent at leisure... Thanks for taking the time to explain, it's appreciated. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Ouch and thanks in equal measure. I could argue the point over some of the CSDs but an RfA isn't the place where they can successfully be argued.

The large figures for the use of AWB mostly date back to work on

Your point about promotional intent vs promotional words did ring true. I don't think I'll ever get over that hurdle - I've commented to several spammers that I, along with the other volunteers, am here to contribute to an encyclopedia, not to act as an unpaid copywriter for their company's advertising. I don't see my view on that changing.

Anyhow, as much as it hurts, thanks for the honesty. Cabayi (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I doubt one can argue much, seeing as the whole point of CSD is only to apply to cases where one would not argue about deletion.

My point is this: If a "spammer" creates an article about a inclusion-worthy subject for advertising purposes but without advertising language, why delete it? In fact, keeping those articles while deleting those with promotional language will - in time - educate such paid contributors on how to write to avoid deletion, which is in the project's best interest, isn't it? Furthermore, as I pointed out, you are welcome to have such opinions. But as long as G11 does not say "any article created with the intent to promote a subject", you and I and all other users should follow the policy and tag/delete pages only that meet the wording. If you are unwilling to accept that, I see no way you can ever pass RfA; admins who apply their own interpretation of what policy should be are a major problem and I don't see willingness to add more such admins.

Which is unfortunate though because I would probably support you otherwise. Maybe you can re-consider that - just like in real life - having a certain point of view and following a policy you disagree with are not mutually exclusive. Heck, I disagree with a number of rules we have (and a number of laws in my country) but that does not mean I ignore them.

As for the automated edits, you just used AWB to mass-replace categories for British MPs within the last days. I'm not saying change your past edits, I'm saying from now on, consider making them from another account to avoid such clutter in your contributions. Regards SoWhy 14:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)