This is an archive of past discussions with User:SoWhy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi. I'm curious what assertion in this article you considered a claim of significance. All I can tell from it is that a band created the group, that band is its ONLY client, it has a partner label, there's a reason it was created, and there's a reason for its name. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
If something is created by a notable entity, the assumption is that said creation is potentially important or significant as well, at least enough to fail A7. And even if were to meet A7, which it doesn't, the deletion policy clearly states that it should be merged to the main article, not deleted. So even if you're assessment about its lack of importance/significance had been correct, tagging it for speedy deletion would still have been a mistake. Regards SoWhy14:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess I get the rationale. Is a consensus on that recorded somewhere? Either way, I agree in retrospect, redirecting would have been the right course. Thanks. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Not as such. I collected a number of reasons I have seen other admins use and have used myself at WP:A7M though. Since A7 is intended for clear-cut cases, I think the basic formula is: If there is any reason at all to assume that the subject might be important or significant, then it's not up to a single admin to decide. A7 was created to weed out personal entries by high school kids, garage bands or your favorite hot dog stand - but not anything else. Regards SoWhy17:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Request for nomination as an admin
You mentioned that you're the type of person who would be willing to sponsor someone as an administrator on Wikipedia. I tried nominating myself back in 2005 after I'd only been here a couple of years and that was shot down, mainly because I guess it was felt I hadn't taken it all that seriously.
Now, nine years later I think I've gone as far as I can as a regular editor and I think my behavior and the quality of my many thousands of edits and talents indicate I qualify to become an admin. I'll give you some examples.
Check almost any page on area codes for the United States, like List of California area codes or Area code 202 and you'll find the map I did for them, which is now using SVG instead of PNG so the map resizes automatically and without blur.
Every area code page for North America has a box in it indicating the area codes near to it or in the same state, so someone can navigate to nearby area codes.
Some of the area codes Area Code 602, have maps that are marked with a clickmap so you can click on the page representing a nearby area code and move to it.
Check out 2013, 2014 and 2015, the first one's first paragraph says "2013 was a" the second says "2014 is the current year, and is a" and 2015 says "2015 will be a". Guess what happens on January 1? Just what it did before when we changed years to 2014. 2014 will say "2014 was a," 2015 will say "2015 is the current year, and is a" and 2016 will still say "2016 will be a," and this all happened automatically through template syntax, it eliminates temporal editing, the page is automatically accurate without manual intervention.
Look at the main page for Wiktionary. Do you know why it has an alphabetical index on it? Because I thought of it first, and put it on there (this was back in the days when anyone could edit the main page.) It's become one of the important features.
Look at my own user page, notice I have implemented "tabbed wikipedia" where my page points to all of the years I was here and individual years can be navigated to. I documented and streamlined this feature so it was easy for anyone to use on their pages.
This is just some of the things I have done to make Wikipedia a better place, and I think with Administrator privileges I can do more things to make things better. Like, say I have an idea for a really good improvement to the main page, I can discuss that - that is a big change that I wouldn't do without getting a consensus - and if there's no objection then I can implement it without having to beg someone to do it for me. For less important but otherwise protected pages where I can see there is room for a really good improvement, I can just offer it.
But I do think I would qualify and I'd like your input and whether you think I would be worth sponsoring as an administrator. I've asked a couple other people, not to try to play one off against the other, but so that if I'm not up to snuff you or they can give me some input into where I'm deficient. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
I think Casliber (talk·contribs) mentioned a couple of good points, so I won't repeat them. Like him, I also don't think you have a chance at this time with your low edit count. Also, remember to use edit summaries, I personally don't support anyone not using them >99% of the time. Regards SoWhy16:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Explanation?
Can you please explain why you deleted User:Olliemilne with no reason, no vandalism, and just basically no good intention whatsoever? Surely you, as an admin, should not be carrying out hasty user page deletes with no real evidence of vandalism? -- bydand•talk09:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
It was five years ago, so I'm afraid I cannot remember. Seeing as it was at the beginning of my tenure as an admin, I won't rule out that I made a mistake. May I ask why you are interested in the user page of someone who hasn't edited for 5+ years? Regards SoWhy11:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I did delete it because consensus at that time was that such templates shouldn't be used. Nyttend (talk·contribs) restored it in 2013 with the reasoning "Nowhere near the same as what was deleted before", so you should take it up with them. Since consensus might have changed on this issue in the past six years, I wouldn't delete it based on the 2008 TFD anyway. Regards SoWhy15:22, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Aspects, G4 is for reposts of deleted content, so anything that's been extensively modified doesn't qualify: anything with fourteen separate substantial revisions clearly isn't a repost. If you would check the deleted content (of course I'm not complaining that you didn't), you would see that the current template is substantially larger and laid out completely differently. We have a speedy criterion for reposts in order to get rid of stuff that already got deleted, not to stifle the creation of different content with the same name and/or subject; if G4 were meant to prevent the latter, we'd salt deleted titles. Nyttend (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Since I am not a sysop, I cannot see what the previous template looked like, so I have no way of comparing the templates. As to the history it makes it look like the template was never deleted back in 2009 and that the next edit was then made by Nyttend in 2013. As for the 14 significant edits, those changes in the release history show adding nowrap templates and fixed links away from disambiguation articles, which I would hardly call significant or having a different layout does not make the template suddenly not have the issues that it had before at TfD. Consensus has not changed since 2009 in that WP:MOSFILM still states that actor navigational templates should be deleted, but I guess I will have to take this to TfD. Aspects (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
@Nyttend: Actually, I deleted it in 2009 because while the content might have changed, the consensus of the TFD still was against having a template like this at all, no matter what it looked like. Even as someone who is really strict when it comes to deletions I'm aware that it would be against the spirit of G4 to allow pages to be recreate when it's clear that consensus is against having a page like this at all - not just a page like this with certain content. But as I said above, consensus can change and I don't think a 2008 TFD is enough to delete a page in 2014. Regards SoWhy16:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
questions and help
Thank you for your helpful gnomish presence and thoughtful questions in general, particularly supporting 28bytes! I am not the first one to notice: you are an awesome Wikipedian (8 February and 16 April 2009)!
You wrote: "Undid revision 621527776 by DreamGuy (talk) not every entry in the section might be notable but deleting the whole section isn't the solution. For example, the use in the Bartle Test is notable"
I wrote: "Undid revision 621539956 by SoWhy (talk) if you believe some are notable, why don't you restore only the ones you think are notable instead of blind reverting? I think none are notable"
You wrote: "Undid revision 623247950 by DreamGuy (talk) per WP:PRESERVE that would have been your job, not mine, but in the spirit of avoiding further revert-warring, I did it for you. Also added a source"
I think you are reading the section you linked to wrong. It says to preserve things that are appropriate. You are the one who thinks they are appropriate, not me, so you need to do the preserving. How am I supposed to know to preserve something you think you want?
To the contrary, if you revert an edit when you are only opposed to a small part of it, it is up to you to make an edit that actually supports what you say you think should be done instead of just everything someone else did. You say above you only did so to avoid an edit war, but you should always do it, just as a matter of good faith editing. Blind reverting is counterproductive and needlessly confrontational. DreamGuy (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. WP:PRESERVE says you shouldn't just delete everything because some of it might not be worth preserving but instead only remove those parts that clearly have to be removed because they can't be salvaged. If there is a need to revise some parts, tagging the problem is better than removing the potentially useful information. An edit summary like "majority of section nothing but nonnotable trivia" demonstrates imho that a) you understood that some information was indeed notable (hence the "majority") but removed it regardless and b) thought "nonnotable trivia" is actually a justification to delete information that might be "trivia" in your eyes but where you have not checked the notability. For example, the use of playing card symbols for military units is a well documented and sourced aspect of those units' histories and thus clearly notable.
As for the subject at hand, I think noting notable examples of how a subject has been used in other contexts is appropriate and quite a number of articles that are considered well-written include such sections (e g. from the recent TFAs list: Aston Villa F.C.#In popular culture, Willie wagtail#Cultural depictions, American white ibis#In culture). So I think it's clear consensus that such examples are actually appropriate.
Last but not least: As for avoiding an edit war, you were the one who broke the WP:BRD-cycle by reverting my revert instead of discussing, so I think your point about WP:AGF and how "Blind reverting is counterproductive and needlessly confrontational" cuts both ways.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
My page content meet all wikipedia policies and its not like advertisement then why my page wass deleted? Can you please tel me the reasons — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.18.177.46 (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Since you did not sign in and did not mention which article you are talking about, I cannot answer your question. You might want to read User:SoWhy/CSD for some general reasons. Regards SoWhy18:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like you already spent quite a bit of time on the Yelp page to get abreast of the discussion, so I feel a bit guilty asking for something else. But here a GA reviewer has been waiting for a second opinion. Specifically, he says he feels the article may be promotional, but he's not sure if my COI disclosure is simply creating a bias in his review. I almost always take articles where I have a COI the GA route (Yelp is also GA).
If you just don't want to, or don't have time or whatever, it's not a problem. But if you're interested, a quick second look would be very useful. CorporateM (Talk) 21:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi there. I think I created the user page in 2010 because I heard his name in the media in connection with the Jörg Kachelmann trial but then didn't seem to find any time to work on it until the AFC creator left me a note in 2013 and I decided to salvage the AFC draft instead (see User talk:SoWhy/Archive 23#Bernd Brinkmann article). I don't think there is any reason to merge histories since they were all basically tries to port de:Bernd Brinkmann to enwiki. Regards SoWhy20:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jörg Kachelmann, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tabloid. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Orphaned non-free image File:Sam & Max - What's New, Beelzebub.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Sam & Max - What's New, Beelzebub.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Sam & Max - Ice Station Santa.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Sam & Max - Ice Station Santa.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Sam & Max - Night of the Raving Dead.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Sam & Max - Night of the Raving Dead.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Orphaned non-free image File:Sam & Max - Chariots of the Dogs.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Sam & Max - Chariots of the Dogs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
In case you weren't aware, a lot of people are citing WP:NOTINHERITED as the reason why, well, none of the claims you give at that essay are credible claims of significance. I strongly disagree, and also believe anyone who says that doesn't understand what a credible claim of significance is. A few others, such as Appable: also agree with the essay, but are being faced with overwhelming opposition at every turn. I've been asked whether I ought to launch an RfC to promote that essay into a guideline. What are your thoughts? I don't think it's likely given the opposition I'm receiving. Adam9007 (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Anyone who cites WP:NOTINHERITED when discussing an A7 speedy request has clearly failed to understand what this criterion is for. There is a reason why the standard is "credible claim of significance or importance" and the policy clearly states that this "is a lower standard than notability" whilst WP:NOTINHERITED talks about notability. I support the idea behind WP:NOTINHERITED - it just doesn't apply to A7 decisions because notability is not relevant. If you feel the need to decide an A7 speedy request based on 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 SoWhy19:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@SoWhy: I agree with you entirely. A lot of people confuse significance with notability, or think that just because notability isn't inherited, significance isn't either. They clearly don't understand significance properly, or think that just because notability must be in the subject's own right, significance must be also (that is, the subject must have actually done something that might achieve notability. In other words, it makes no difference who a company was founded by or anything like that.). There's an RfC about that here. I have had many such discussions about A7 and WP:NOTINHERITED, but the most recent one is here. The article I'm talking about was about a company which had a notable footballer for a co-founder. They're insisting that is not a credible claim of significance per 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!
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.
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 SoWhy11:17, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
RFA nomination
Hello SoWhy, I hope you are doing well. I saw your nominations and would like to ask you to review my edits to check if I'm ready for adminship and then will you be able to nominate me. Thank you – GSS (talk) 10:23, 8 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 SoWhy19:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Perfect not an issue and sorry got late to reply actually I was also too busy in real life. Cheers – GSS (talk) 15:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Extended confirmed protection
Hello, SoWhy. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.
Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "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.
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)
Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,
Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi SoWhy.
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 here but very often a friendly custom message works best.
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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
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 SoWhy08:39, 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 WP:NOTINHERITED and/or the notability guidelines (*sighs* I know...) WP:INHERITORG and Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#No_inherited_notability apply to significance and A7. For example, not that long ago, I removed an A7 tag from an article about a website created by a notable person. The tagger raised holy hell about it on my talk page (citing Wikipedia:Notability_(web)#No_inherited_notability), and the ensuring AfD (which ironically resulted in keep). Three editors said there was no claim of significance and therefore a valid A7. If this (which occurred after a similar A7 tag removal) is to be believed, the meaning of NOTINHERITED is that such claims (which would include most claims listed at the "Common indications of importance or significance" as they rely on some sort of connexion with someone of something notable) mean nothing. I even wrote an essay of my own focusing primarily on the (non-existent) connexion between A7 and NOTINHERITED, and it earned me a barnstar (yipee!), but it has also been used against me. More recently, User:Toddst1 (pinging him for comment) described my application of A7 (based largely on your essay) as "BS" and "outside the general consensus", based on numerous discussions (many of which involve an A7 decline based on a claim listed in your essay), including an ANI thread. I may have made some questionable tag removals here and there, but I'm convinced it's ultimately following the advice of this essay that has lead to most of my trouble with the community. I'm also convinced I'll end up at ANI again (which will almost certainly lead to a topic ban, as suggested) if I continue to follow your essay. What I've said here barely scratches the surface: I have also been criticised for declining A7s with no sources, the idea being that without them, the claim is not credible. But in my experience, this essay is way outside "established consensus" (if you can call it that), and I suspect that the reason I've been landed in trouble and not others is because I'm much more active in A7 reviewing. There is a discussion that address the NOTINHERITED issue, but it has been declared invalid because it was not representative of the community. I've had a lot of feedback on my A7 application, and recent discussions suggest I cannot follow both it and this essay, as they contradict each other. So who am I to believe? If I follow this essay, I will be labelled disruptive for not accepting community feedback, which defeats the whole purpose of advice given in essays being optional: in this case it's more along the lines of "forbidden". I do not want to nominate, but I just can't see what else to do or how else to settle this confusion, because, let's face it: the community are not going to follow your essay because they do not agree with it. That's rather worrying for a page (even a user essay) offering guidance in the manner yours does. I'll provide more links if need be. Regards. Adam9007 (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
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. Gronstedt Group for example is a perfect example of WP:ATD-M. Instead of tagging it as A7, Reddogsix could just as easily - and within our deletion policy - have merged the content to the founder's article. That an unfortunate amount of users still thinks A7 is about notability might explain why they are trying to apply notability guidelines to A7 when tagging for speedy deletion. But the wording of the policy has been different for years now, so their mistakes are just that: mistakes. Same goes for users reverting your removal of a speedy tag since 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 SoWhy11:30, 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 the list I keep, there were quite many right calls, such as Oliver Webb or Whipple Van Buren Phillips). Since all those claims listed can reasonably lead to the subject itself being notable or at least the article name can serve for someone to find more about the subject they are associated with, the list serves it's narrow purpose of cataloging reasons why not to use A7. A drummer in a notable band for example might oftentimes have coverage about themselves as well. If they don't, users might search for his band, so it's good to redirect them there. The point of my essay thus is not to say that notability is likely if one of those indicators are met; just that straightforward deletion is not the right way (in most cases, remember 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 {{BLP-PROD}} if articles about real people are unsourced but don't meet A7 and can't be rescued/merged/redirected. IMHO, a more clueful use of WP:ATD could save us many an AfD. Regards SoWhy18:16, 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:NPP (I also think (correct me if I'm wrong) your essay reads more like a Wikipedia essay or Information page. You might want to compare it with my essay to see what I mean). Anyway, I don't think there's a need for anything like that now (Thank God; I would have hated to have to do something like that, and not just because I'd have had to do something similar to my essay too), because, as I'm sure you're aware, the stuff you added is directly supported by WP:FAILN. Regards. Adam9007 (talk) 03:49, 12 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 Johanna Larsson and find the tennis player's article with a hatnote directing them to the other one. A disambig page makes sense when there is a primary topic and multiple secondary topics to choose from that would not fit into a single hatnote. See WP:TWODABS for a more detailed explanation. Regards SoWhy07:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
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. WikiDan61ChatMe!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 SoWhy21:22, 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 SoWhy21:28, 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 SoWhy12:43, 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 Zerotalk12:44, 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)
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 מישהוOd Mishehu12:49, 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 SoWhy12:57, 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 WP:2FA, forcing me to use my alternative account! — An optimist on the run! (logged on as Pek the Penguin) 15:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Even if you have prbolems assuming good faith here, I see 3 theoretical possibilities:
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.
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.
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? WLinsmayer (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
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 userfy the article and have thus restored it to your userspace at 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 SoWhy20:09, 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)
@Nerd1a4i: I do not want to sound like a lecturer but I've been doing speedy deletion work for almost ten years now, so I think I know one or two things about it. Which is why your approach is incorrect, I'm afraid. If you review WP:CSD#A7, you will notice that it explicitly states that A7 uses a "lower standard than notability". Since notability exists if a subject is covered in multiple reliable sources (cf. 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 a handy essay on when not to apply A7 which includes common reasons admins usually decline such requests. There is also 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 SoWhy21:19, 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)
(talk page stalker)@Nerd1a4i: Well, both essays are listed under "Essential further reading" in WP:NPP :). However, not to have a dig at SoWhy, but following WP:A7M has caused me problems. I think it is spot on, and it is one of my favourite essays, but following it has brought me into conflict with the community. As you say, there is a lot of confusion about A7, and yes, that essay does address the most important ones. However, it is an essay, and users have used that as an excuse to ignore it (they're under no obligation to follow it after all). I won't bore you with the details of the stress I've had over it, but it I grew weary of explaining the same stuff over and over again, and it occurred to me that I could write my own essay. So I did. At the time, SoWhy's essay did not address the 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)
@Nerd1a4i: Adam is correct of course that my essays, while often cited, are not official policy. But the main point is this: Wikipedia is run by consensus, not a caste of admins deciding. This means, admins can and should only make decisions that effectively supplant consensus if the community has explicitly empowered them to do so and, especially in speedy deletion cases, there is no reason whatsoever that to think that discussing the article's fatemight result in any other result than delete. After all, admins are not judges, we are janitors (hence the mop-symbol). Btw, Adam means well but I fear his explanation is a little off-topic in this case. PS: If you want to ping me, use {{ping|SoWhy}} and not copy 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 SoWhy08:51, 29 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 SoWhy17:54, 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 SoWhy21:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Your answer to my Kelsey Grammer question today
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
@Lovecats1000: That's the intended behavior. The internal link (blue without the symbol) should go to the article about the person you mention. What I changed is what happens when you click the small [643] (at this time) next to the name, which is the footnote citing the reliable source for this information. Btw, you don't need to repeat your name manually when adding a comment on a talk page, just sign using ~~~~ and it will automatically convert to your name and the current time. Regards SoWhy21:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
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.
JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
If it's sock puppetry, WP:SPI is the correct venue. The one edit by this IP was not vandalism. As 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 SoWhy15:11, 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 SoWhy20:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
IRC "block evasion"
I saw that at User talk:Mbcopeland you said that using IRC would be considered block evasion. Is that supported by any guideline, policy or precendent? To the best of my knowledge blocked editors are no more restricted from chatting in Wikipedia-related IRC channels (which are not run by the WMF) than from talking to their friends who also might be Wikipedians. There's even the #wikipedia-en-unblock channel which addresses unblock requests; I don't think ending up in the wrong channel (and others are far easier to find than -unblock) should be considered an aggravating circumstance. I also think there are plenty of reasons not to unblock Mbcopeland, but I'm not sure this is one of them. Huon (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
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 SoWhy11:43, 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 SoWhy07:32, 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 SoWhy20:32, 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)
Churches
Hi,
I see you declined A7 on St. Paul's Lutheran Church (Ashland, KY) because "buildings are not eligible under A7" (which is correct), but are you saying that all churches are buildings, or just that article? I was once heavily criticised for "wasting time" for declining an A7 on an article about a church because "churches are organisations" (unfortunately, I can't remember which article it was, but I'm very sure what was what was said. I had declined for the same reason you declined this one.). There was a discussion about it a while ago, but there wasn't really a straight answer, just the usual "it depends". But most people I've come across consider churches to be organisations and thus are A7-eligible. I can certainly see how some might consider it an organisation (for example, how can a building be affiliated with anything?) I'd say the article is more about the building, but the issue remains as to which category churches (as a subject) fall under. I'd imagine most would say organisation, which would probably be taken to mean all articles about a church are A7-eligible. Given that, how is it possible to justify saying a church is a building? I'd imagine it's very difficult to talk about one without mentioning some sort of business. I actually can't help but wonder what would have happened had I declined that A7 (you'd probably remember the recent hoo-ha about tourist attractions, most of which are considered organisations rather than places, even if it's just because visitors have to pay for entry). Regards. Adam9007 (talk) 21:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
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 homonym "church" since it can refer to both. In this case the article was clearly about the building itself and not about the organization that runs it (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 SoWhy08:29, 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)
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 SoWhy14:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello, thank you for your continued help with this. I had copied (I won't do that again!) the CriticalBlue page to my sandbox so that I could then make some proposed updates, I then put an edit request (due to COI) in the CriticalBlue talk page. I realise I have made a couple of mistakes along the way and now have warnings on my userspace - is this likely to impact my request for the update to be considered? I have tried to provide neutral references and the changes I have requested are to give a more accurate picture of the work the company does. Thanks.
Note that this is for clarification, not any allegation of wrongdoing. Still, it involves your action, so you've been noted as a party. ~ Rob13Talk17:00, 10 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 SoWhy14:53, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Hey SoWhy
I am a different person editor Jerrymistake. I am not same as person as Gracewan 2016 and Bradlay2016. Bradlay2016 is creating different Grace Wan. I am creaing Grace Yu Ye Wan. Grace Wan and Grace Yu Ye Wan both have same names, but its different person. In the world there were thousands of same name person can call "Grace" and lots of people can have first and last name is "Grace Wan." For example I heard lots of same common names is "Chris", "John", etc. but is different person. I am creating with articles and this articles talks about a real living person
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 SoWhy21:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Requested moves
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". G6 is solely for maintenance and should stay that way. If there is some evidence that some editors will object to the move - which there apparently is - then {{db-move}} is not the correct way to handle it. For the record, when you asked for the move, there were only two comments on the talk page in support of the move (one of them by you) and both were recent, i.e. no significant discussion had taken place. More than that, I can't see any evidence that anyone ever asked the user who did the move (Wonchop) for their reasoning. Last but not least, the move was four years ago, so technically, you are not just reverting a recent rename, you are trying to change a title that has been the same for four years. As such, there are plenty of reasons that the proposed move might be controversial. And that is sufficient to point you to WP:RM instead. Besides, if the page's name has been unchanged for four years, another week or two won't hurt. Regards SoWhy07:38, 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 WP:COMMONNAME in their opinion, i.e. changing the name to reflect the name of the company. And we had you and one other person arguing that WP:COMMONNAME requires the page to be called differently. As such, there is some evidence that changing the title might be controversial and that's all an admin should need to decline a speedy deletion request. Plus, whenever an editor in good standing performs any edit or action, there exists 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 SoWhy07:22, 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 SoWhy10:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
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.
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.
Cavern Pub. Again, I couldn't see any blatant advertising. At worst, there were a couple of slightly spammy bits that could easily have been removed. As for the ensuring discussion, what can I say? It was despite the fact that another editor had previously proposed a merge, so obviously it wasn't obvious to him, or he'd have suggested deletion.
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: 123
I saw in your Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion that you say "blatant advertising" is statements like "Buy software XXX now!!!". I saw nothing like that in any of these articles. At these and the comments at AfD for Fortrade (where editors are calling me incompetent), it would seem that most people's definition of "blatant advertising" is much, much more lenient than "Buy software XXX now!!!". Wikipedia:Field_guide_to_proper_speedy_deletion#11._Blatant_promotion, although not a guideline, says "blatant spam" is not articles whose tone is merely questionable. It would seem that most people think that questionable tones do count as blatant advertising'. I'm not saying these articles were any good, but I don't believe they were at the level of "blatant advertising" as described by those two essays. Maybe G11 should be reworded to mean any Wikipedia:NOTADVERTISING violations, even suspected ones? I thought I'd ask someone who knows what they are talking about rather than just suggesting such a thing, as it will probably be laughed at. Regards. Adam9007 (talk) 03:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to change G11, instead we should try and educate those users who fail to understand its scope. Note that the word "blatant" does no longer appear in G11 but rather "unambiguous" (it was changed shortly after I wrote the essay but the wording change was not supposed to change the scope this discussion). English is not my first language but as far as I know "unambiguous" is defined as "not open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations", i.e. where it's clear to any reader that there is no other purpose of the text (not the person who created it!) than to promote its subject. G11 further goes on to say that the page has to be " exclusively" promotional, i.e. no part of it can be made into a useful page. All three examples you cite fail those definitions, at the very least they could have been reduced to valid stubs or be redirected/merged elsewhere. That some editors, sadly, believe that any disagreement over the validity of their taggings is a personal attack they have to respond to in kind is unfortunate but does not change the facts. Plus, 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 SoWhy10:35, 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:RFA and 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 SoWhy11:06, 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)
two questions in one: 1/ publisher-links, 2/ author-links
Dear SoWhy and friendly talk page stalkers,
I'll try to make my question as brief as possible:
I consider myself, primarily, as a user and onlooker, rather than as an editor or a wikipedian. Although interested, I do not have the time, nor the energy, to follow the development of different wikipedias. Time changes – often to the better – and suddenly the customs of yesteryear are outdated.
This winter, however, I've made a few attempts at sourcing articles in topics that I have read up on earlier in my life. My personal opinion is that quotes are good, as are source templates instead of "free text" references. Furthermore, I am of the opinion that quotes from sources in foreign languages ought to be avoided, unless translated. It may well be, that I sooner or later discover that the wikipedia community disagrees with me. Which I then have to take with equanimity.
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:
Is it good or bad to link (from source templates) to authors who already are covered?
Is it good or bad to go one step further, and create stubs?
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?
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:RS it's not important that the sources establishing notability are in English but rather that they are reliable (see also 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:OVERLINK and 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 SoWhy16:24, 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 DrStrauss as an experienced editor requested the protection, I assumed they read 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 SoWhy21:24, 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.
@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)
Block of yours
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 Wellertalk17:06, 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 SoWhy20:45, 3 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 survived an AfD and WP:CSD#Pages that have survived deletion discussions exempts those pages from G5 anyway. Regards SoWhy20:32, 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. WikiDan61ChatMe!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 SoWhy16:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@Intern315: Those pages were deleted because they consisted of copyrighted text. Copying text from other sources is (in most cases) strictly forbidden because it's illegal and incompatible with our goal of creating an encyclopedia that anyone can edit and redistribute. You are welcome to create articles that contain only text you have written yourself but be mindful if you are involved with the subject. Regards SoWhy05:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
See what I mean?
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 SoWhy05:27, 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 SoWhy07:55, 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 SoWhy08:42, 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 telos of 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 SoWhy09:28, 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 SoWhy19:10, 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 Wikipedia:Common claims of significance or importance as an analogue of WP:OUTCOMES and I'm inviting all interested talk page stalkers and other users to help me expand this into a collection of common claims that new page patrollers and patrolling admins alike can use to help them decide whether to tag/delete an article or not. The goal is to have references for all claims that point people to the relevant discussions about it. Feel free to add more references. Also, if you happen to find discussions where consensus was reached that a certain claim explicitly is not enough, feel free to create a new section and add that information there since it's helpful as well. Regards SoWhy19:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
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:FAILN and 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)
(talk page stalker) I have added some stuff to WP:CCSI and if I can stomach going through my archives I may have some more (I have declined at least one A7 on a historic peer of the realm but can't find it) I'll have to go and dig up diffs, but more than a few times I have declined an A7 on a biography, it goes to AfD, I !vote redirect per 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)
@Ritchie333: "I have declined an A7 on a biography, it goes to AfD, I !vote redirect per WP:INVALIDBIO, everyone else !votes delete, it gets deleted" - I've noticed that too. And yes, people have slammed me for declining such A7s. I have said it before and I shall say it again: too many people don't consider the 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)
@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 SoWhy20:40, 14 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 SoWhy19:11, 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)
@Widr: I'm not arguing whether we should allow such usernames or not at all (for the record, I believe in this example it was allowed) but I do think blocking them without discussing it first was a mistake and not within the scope of UAA. Since you (and some others) seem to disagree, we probably should discuss this. What I do mind though is you blocking this user without consulting me first per WP:RAAA. Such actions encourage users to admin-shop. Regards SoWhy08:18, 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 SoWhy09:43, 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)
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 SoWhy14:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello. You indeffed the user for WP:NOTHERE for doing nothing here but using his user pages as if WP was a social networking site, so would you mind removing his talk page access too, for repeatedly adding an {{Infobox person}} to it, with photo and all, i.e. still using it as a Facebook page or whatever? (Semi-protecting his user pages might also be a good idea since he with all probably will continue adding the infobox using IPs...) - Tom | Thomas.W talk12:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
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?
@Nicnote: Back to the subject itself: I would not think it qualifies as either A7 or G11. Being produced by a notable company (here Ultimate Fighting Championship) is sufficient indication of significance (cf. 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 SoWhy06:43, 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 SoWhy19:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
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 RfC has closed with consensus to allow 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)
@Ihavetantrums: Hi there. You can read Wikipedia:Picture tutorial to learn how to embed images. Basically, it's using the same wikimarkup as for links, just with the File: prefix. [[File:Alan Abel of The Philadelphia Orchestra.jpg|thumb|200px|right]] for example embeds the image floating on the right as a thumbnail with a width of 200px (since the original is too large). I'll add it to the article for you. Remember to sign your posts on talk pages such as this one using ~~~~. It will automatically generate your name and a timestamp. Regards SoWhy19:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
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
@Ihavetantrums: Hi again. Thanks for your reply, unfortunately, our policy on living people forbids us to include information not readily available in reliable sources. While I personally want to believe that you actually talked to Mr. Abel's wife and confirmed the birth date, neither I nor any other editor knows you and unfortunately the internet is full of people who lie about a myriad of subjects, so we have to err on the side of caution. As such, while no source mentions December 6, two of them mention 1928 and several mention his age and in context 1930 can't be right, so I decided to include only the year of birth for now, per 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 SoWhy18:39, 4 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 SoWhy10:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Question for you on my talk page
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)
Truncated message
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 SoWhy19:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
You deleted my page, Jonny Vegas Namer
Why was my page deleted and what do i need to do to get it back up
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 SoWhy13:55, 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. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned!14:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
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 SoWhy14:13, 7 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)
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 SoWhy06:31, 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?
Wow, some of these were very poorly tagged (most were over a year ago, though). Here's what I would've done today:
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.
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.
Redirected to SoftRAM (which is what the admin did anyway)
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.
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.
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.
Well, this one sure doesn't fall under db-web. Incorrect tag on my behalf.
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.
Redirection over deletion, so redirecting would've been better instead of tagging.
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.
Same issue as 11, except I can't find any available sources (today) so redirecting would probably be the best option.
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.
For the first two of these I did WP:BEFORE and 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.
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).
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.
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 SoWhy09:36, 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)
@TheSandDoctor: I think it qualifies for A7 deletion as a internet radio service without any real claim why it should be considered significant or important (compared to other such services). I have tagged it as such for another admin to review. BTW, regarding the message I left you: Remember that 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 SoWhy20:55, 14 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 SoWhy08:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
(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 UniSoft Infotech Corporation is probably a confusion with an Indian company with a similar name "Unisoft Infotech" that has no relationship to the company described by the article UniSoft. The original move from Unisoft to UniSoft Infotech Corporation was a mistake. It is misleading to keep the redirect in place.
@PBS: But possibly from other websites. Anyway, I see no speedy deletion criterion that would apply here, seeing as R3 explicitly excludes redirects created by page moves for exactly these reasons. You are welcome to take it 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 SoWhy20:32, 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 SoWhy20:35, 22 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)
I'm a bit confused...
... 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 SoWhy11:23, 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.
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 WP:SBS in 2008/9 & 2011 and work on removing myspace links in 2015 - if they're skewing my figures still, it's probable that they always will. I'd need to edit heavily for another 10 years before the proportion of AWB edits would shrink to a "normal" level.
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.
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 SoWhy14:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Template:Coding has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Reticulated Spline (t • c) 00:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Norse Am Legend/MyWorldMyWay, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Norse Am Legend/MyWorldMyWay and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Norse Am Legend/MyWorldMyWay during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Pablo Hidalgo at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:23, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
. I'll go back to work now, hopefully without deleting the files there. Regards SoWhy 12:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Administrator changes
NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Obituaries
Done. Happy to see you are cautious when using the delete button. Regards SoWhy 15:06, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
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. 
.jpg){kind=link}