Jay

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

  Administrator changes

 

• ComplexRational
• Extraordinary Writ

  Stephen

 

• Andrew Yong
• Dbenbenn
• DESiegel
• GlassCobra
• Joe Decker
• Nancy
• Pathoschild
• StuffOfInterest
• William Pietri
• Wwwwolf
• Xdamr

  Interface administrator changes

  Nihiltres

 

  CheckUser changes

  Moneytrees

 

• Ivanvector
• SilkTork

  Oversighter changes

 

• GeneralNotability
• Moneytrees

 

• Guerillero
• SilkTork

  Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion A5 (transwikied articles) has been repealed following an unopposed proposal.

  Arbitration

• Following the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, SilkTork.
• The 2021-22 Discretionary Sanctions Review has concluded with many changes to the discretionary sanctions procedure including a change of the name to "contentious topics". The changes are being implemented over the coming month.
• The arbitration case Stephen has been closed.

  Miscellaneous

• Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
• Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

Entry should be prefaced or contain the words “within gender ideology” or “part of queer theory” 208.114.139.7 (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what this is about. Jay 💬 06:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, The article I made on Dignified Menstruation was not meant to be promotional, instead meant to be informative on the importance of having dignity and protecting the dignity of people who menstruate. If there is a way I could retrieve my article then I can work to make it from a neutral point of view. Otherwise I will try to find an editor or writer to better relay the message. Thank you Lalschalaune (talk) 05:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Lalschalaune: You may not have meant it to be promotional, but the language and content was seen that way. However, as mentioned at WP:Requests for undeletion#Dignified Menstruation too, I did not see a response from you at User talk:Drm310#Speedy Deletion that you understood the two things he said, or for the COI notice at User talk:Lalschalaune#Managing a conflict of interest which says how you can make the required disclosures depending on your connection to the subject. Jay 💬 06:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey Jay, I noticed that the request for undeletion was archived by a bot despite no conclusion on the request, it looks like almost every other request was either marked as "Done" or "Not Done".

The archive is here for your convenience: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_382

I would also like to request undeletion of Wikipedia:WikiProject Autonomous Zones/Sandbox as it was part of the wikiproject and also has been deleted due to no other reason than being created by the sockpuppet user. TNebula (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I missed seeing your response, and I'm not sure if Girth Summit missed it too. Jay 💬 11:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I did miss the response. I remain dubious about undeleting the draft, in part because of the fact that it was created the sock of a blocked user, and in part because it contains zero sources that are independent of the subject - just links to the subject's website, affiliated websites, and a press release that was republished verbatim (without attribution as far as I could see) on a dubious news aggregator. I think it most likely that that the draft was created to purely promote its subject. The Wikiproject in question was created out-of-process by the sockpuppeteer, following a discussion that they votestacked with their own socks, and which nevertheless did not demonstrate a consensus for the project's creation. The sandbox was only ever edited by a sock - I see no valid grounds for undeleting. I also think that TNebula would be well advised to distance himself from its creator's activities. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I understand the concerns regarding the draft's original creation by a sockpuppet user and the potential lack of independent sources in the draft. However, I would like to remind everyone that drafts on Wikipedia are not held to the same standards as mainspace articles, as outlined in Wikipedia:Drafts_are_not_checked_for_notability_or_sanity. In this case, if the subject of the draft is not yet notable, it may be Wikipedia:Too soon to determine whether a mainspace article on the subject is viable. This does not invalidate the subject existing as a draft until it has become notable in the future. However, I still believe that it is worth investigating whether the draft is recoverable and waiting to see if the subject becomes more notable in the future. See Wikipedia:Usual caveats.

I would like to highlight the fact that there would be probably be nothing wrong with this article existing in draft-space if the user was not banned.

Furthermore, I would also like to request the undeletion of the sandbox page, as it contained links other uncreated drafts about similar potential subjects that I am interested in drafting and creating. Undeleting the page would not harm Wikipedia in any way and would allow me to continue to contribute to the Wikiproject.

I understand the suggestion that I should distance myself from the creator's activities, but I assure you that I have always acted in good faith and with the goal of contributing to Wikipedia's knowledge base in a meaningful way. I will not publish the article unless it meets Wikipedia's notability standards and I believe that one user's bad actions should not affect the Wikiproject or my standing as a Wikipedia editor. TNebula (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please feel free to create a fresh draft on Lumina. There are plenty of areas and topics on Wikipedia where you can contribute, and I would suggest you consider Girth Summit's advice. Jay 💬 19:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

When you start working on Lumina, you'll have to make the required Conflict of Interest disclosures, as the co-founder of Lumina as you had mentioned in your user page. Also, declare any external connection with User:DominusVilicus / User:Mr vili / socks, if any. That user invited you to his wikiproject after noticing that you were involved in discussions related to micronations, although you had made only one edit (at an AfD). So I don't know if he was referring to discussions off-wiki. Courtesy ping Girth Summit. Jay 💬 20:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

So, TNebula is a founder of the subject he wants to write about, but didn't think it relevant to mention that in his undeletion request, or at any point in your discussion here. He mentioned it on earlier versions of his user page, but removed it for some reason before getting involved in these discussions. Hmm. I can't say that I'm surprised, but learning this does nothing to assuage my concern that this is a concerted attempt to use Wikipedia as a vehicle to promote the subject. None of links that TNebula has provided - all of them essays, without the heft of policy to support them - can outweigh WP:NOTPROMO. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wouldn't take claims to being a 'founder' of anything too seriously. This supposed 'proposed city' is nothing but a juvenile fantasy promoted on a Discord channel (I've got a link somewhere, but believe me, it isn't worth the effort of looking at). I'd be surprised if the number of actual supporters (as opposed to sockpuppets) run into three figures, and none of them appear to have a clue about anything. Rather than treating any 'conflict of interest' as plausible, we should just tell this bunch of autonomous-whatever-fancrufters to take their ill-defined utopias elsewhere. And then shut down Wikipedia:WikiProject Autonomous Zones as clearly created to promote imaginary-nationbuilding bullshit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I understand your concerns about the undeletion request for the Lumina article. I want to clarify that I am indeed a member of Lumina, and I have had off-wiki discussions with Mr Vili, who is also a citizen of Lumina. However, I fully agree that at its current stage, Lumina indeed lacks notability and significant independent coverage. I want to assure you that I have no intention of publishing the article until it has extensive independent coverage and meets Wikipedia's standards. The reason for requesting undeletion is to see if the structure and content of the article is well-written, and to remove any instances of promotional language if they exist, because I agree that the article should not be written in a promotional tone. Mr Vili's ban was for reasons unrelated to Lumina and I have only recently learned about the requirement for conflict of interest disclosures on Wikipedia. I hope this helps alleviate any concerns and I assure you that I am committed to following Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I understand that I am able to create a draft at any time, but the purpose of my request is to recover any potentially useful structure so that it does not need to be written from scratch. I will also make a separate request for undeletion for the sandbox page, as there were other subjects I remember reading that I would like to write about. TNebula (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Administrator changes   Gimmetrow   Bjelleklang Bob the Wikipedian Leithp WhisperToMe 100 inactive admins

CheckUser changes   BDD Bradv Donald Albury Maxim MusikAnimal   Oversighter changes   BDD Bradv Donald Albury Maxim

  Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, the administrator policy now requires that prior written consent be gained from the Arbitration Committee to mark a block as only appealable to the committee.
• Following a community discussion, consensus has been found to impose the extended-confirmed restriction over the topic areas of Armenia and Azerbaijan and Kurds and Kurdistan.

  Technical news

• The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

  Arbitration

• The arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 24 February 2023.
• In December, the contentious topics procedure was adopted which replaces the former discretionary sanctions system. The contentious topics procedure is now in effect following an initial implementation period. There is a detailed summary of the changes and administrator instructions for the new procedure. The arbitration clerk team are taking suggestions, concerns, and unresolved questions about this new system at their noticeboard.

  Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
• Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

Hello @Jay i wanna connect you via email how can i reach you. 27.63.19.43 (talk) 05:35, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Registered users can communicate via email using the "Email this user" link seen in the left pane. You need to be a registered user. Anonymous users can use this talk page. Jay 💬 07:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Jay. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Arrbgtjai9 (talk) 09:12, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Arrbgtjai9: I did not delete the article Sheikh Asif. It was deleted by GeneralNotability and Liz as mentioned at WP:Requests for undeletion#Sheikh Asif. Jay 💬 09:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Need help finding sources for Nari Bi Pindhipare Rakta Sindura. What is the name of this film in Odia letters? DareshMohan (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Google translate gives a close enough ନାରୀ ବି ପିଣ୍ଡିପେୟାର ରାକ୍ଟା ସିନ୍ଧୁରା. And see the youtube thumbnail. Jay 💬 11:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Jay,

Is there are a good reason to delete a PROD'd article hours early? We usually don't delete PROD'd articles and files until after their expiration date and time. There are times when an article is de-PROD'd right before it becomes eligible for deletion. You don't need to restore this article, I just thought I'd inquire about it. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Liz: It was mentioned "The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for seven days, i.e., after 10:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC).", which I assumed is local time. Apparently not. While working on RfDs, the time shown by my closure tool is local time. I'll have to calculate UTC the next time I look at PROD. Thanks for pointing it out. If anyone wants undeletion, I'm sure they'll ping me. Jay 💬 07:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear Jay,

The pages "Ebu Press Ltd" and "Asian-Australasian Journal of Bioscience and Biotechnology" are deleted before the given time for editing and revising. I am wondering, the last time for deletion was 08:31 (so far I can remember), and both of the articles are deleted before around three hours. Could you please undelete both pages for revising them?

Thank you for your consideration. Asifupm22 (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Asifupm22: Undeleted both. Jay 💬 09:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Dear Jay, Please help me undelete the page, "Asian-Australasian Journal of Bioscience and Biotechnology".

Thank you very much.

Asifupm22 (talk) 11:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Asifupm22: oops I undeleted another one by mistake. Now done. Jay 💬 12:32, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jay. I noticed your recent edits on Adecco Group and was hoping you'd be willing to help me out with some updates I am looking to make to Adam Pritzker's article. He is the founder of General Assembly, a company that was eventually bought by Adecco. My pending edit request lays out the two new roles that need to be added; my COI keeps me from making these changes directly. Thank you for your review and implementation. I'm available to discuss if you have any questions. Thanks DCBPI (talk) 23:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

My edit on Adecco Group was as part of this discussion, otherwise I'm not familiar with that company. Jay 💬 07:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Administrator changes   The Wordsmith   Fuhghettaboutit Spinningspark (deceased)

CheckUser changes   Callanecc   Oversighter changes   Callanecc

  Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F10 (useless non-media files) has been deprecated.
• Following a request for comment, the Portal CSD criteria (P1 (portal subject to CSD as an article) and P2 (underpopulated portal)) have been deprecated.
• A request for comment is open to discuss making the closing instructions for the requested moves process a guideline.

  Technical news

• The results of the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey have been posted.

  Arbitration

• Remedy 11 ("Request for Comment") of the Conduct in deletion-related editing case has been rescinded.
• The proposed decision for the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case is expected 7 March 2023.
• A case related to the Holocaust in Poland is expected to be opened soon.

  Miscellaneous

• The 2023 appointees for the Ombuds commission are AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, JJMC89, MdsShakil, Minorax and Renvoy as regular members and Zabe as advisory members.
• Following the 2023 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Mykola7, Superpes15, and Xaosflux.
• The Terms of Use update cycle has started, which includes a [p]roposal for better addressing undisclosed paid editing. Feedback is being accepted until 24 April 2023.

I noticed that you retargeted First woe and second woe to Seven trumpets, but you also closed as no consensus. If there is no consensus, keep the original target per WP:RFD and WP:CLOSE. I have reverted it. Mast303 (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Mast303: Yes, thanks. A No consensus doesn't always mean Keep, but in this case you are right, there was one Keep vote. Jay 💬 06:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

In case you have no notived, your retargets concerning this and this have been reverted. Veverve (talk) 12:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Replied above. Jay 💬 06:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

Category:Recipients of the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Baronnet (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

You're speedy this morning ;-) Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

talk? Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 10:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sure, you don't need permission to talk. Jay 💬 12:37, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just in case I created a draft for a film , incubated it and lastly making it upon the Wikipedia policy. But when I was incubating that draft some created a page on wiki and make a redirect on it and when my draft is completed the other person just copied and pasted on that redirect. Isn't this injustice for the creator of draft. Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 02:28, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I did not find a copy-and-paste that happened on top of a redirect. Who did it and where? Jay 💬 05:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am not saying that it happened bit it will happen, the user who created redirect will paste the draft on his page. Someone other done the research. And the other paste it. Tousif ❯❯❯ Talk 17:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The scenario you mention can happen even if there was no redirect page at "Dunki (film)", and it was a redlink. Any user can create the new page and copy content from an existing draft. If the new page is in a condition to be accepted into article mainspace, then the ideal thing to do is to merge the page history of the draft into the page history of the article. Jay 💬 19:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Administrator changes   Aoidh   KillerChihuahua

CheckUser changes   Ferret

  Guideline and policy news

• A community RfC is open to discuss whether reports primarily involving gender-related disputes or controversies should be referred to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

  Technical news

• Some older web browsers will not be able to use JavaScript on Wikimedia wikis starting this week. This mainly affects users of Internet Explorer 11. (T178356)
• The rollback of Vector 2022 RfC has found no consensus to rollback to Vector legacy, but has found rough consensus to disable "limited width" mode by default.
• A link to the user's Special:CentralAuth page will now appear in the subtitle links shown on Special:Contributions. This was voted #17 in the Community Wishlist Survey 2023.

  Arbitration

• The Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 case has been closed.
• A case about World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been opened, with the first evidence phase closing 6 April 2023.

Hello, Jay. I disagree with the reason for closing the AfD: Léon Gillis. There was no consensus for keep – the discussion ended evenly, and should be closed as no consensus (not deleted). Please consider adjusting the reason for non-deletion. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

@CJDOS: I found that the Keep votes outweighed the Delete votes. However, the close happened around 12 hours after the last comment, which was a response to your comment, and I see that you may not have been online at the time to respond further. Is there anything you wanted to respond there? Jay 💬 18:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

• Three votes cite WP:R#KEEP point 2 (plausible misspelling).
• Two votes give separate arguments – WP:R#DELETE point 2 (redirect of confusion, my argument), and the other argument being the article with the same e-acute spelling plus a disambiguator was previously deleted.

That's close enough to be a keep, no consensus. I disagree with the misspelling argument, as the keyboards I saw at QWERTY don't have a dedicated e-acute key, but instead rely on an additional keypress to employ the acute accent; I didn't make this argument, because I felt it was shaky at best.
I'm not disagreeing with closing as keep, which is the same as not deleted in regards to the proposal, it's the lack of the no consensus specification for an effectively even vote that I disagree with. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

The first Delete vote supported the nomination which was basically that Léon should not be used for Leon. This was countered by the subsequent Keep votes which said this may be seen as a misspelling and does no harm. The second Delete vote was about the subject of the redirect, a soldier. This was countered by the subsequent Keep votes which said that the person behind the name Léon Gillis is not relevant, but the title "Léon Gillis" may be seen as a plausible misspelling of "Leon Gillis".

However, let me know if you want to bring up the QWERTY argument after re-opening the discussion. Jay 💬 06:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, but I was only asking for '''no consensus''' to be included in the closing. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is a keep close per my above explanations, unless you wish to respond to the above. Jay 💬 19:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Administrator changes   Spicy   Ale jrb Dbachmann DGG (deceased) Jimbo Wales

CheckUser changes   Jimbo Wales   Oversighter changes   Jimbo Wales

  Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

  Technical news

• Progress has started on the Page Triage improvement project. This is to address the concerns raised by the community in their 2022 WMF letter that requested improvements be made to the tool.

  Arbitration

• The proposed decision in the World War II and the history of Jews in Poland case is expected 11 May 2023.

  Miscellaneous

• The Wikimedia Foundation annual plan 2023-2024 draft is open for comment and input through May 19. The final plan will be published in July 2023.

Hi, Jay, how are you? Did you perhaps mean to leave a VRT ticket number with the permission-pending template at Draft talk:Revvity? BTW, I've removed the copyvio for now – it can always be restored if verified permission comes through. Beats me why people go to so much trouble to give permission for unencyclopaedic text which is anyway never going to become part of the encyclopaedia when they could just write a couple of sentences from scratch, but that's what they do ... Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 10:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Justlettersandnumbers: WP:Requesting copyright permission#When permission is confirmed asks to add {{permission pending}} to the talk page, and this doesn't have a provision to add the ticket number. The ticket number will be added by the VRT volunteer. Agree with you that external content owners may not be going by the encyclopedic value of their content, but only because the content was tagged as copyvio. Jay 💬 11:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Justlettersandnumbers: can you also restore the copyvio you removed. How else will VRT members verify the permision, they needn't be admins, at least Mdaniels5757 isn't one. Jay 💬 11:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Jay, I don't think I can restore a copyvio, we don't do that, do we? Yes, I was wrong about the template, sorry about that – a ticket number would have to be added manually. I've now found the ticket (2023050910009995), and am not really convinced that the permission is valid, still thinking about how to proceed on that. There's also another problem which I can't discuss here. As I understand it, all the VRT agent has to do is specify the published material for which permission has been received, any admin can then verify whether the content of the page is covered by the permission and undelete as appropriate. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Justlettersandnumbers Thanks for your note on the ticket. I've responded to you and the customer there. — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Mdaniels5757, my apologies if I'm being over-attentive to detail there – as is quite possible. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jay,

I don't know if you can help highlight the unreliable sources in the articles listed above. A template to that effect was placed on both articles, but most of the sources used are independent of the subjects and also from traditional media, so I am not sure which of them are classified as unreliable by the Wiki team.

Thank you. Yourmmy (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can you ask the editors who placed the tags? Jay 💬 10:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Jay. Thanks for your circular moves of List of football clubs in Wales and List of men's football clubs in Wales following the RfD, as well as your close to revert the redirect from 29 January.

Seeing the entries on my Watchlist (Deletion, Move, Page curation logs), I was reminded that I had written something on a Talk page about the weird new tables that had been added to List of football clubs in Wales. I had trouble finding my post, though, because it was still at Talk:List of men's football clubs in Wales (the name of the actual list at the time).

Shouldn't the Talk page be moved, too? My comment about tables seems pretty silly on the Talk page for what is now a redirect, and probably nobody will even see it when poking around the actual list currently at List of football clubs in Wales, so I can be sure I'll never get an answer. :-p

Maybe you just forgot, or is there a reason you didn't (or couldn't) rearrange the Talks as well? — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 02:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@JohnFromPinckney: I have moved it now. Jay 💬 06:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Okay, thanks muchly. I still don't expect a reply there, but at least it's findable. Happy editing, — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please review this RFD request. Consensus has clearly been formed that target should remain as is with the hatnotes discussed. Submitter has also shown bad faith in the process, debating almost every single response to the RFD with the same talkikng points and even !vote-ing again even though he submitted the RFD. I accidentally attempted a close myself not realizing of WP:NACINV. - SanAnMan (talk) 13:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

SanAnMan, you may have just wanted to bring in an uninvolved admin to ratify your close, but I have not got such a request before, so I'm in a dilemma on how to take it. You could have waited for a closer to make a decision, but by making this request at my talk page, it could be seen as influencing the outcome. The request is non-neutral since you state that the submitter has acted in bad faith, and per WP:APPNOTE I wouldn't see it as appropriate. Also per WP:APPNOTE It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users., however I would not want to participate in this RfD, either as voter or closer, so as to make this request redundant. Jay 💬 16:11, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jay can you please advise the correct proper procedure to request an uninvolved admin review for closure of the RFD please? Thank you. - SanAnMan (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

WP:Closure requests. It however says: When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting closure and then waiting weeks for a formal closure. Jay 💬 05:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jay OK, so I'm a little confused here....this RFD has a fairly clear consensus, you can't close it because of inadvertant influence on the outcome, and you're not recommending going through the formal closure process. What's the next best step then? - SanAnMan (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

You can wait, and a closer will get to it eventually. RfD has a backlog of 50+ discussions. Prior to the May 22 page, there are 15 pages that have to be closed, including some from April. A discussion that was nominated in early February was closed only today. Jay 💬 15:23, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Administrator changes   Ingenuity   Ddstretch Prodego Resolute

CheckUser changes   Courcelles

  Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
• As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

  Technical news

• Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

  Arbitration

• The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

  Miscellaneous

• Following a community referendum, the arbitration policy has been modified to remove the ability for users to appeal remedies to Jimbo Wales.

Hi, Jay,

I just happened to see your comment on User talk:Lastofthem. I don't check notification of pings so I missed it and just happened to be looking at your contributions to see if you had responded to someone else and saw my name in the edit summary. I should have been more specific in my warning notice to Lastofthem. But about half of my edits are talk page notices, mostly to new editors, so I get pinged a lot with general questions about Wikipedia and drafts but maybe I should return to looking at pings so I can see where I've been mentioned so I don't miss something important.

Any way, I see you are still doing the good work at REFUND. Just dropped by to say hello and wish that you have a temperate and restful summer (if you live in the Northern Hemisphere). Take care. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I have 1900+ undeletions so far. Probably when I hit 2000, I'll stop and go look at another admin area! Jay 💬 06:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

 

  Administrator changes

  Novem Linguae

 

• Deckiller
• Electionworld
• MBisanz
• Penwhale
• Raul654
• Roadrunner
• Viridae
• Yannismarou

  Bureaucrat changes

  MBisanz

  Guideline and policy news

• Contributions to the English Wikipedia are now released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) license instead of CC BY-SA 3.0. Contributions are still also released under the GFDL license.

  Technical news

• Discussion is open regarding a proposed global policy regarding third-party resources. Third-party resources are computer resources that reside outside of Wikimedia production websites.

  Arbitration

• Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.

I've actually had a chance to look at their contributions over on frwiki, in relation to connected edits on Kore (producer) and its French Wiki equivalent, and it seems their COI was very apparent, as one of their responses to a Talk page post over there claims they work for the music artist. Regardless, I have gone ahead and reverted the frwiki article back to a less promotional version and requested a Global lock of the user over at Meta. Thanks for doing what you could in the matter. Jalen Folf (talk) 02:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

 

  Administrator changes

  Firefangledfeathers

 

• AlisonW
• Amberrock
• Closedmouth
• Scottywong

  Interface administrator changes

  Novem Linguae

  Technical news

• The tag filter on Special:NewPages and revision history pages can now be inverted. This allows hiding edits made by automated tools. (T334338)
• Special:BlockedExternalDomains is a new tool that allows easier blocking of plain domains (and their subdomains). This is more easily searchable and is faster for the software to use than the existing MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. It does not support regex (for complex cases), URL path-matching, or the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. (T337431)

  Arbitration

• The arbitration cases named Scottywong and AlisonW closed 10 July and 16 July respectively.
• The SmallCat dispute arbitration case is in the workshop phase.

I am surprised by the lack of article on this subject. You know that noise that heroes make and bad guys fly. See Draft:Dishoom. DareshMohan (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Administrator changes   Pppery Theleekycauldron   Dwheeler G.A.S Royalbroil Ssd

CheckUser changes   Bradv   Oversighter changes   Bradv

  Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
• A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

  Technical news

• Special:Contributions now shows the user's local edit count and the account's creation date. (T324166)

  Arbitration

• The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

  Miscellaneous

• Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.

Special:Diff/1175613324

  Self-trout

^user:A smart kitten_meow 06:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'd have conducted this interrogative via UTRS if the system had let me. On the other hand, it's better to have community feedback. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's like taking a deposition in a public square, with passersby shouting in at us. 😜 -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Jc37, it will be very helpful if you add a useful edit summary to the discussions you participate at RfD. If you look at the page history of any RfD, you'll see everyone's comments have the discussion name / page section prefixed along with what they are saying - "delete", "retarget", "keep", or just 1-letter symbols, but it gives a good idea for those who track RfD updates, like me! Jay 💬 05:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jay. Thank you for the note.

In most cases, that edit summary is typically merely just an automated bit of convenience done for them. Adding to an XfD discussion is pretty bland, so not much more to add but "add" or "respond" or "reply".

When I'm looking for anyone's particular edit, I either click on history and can do a quick page compare. Or I just do a ctrl+f for my own name to see if anyone has added any subsequent edits. YMMV, of course. I hope you're having a good day : ) - jc37 07:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jc37: I did not understand .. typically merely just an automated bit of convenience done for them. and pretty bland. When I'm looking at the page history of an RfD page which typically has 20 to 30 discussions, I do the edit compare depending on which of those discussions has been responded to. In your case, since you may not be doing an Edit section (which automatically adds the section name), that information is missing, so I'm forced to check your edit diff to see if what you responded to was in my interest. Whereas if you notice, edits of others have the section prefix. Jay 💬 07:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Right. "edit section", is an example of "an automated bit of convenience".

As I mentioned above, looking at the page history of a page can be a good habit to get into. And what's nice, is that it's directly clickable from the watchlist. And then it's only one more click to see all the edits since you last edited. I've found that over-relying on edit-summaries can cause one to miss something. There's just no substitute for reading a page or its history. - jc37 08:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jc37: As you may not be using Edit section, you are not making use of the "automated bit of convenience", and hence it becomes harder for those watching the page. I don't know if you really read my earlier comment about 20-30 discussions in an RfD page, and how it becomes hard to track the discussions from the watchlist or the RfD page history without the edit summary saying which of those discussions you have responded to. Jay 💬 09:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

[1]. There's an RfD you recently edited. And it's very easy to see what's been added to the page since your last edit and prior to your current one. And I got that from a couple clicks. Clicking on "history" from the watchlist. And then clicking next to my name in the history.

So yes, it's rather easy to "track" these things.I see that you've been around since 2003. So I presume you remember a time when we didn't have these conveniences like section editing and whatnot. I have over 8 thousand pages on my watchlist (and I have no doubt that others have many more). Pages can be watched and tracked.

And finally - what if someone decdided to add comments to 5 different discussions on the page? Even if the edit sumary only listed one of those? There just is no substitute for reading the page and checking the page history.

There are many reasons that these things are not required.

I understand, you want the convenience to rely on an edit summary. And I'm saying that I don't rely on edit summaries. I take them as they are and move on. - jc37 09:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jc37: Yes, I have been using the watchlist and tracking page histories since 2003. For users who reply to multiple discussions in a single edit, I agree that section edit cannot be used. I have seen that happening, but they are rare. In your case you do edit one discussion at a time, however your edit summary is "add" for all edits. The edit summary is to help others, and not just for yourself, and I'm telling you that your edit summary with the text "add" is not helping others or yourself (unless you have enabled the option of not allowing to save without an edit summary). As I mentioned before, I am inconvenienced by having to check every edit you make to see if it was the discussion I participated it. There are 20-30 discussions in each RfD page and I participate in and track a portion of them. Jay 💬 13:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Jay, to my recollection, I have seen, and have had, nothing but positive interactions with you (including this one). So please understand this response in this vein.

What you seem to essentially be asking is for me to type out a section header in my edit history in order to save someone clicking a single link. And to do this though it is nowhere near required by policy, and in some cases to do so would actually be misleading.

While I am and have been happy to go above and beyond for my fellow Wikipedians, I think that the answer to that is: no, thank you.

I have been contributing to XfD discussions a long time. I'll spare you the links, but no, I don't only comment in a single discussion per link. I sometimes do that on a high traffic page to avoid edit conflict results (themselves inconvenient). But there have been times I'll just go dow the page and edit something to multiple sections.

I'm sorry if you feel that looking to see what my comments are, is an inconvenience.

Anyway, I hope your day is going well for you. - jc37 21:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Jc37: Sorry to see that we have hit a wall. Since you brought up policy, I did go look up Help:Edit summary which does say All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—... by clear edit summaries, and Accurate summaries help other contributors decide whether they want to review an edit, and to understand the change should they choose to review it. Since you have refused, and with no proper explanation, I'll try checking in other forums on what are the right expectations when a user refuses to provide a useful edit summary. This won't be specific to you though. Typically, I add one of the edit summary templates to newbie editor talk pages, and there is the {{Summary2}} for experienced users, but I would want to know what to do in case of refusals. Jay 💬 11:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

(de-dent) - the whole quote: "All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries, or by discussion on the associated talk page."

And that's what we're talking about here: edits to discussions.

And I do indicate what my edit is, such as adding to a discussion.

And if you read the rest of that page, it doesn't say required. It says "should", it says "good practice", it says "consider".

And finally, that's a help page, not policy at all...

I'm not sure why this concerns you in this way, but please remember that this is a volunteer project. "Requiring" edit summaries is more likely to cause more issues than you might think it may solve. Especially since "what is a good edit summary" is a subjective determination in the eye of the beholder.

Even policy - Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Be_helpful:_explain - says "try", and follows that up with why it's better to explain in the discussion than in the edit summary.

Anyway, it's just wiki-technology. You're used to seeing something not everyone has. For another different situation, did you know that mobile users do not see categories? Or that talk pages links are now "hidden" in a sub-menu on the default skin? We just kinda have to roll with the fact that not everyone is using the same interface. - jc37 17:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

Administrator changes   Hey man im josh   Alex Bakharev CorbieVreccan Cyphoidbomb Davodd Hog Farm JamesR KnightLago Mark Ironie Nosebagbear (deceased) Rschen7754 Tamzin TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes   DatGuy   Ferret RickinBaltimore   TonyBallioni Worm That Turned   Oversighter changes   RickinBaltimore   TonyBallioni Worm That Turned

  Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

  Technical news

• Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

  Arbitration

• Remedy 9 ("MarioProtIV topic ban") of the WikiProject Tropical Cyclones case has been rescinded.

  Miscellaneous

• The 2023 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of one new CheckUser.
• Self-nominations for the electoral commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections opens on 2 October and closes on 8 October.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

 

  Administrator changes

  0xDeadbeef

  Tamzin

  Dennis Brown

  Interface administrator changes

  Pppery

 

• Ragesoss
• TheresNoTime

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

• The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
• There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.

  Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
• Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
• Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
• Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
• Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
• Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
• An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

  Miscellaneous

• The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Radhika (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Radhika Nair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brenton Tarrant (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

OrewaTel (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

  Administrator changes

 

• Ganesha811
• JPxG

 

• Ajpolino
• Lourdes
• Mairi
• RockMFR
• Somno
• WilyD

  Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

 

  CheckUser changes

 

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

  Oversight changes

 

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

  Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

  Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
• The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

Just thought I'd let you know (based on your comments at Draft talk:Edward Sullam), a 35% copyvio match is almost never enough to merit full-scale G12 deletion; removal and revdel would be more appropriate. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Right, I could have removed the content and hidden the rest of history. But as the copyvio was there from the first edit onwards, I thought deletion was better. Jay 💬 06:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

If there's a reasonable amount of non-infringing content, keeping the page is usually better. Primefac (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Primefac: Sure, can you undelete it and remove the 2 paragraphs then? Or I can do it. Jay 💬 07:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

It was deleted under G13 (no edits for six months) so you are welcome to REFUND the page and continue working on it, but I have a funny feeling it will just be re-deleted in six months time again. Primefac (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, I had undeleted it yesterday per G13, and it was re-deleted as G12. Jay 💬 08:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh jeez. Graeme Bartlett, my above comment to Jay is also relevant to you. I have un-deleted and redacted. Primefac (talk) 08:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I have just undeleted the draft talk. Jay 💬 08:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I hadn't looked at your edit summary, hence my change of the wikt redirect to a disambig. It seems a very weird decision that the term is so bad that no internal redirect/disambig is allowed, but we are more than happy to outsource it to Wiktionary for some reason, which gives essentially the same result as my disambig, but without further encyclopedic information (which is what people on Wikipedia are interested in). I would expect either a disambig (fully protected) or a redlink (salted) to both be superior to a wiktionary redirect here. Fram (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

The RfD that concluded was for the plural versions of the title, and I would expect the same rationale to be applicable for the singular. So while it is technically possible to start a new RfD with a disambiguation rationale for the singular, I'm not sure if it'll result in a speedy keep for the reason it's immediately after a similar close. Jay 💬 16:53, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I wasn't disputing that the result for the plural also applies to the singular (hadn't even noticed this), just venting, er, explaining why I created the disambig over your redirect. To be clear, you did absolutely nothing wrong here. Fram (talk) 17:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

One of the votes did suggest adding a mention at the then target. A disambig will encounter the same problem that it would as a redirect to an article - there is no mention of the term on enwiki. There was no support for deletion / redlinking either. Jay 💬 18:08, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

My recent revision to the decade articles that were mistakenly reverted by you were justified and not unexplained. See the RfC for the removal of these images on [2]

Remove them again and you will be reported for edit warring. DementiaGaming (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@DementiaGaming: It was unexplained because it neither had an edit summary nor a talk page discussion despite another user Varoart2005 reverting them for the same reason. Thanks for the RfC link. And you may do better talking in a language that does not involve WP:THREATENing. Jay 💬 05:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I did not know of this rule. The RfC discussion will continue, but this threatening will be removed once I can obtain a non-mobile device and edit this out. DementiaGaming (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

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

Fails WP:NSOFT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I think you forgot to change the target of Wikipedia:PROMOTE after you closed the RfD. Veverve (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Veverve: I did not forget. I have left it to any editor, including you, to do the retarget, provided the incoming links are analyzed. Jay 💬 16:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

  Administrator changes

  Clovermoss

  Dennis Brown

 

• Julia W
• Marasmusine
• PBS

 

  CheckUser changes

 

• Aoidh
• HJ Mitchell
• Sdrqaz
• Spicy
• ToBeFree
• Vanamonde93
• Z1720

  Maxim

 

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

  Oversighter changes

 

• Aoidh
• Firefly
• Sdrqaz
• ToBeFree
• Z1720

  Maxim

 

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

  Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

  Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

Hi Jay. Thanks for your close of the difficult Minor-attracted person RfD. Another editor pointed out to me today that Minor attracted person and Minor Attracted Person (the latter kept in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 9 § Minor Attracted Person, the former created by me on the basis of that RfD) were deleted after the AfD and should now be recreated. I would do it myself, but I want to exercise an abundance of caution here with respect to WP:INVOLVED. Would you mind recreating and FPPing? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Pinging Thryduulf who had capitalization and hyphenation concerns at the RfD you mentioned. Jay 💬 06:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the ping. Re-reading that RfD I see I missed the word "not" when I wrote I cannot think of any reason why anyone would want to treat all the reasonable capitalisation and hyphenation variants identically to this one - i.e. the reasonable variants should be treated identically. These two are indeed reasonable variants so I'll create them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Back when I blocked this range I determined there would be too much negative impact on enwiki, so while the block is there its actually disabled on enwiki.

2021-04-05T03:07:57: Jon Kolbert (meta.wikimedia.org) globally blocked 31.167.0.0/16 (global block log) (expires on 2024-04-05 at 03:07:57, locally disabled by Jon Kolbert: prevent collateral damage) (Cross-wiki spam: spambot: excessive spam from this range) (unblock locally) Jon Kolbert (talk) 15:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, they were at RfD, but why put an unsourced article back into mainspace. All its doing is completly subverting the WP:NPP process and reducing the quality of Wikipedia. Both references are dead. What is the point of that? They should have been sent to draft. They are trash articles. scope_creep^Talk 11:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Scope creep: You are suggesting alternatives to deletion. We cannot have the previous redirects as they were rejected at RfD. No better redirect targets were suggested. The purpose of drafts is to improve pages so they can be moved to mainspace. In your opinion, if they are trash and cannot be improved, they should not be moved to draftspace. As mentioned at the RfD and my edit summaries, the articles may be discussed or deleted at AfD. Jay 💬 11:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

These things are completly non-notable and a complete time-sink. I'm not taking them to Afd. I'm having nothing to do with them. scope_creep^Talk 11:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Some RfDs close with "Restore and AfD" where the closer nominates it at AfD. In the current case, it was restore with optional AfD. I have now appended "without prejudice to AfD" to the closure statement for the 5 nominations. These can't be speedy deleted and the ATDs been rejected, so AfD is the only forum that remains for challengers of the articles. Jay 💬 12:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

  Administrator changes

 

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

 

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

  Bureaucrat changes

  Worm That Turned

 

  CheckUser changes

  Wugapodes

  Interface administrator changes

 

• Enterprisey
• Izno

  Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

  Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

  Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

  Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

Hello,

I noticed that you closed the proposal to delete the redirect "Glorification of martyrdom in Palestinian society" as a keep consensus.

This is odd, as the delete !votes outnumbered the keep !votes, especially if you count my nom comments as a !vote. This is also not a situation where the strength of the arguments is noticeably a determining factor that would outweigh the number of !votes (or if it is, this was not articulated by the simple "closed as keep" comment).

It would have been more appropriate to close as delete here, or at the very least, as no consensus, right?

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I did find the strength of the keep votes the determining factor. I have expanded on the closure statement at the RfD. Jay 💬 02:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate that you went and expanded on the statement, but I'll admit I was hoping for some more analysis than just the brief sentence All arguments were countered by participants who voted to keep the term as a redirect. as the expanded statement doesn't really say anything specific about the strength of the arguments on either side. Is there an avenue for deletion review for redirects? I feel a second opinion may be best as I still feel that even a most charitable assessment of the strength of the arguments would result in a "no consensus" close to encourage re-discussion in the future, not to say there is a consensus for the minority "keep" position without elaborating. I won't bother you anymore, thank you for your time.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 06:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, WP:Deletion review is applicable for RfD closes also. The Delete opinions were countered by the Keepers, and the Keep opinions were not countered by the Deleters. For more analysis:

• Delete: improbable that a reader is going to search for this
• Keep: title is a plausible search term (and given that people keep creating articles at titles like this it clearly is)

• Delete: the redirect is superfluous and potentially POV
• Keep: "Superfluous" is never a reason to delete a redirect. per WP:RNEUTRAL being "potentially" POV is not relevant
• Keep: not convinced the old name has major NPOV problems... "glorification" seems only redundant, not a further NPOV violation

• Delete: per the redirect discussion
• Closer's opinion: This did not add anything to the discussion, and was only a +1 count for delete

Jay 💬 10:23, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for informing me that WP:Deletion review is in fact applicable for RfD closes. As the instructions require that I notify the closer, I unfortunately have to bother you at your talk page one last time (though I feel bad about pestering you like this) to inform you that the deletion review discussion is located at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 February 14. The instructions encourage me to format this notification as {{subst:DRV notice|PAGE_NAME}}, but that would just generate a message that would make it sound as though we weren't already discussing this, so I figured typing this out is better.

Thank you again.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Administrator changes   Sdkb The Night Watch   East718 Isabelle Belato Mzajac Staecker Stan Shebs Sugarfish Tamzin

Bureaucrat changes   SilkTork

  Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

  Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

  Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rebecca Peterson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estonian.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

There might've been a misunderstanding at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 1#Dada (Ultra monster) and etc. by the way. I was hoping for that set of titles to be deleted (as none had substantial history) which would open the door to moves. It's a pretty messy situation all things being considered; I guess the redirects can still be swapped to return the histories back to the correct locations, is that what you were implying in the close? Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 07:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Utopes: So Zambolar was moved to Zumbolar, and you want to reverse it first. So Zumbolar has to move to Zambolar, which you cannot do with a page mover right. Give me the list of intended moves which are blocked because of target already existing. I'll delete them and you can proceed with the moves. Jay 💬 10:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Apologies for the delay, the pages moved by Coolbro247 that were aired in the RfD are Kiyla, Chandrah, Gamakujira, Greenmons, Gesura, and Zambolar. There's some others but assessing the histories for damage has been such a slog. If you could take a look at [3] (the move contribs) and see what you're able to undo I'd really appreciate that, thanks. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done with the above six. Jay 💬 16:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello . Jay 💬, following your instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 394 , I have worked with Draft:Korvi Rakshand, can you please review it and move as main article.--IqbalHossain (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not a reviewer, but I see your draft is in a queue, and there are reviewers who will look at it. Jay 💬 06:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

It appears the Cody Taylor vandal, which you previously blocked, has returned. I've opened up an SPI here. The Kip 03:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

 

  Administrator changes

 

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

  Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

  Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

  Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

  Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

Hello Jay.

I would like to contest the non-admin RfD closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 5#Holy Chao. Could you tell me what the procedure is? Veverve (talk) 10:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

First talk to the closer and maybe request to revert so the nomination stays for a week, and another closer gets to take a look at it. If the talk doesn't work out, raise a request at WP:DRV with your reasoning, and notify the closer. Jay 💬 13:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I changed this to a redirect ( and have reverted your edit) because she plainly is not independently notable; see the talk page.TheLongTone (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Jay. Could you please remove the RfD tag at Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun? I've edited the edit request on the redirect's talk page, but nobody has replied yet. Thank you. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see it has been done per its talk page. Jay 💬 05:33, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of company name etymologies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

YOU CAN'T GET RID OF US JAY. The Snake Squad (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I didn't want to but had to do this  . Jay 💬 15:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

  Administrator changes

  Nyttend

 

• JohnOwens
• Killiondude
• MelanieN
• Nihonjoe

  Bureaucrat changes

  Nihonjoe

 

  CheckUser changes

  Joe Roe

  Oversight changes

  GeneralNotability

  Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship review has concluded. Several proposals have passed outright and will proceed to implementation, including creating a discussion-only period (3b) and administrator elections (13) on a trial basis. Other successful proposals, such as creating a reminder of civility norms (2), will undergo further refinement in Phase II. Proposals passed on a trial basis will be discussed in Phase II, after their trials conclude. Further details on specific proposals can be found in the full report.

  Technical news

• Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

  Arbitration

• The arbitration case Conflict of interest management has been closed.

  Miscellaneous

• This may be a good time to reach out to potential nominees to ask if they would consider an RfA.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in May 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 15,000 articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!
• Voting for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election is open until 9 May 2024. Read the voting page on Meta-Wiki and cast your vote here!

how do you make a user box??? Lilly is cool (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Lilly, I've answered this here on my own talk page. By the way, I think it's unnecessary to directly contact an administrator with this question; instead, try the Teahouse. Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 00:25, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jay. Following up on the Request for Undeletion discussion, were you able to get access to what you need to draft a replacement Sports broadcasting contracts in Israel article? It wasn't clear whether that conversation reached a resolution. Coining (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't clear to me as well, but to move forward I'm assuming ✗plicit has his reservations, but I'm not convinced of them. I hope you realize that you cannot move the draft back to article space, but someone who approves it at WP:AfC can.  Y Restored to Draft:Sports broadcasting contracts in Israel. Jay 💬 06:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, @Jay. And so noted on the process from here. Coining (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Do you know why Bobita was kept at the RFD? --Jax 0677 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have added a line to the closure statement. Jay 💬 07:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's a few sources on the "Life On The Upper Susquehanna" - https://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/view/30869/30624, https://journals.psu.edu/pmhb/article/view/30869, https://www.oeaw.ac.at/resources/Record/9780231885638, https://read.dukeupress.edu/south-atlantic-quarterly/article-abstract/51/1/192/348275/Life-on-the-Upper-Susquehanna-1783-1860-by-James?redirectedFrom=fulltext, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23149535, and https://archive.org/details/lifeonuppersusqu00fros/mode/2up JoeK2033 (talk) 04:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sure. I see that you are familiar with creating pages in draftspace and following the WP:AfC process. I do not know why you reached out to me specifically though. I would request you to make Conflict of Interest disclosures, if any, to be safe. Interviewing a subject does create a COI while subsequently editing the subject's page. Jay 💬 12:47, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I'm new to wikipedia so I am not very familiar with Wikipedia and I dont know if this is the right place to report this. So I'm currently having an issue with an unknown Wikipedia user after making a small minor edit on some article and user first kept reverting the information.

The main problem here is that this user is engaging in disruptive editing such as accusing me of edit-warring on my account's talk page twice even though I didnt even revert edits more than 3 times in 24 hour period (I just simply removed small minor information, fixed a typo and added minor words but the words aren't repeated) My edit also has factual sources from scholary and academic sources too (since i cannot edit several times i posted it the sources on the article's talk page and the summary about new edits are quite short). This has been going on for almost 1 day. Biosaurt repeatedly reverts his edit several times and insists to keep it this way on an article he doesn't even own.

Secondly, this user also first claimed that I'm vandalizing or a sockpuppet and claims my sources are subjective too which I certainly find disruptive. The user's name is Biosaurt and it seems like he is escalating something just over a minor edit.

I found you when i was reading about: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Responding_to_threats_of_harm

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_user

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring (I read about this and this user Biosaurt worsens the issue)

Biosaurt added this on my personal profile's talk page 2 times:

1) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rainbluetiful&oldid=1225634746

2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rainbluetiful&oldid=1225589457

If this is the right place to talk abiut this, kindly help me with this issue? this is really urgent and I feel like I am getting threatened just because of a minor edit on some topic. I also want to talk about this privately. Rainbluetiful (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Rainbluetiful: Welcome to Wikipedia! Yes, User Biosaurt is wrong on several counts:

• Calling you a sockpuppet and a vandal
• Giving a Level 4 (Final Level) warning for a first-time revert of his edit
• Giving a second Level 4 (Final Level) warning 6 hours later with no additional edits from your side (except that you removed the warning from your talk page, which is allowed)

However Biosaurt also initiated a talk page discussion (after the sockpuppet / vandal accusation) and assumed good faith considering you are a new user with a newly created account. Do not feel threatened because of interaction with just one editor. I see the discussion at the article talk page is in progress, and finally it is sourced content that wins, not individual points of view. And as Orchastrattor advised, WP:AN3 is one forum where you can discuss, but I think your current issue is not about Biosaurt's edit warrning (for which Orchastrattor already warned him), but his warnings and accusations on your talk page. Jay 💬 15:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Which part of the talk page of the article is a sourced content that wins? Sorry for asking. Rainbluetiful (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because i'm providing academic researched sources which certainly aren't individual points of view, i needed to make sure. Rainbluetiful (talk) 21:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

What I meant is that in an article, only content that is sourced from reliable sources is kept. Jay 💬 05:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I added my reasons on why I wanted to change some words on that article's talk page. Unfortunately Biosaurt doesnt seem in good faith because he uses captialization on some of his words.

Yes the 3 sources that published are correct after the word "East Asian" but after researching more published sources many East Asians have both a skin phototype and skin reflectance that considered somewhere around the moderately pigmented range if I'm not wrong.

On that article I wanted to edit, there is a portion that says "most commonly found in East Asia", I just wanted to change it "some parts of East Asia" because according to the published sources i found many of them but not all, have a skin phototype III to IV and their average East Asian skin reflectance isnt above 60+ which means that it isn't commonly found in east asia, only some east asians because are some of them with skin phototype associated with light skin (phototype II) and their percentages range around 11%-14% something.

There is also another picture of these East Asian (specifically korean) athletes on that article, I cannot tell if they have naturally light skin or not because many of them seem to have an undertone that is cream undertone which is associated with pale olive pigmentation according to wikipedia, not ruddy. And in south korea beauty standards very light skin is often seen as desirable and i found published source about prevalence of skin lightening products in east asian countries including korea. I need confirmation about the picture.

Biosaurt wont allow me to change that small detail (i find it quite disruptive too).

i dont know where to talk about this. the talk page of this article isnt really active. Rainbluetiful (talk) 06:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The main problem is that if i edited that again, it would be seen as "edit warring" and im afraid that Biosaurt would give me warnings and stuff. Rainbluetiful (talk) 06:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to edit a small by adding more additional published sources and add a few words.

The picture it's difficult to tell if they are naturally light or not due to their skin undertone. Rainbluetiful (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

"but I think your current issue is not about Biosaurt's edit warrning"

Not really, my current and main issue here about Biosaurt is something related to these. I'm new to wikipedia so I am currently reading the rules wikipedia:

1) Biosaurt also made some comments something related to these: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_edit_wars

2) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_be_rude

3) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing

I also have some questions:

1) When can I add some information or when its the right time to add additional information on that article i am currently willing to edit, do I have to wait for several weeks or months to finally add some small updates? And if I do is that still considered edit-warring?

2) Is it best not to respond to Biosaurt in the article's talk page? because even if I discuss with published sources (excluding original research) he refuses me to edit.

3) According to this article I have read, the best way to deal with this is to walk away or https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_be_civil

4) where or how to find other wikipedia contributors/users i can engage with or talk about this problem?

Again im really sorry for asking again, I just want clarifications. because Im afraid that i might violate some of the rules and I dont want to risk or escalate it.

Thank you Rainbluetiful (talk) 09:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

1. You may add information any time if it is not related to the dispute which is being discussed at the talk page.

2. If there are any questions asked to you in the discussion, you should definitely respond to them if you haven't.

3. You have to be civil, no matter who the user is. Even if the other user is not civil to you.

4. You may list it WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard since a third editor has not got into the conversation.

Jay 💬 12:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the tips, and about the the 2nd part of my question, Biosaurt didnt even ask me a single question about my published sources and he seems to be mostly saying things that are based on his views. Rainbluetiful (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not only that but he is also saying some things like about letting his edits stay. Rainbluetiful (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Replying to: "1. You may add information any time if it is not related to the dispute which is being discussed at the talk page."

actually about my 1st question, I actually want to edit that same minor part by adding additional new published sources and few additional words too but not now. I just want to edit in peace and i dont want unnecessary edit wars initiated and disputes by Biosaurt thats all.

It seems to me that Biosaurt is trolling me, i am not sure too. Rainbluetiful (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because when I looked at Biosaurt's profile and his contributions he has a history of reverting edits made by 2 contributors. Rainbluetiful (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since you've pinged me here already, could you take a look at the original RFC under Talk:Mukokuseki#Close Plz 5/21/2024? None of the other editors I've pinged have responded to me and the main closure requests page seems pretty backlogged. Thank you! Orchastrattor (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is this about Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead, because I don't see something called "Close Plz 5/21/2024"? I haven't closed an RfC before, so I need to go through the rules, and hence cannot provide a guarantee. Jay 💬 19:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I put an anchor template over my close request to link to it from WP:Closure requests#Talk:Mukokuseki#RfC on using the wording "stereotypically Western characteristics" in the lead, yes. Orchastrattor (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Orion Application Server has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NSOFT

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2024).

  Administrator changes

  Graham Beards

 

• Deskana
• Mets501
• Staxringold

  Bureaucrat changes

 

• Deskana
• Warofdreams

 

  Oversight changes

  Dreamy Jazz

  Guideline and policy news

• Phase II of the 2024 RfA review has commenced to improve and refine the proposals passed in Phase I.

  Technical news

• The Nuke feature, which enables administrators to mass delete pages, will now correctly delete pages which were moved to another title. T43351

  Arbitration

• The arbitration case Venezuelan politics has been closed.
• The Committee is seeking volunteers for various roles, including access to the conflict of interest VRT queue.

  Miscellaneous

• WikiProject Reliability's unsourced statements drive is happening in June 2024 to replace {{citation needed}} tags with references! Sign up here to participate!

Hello Jay: It appears that the Wikipedia editor Dmthomspon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dmthompson) is Lori Lake (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_L._Lake) and she edits her own Wikipedia page. The last edit Dmthompson/Lori Lake made to their own wikipedia article was on in April of 2024. This is a clear violation of Wikipedias policies. Rainbowtribe95 (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

If this is regarding the private discussion you had per User talk:Dmthompson#Email?, then you would see as per that section that the Dmthompson account was being represented by two people including Lori. After my post in May, I hope the account is being used only by Dmthompson. Regardless, you are correct that Dmthompson will have a COI with Lori L. Lake, if the mentioned Lori is the same person. Jay 💬 18:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2024).

 

  Administrator changes

 

• Elli
• HouseBlaster
• Pickersgill-Cunliffe

 

• Brianga
• De728631
• Georgewilliamherbert
• Hyacinth (deceased)
• ProveIt
• The Night Watch

  Technical news

• Local administrators can now add new links to the bottom of the site Tools menu without using JavaScript. Documentation is available on MediaWiki. (T6086)

  Miscellaneous

• The Community Wishlist is re-opening on 15 July 2024. Read more

I assume that you are going to solve the links to disambiguation pages that will now be created with your revert? The Banner talk 16:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

They will have to be fixed individually. Jay 💬 16:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Good luck with that. The Banner talk 17:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Jay

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Bgsu98, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Ramshackle (group), for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Bgsu98}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2024).

  Administrator changes

  Isabelle Belato

 

• Ian.thomson
• Modussiccandi

  Interface administrator changes

  Izno

 

  CheckUser changes

  Barkeep49

  Technical news

• Global blocks may now target accounts as well as IP's. Administrators may locally unblock when appropriate.
• Users wishing to permanently leave may now request "vanishing" via Special:GlobalVanishRequest. Processed requests will result in the user being renamed, their recovery email being removed, and their account being globally locked.

  Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee appointed the following administrators to the conflict of interest volunteer response team: Bilby, Extraordinary Writ

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2024).

  Administrator changes

  Pppery

  Interface administrator changes

  Pppery

 

  Oversighter changes

  Wugapodes

  CheckUser changes

 

• Courcelles
• GeneralNotability

  Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, there is a new criterion for speedy deletion: C4, which applies to unused maintenance categories, such as empty dated maintenance categories for dates in the past.
• A request for comment is open to discuss whether Notability (species) should be adopted as a subject-specific notability guideline.

  Arbitration

• Following a motion, remedies 5.1 and 5.2 of World War II and the history of Jews in Poland (the topic and interaction bans on My very best wishes, respectively) were repealed.
• Remedy 3C of the German war effort case ("Cinderella157 German history topic ban") was suspended for a period of six months.
• The arbitration case Historical Elections is currently open. Proposed decision is expected by 3 September 2024 for this case.

  Miscellaneous

• Editors can now enter into good article review circles, an alternative for informal quid pro quo arrangements, to have a GAN reviewed in return for reviewing a different editor's nomination.
• A New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in September 2024 to reduce the number of unreviewed articles and redirects in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,900 articles and 26,200 redirects awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!