This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gonnym (talk) 01:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
Need for controlled samples to support audience response claims
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nemov requested controlled samples to support audience responses for Rian Johnson, see below, so for consistency we must apply it to all other living US directors.
Do you have any controlled samples to support your claims? Those will be necessary to make any changes. The reality is there's no real data to support your argument. - Nemov (talk) 23:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I've no idea what this is about, and note that the same message was added to various other user talk pages and reverted by User:JJMC89; I further note that the IP address which left the message is currently blocked. --kingboyk (talk) 16:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
A request for comment asks whether partial blocks should be enabled on the English Wikipedia. If enabled, this functionality would allow administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces, rather than the entire site.
A proposal asks whether admins who don't use their tools for a significant period of time (e.g. five years) should have the toolset procedurally removed.
The fourth case on Palestine-Israel articles was closed. The case consolidated all previous remedies under one heading, which should make them easier to understand, apply, and enforce. In particular, the distinction between "primary articles" and "related content" has been clarified, with the former being the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted rather than reasonably construed.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Kingboyk
I understand that you have deleted my article for I have been inactive for a long time do to life getting in the way, and also forgetting my password and being to lazy to change it and write it down.
However I now have new found energy and time along with a brand new computer that has inspired to continue with this career. If it does not bother you I would be grateful if you restored my article titled Marcel Tétu so I can fix what needs to be done and have it follow the guidelines needed. I apologize I did not notice this notification in the six months I had but it would mean the world to me if you could restore my draft so I may review it.
Shaundree (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Shaundree
Hello, I want to ask you about the deletion of Pramod Ratan Patil. I believe the reason given by the proposer was that this article failed WP:POLITICIAN as he hadn't been elected to a seat. I think this is an incorrect rationale as he was elected in the 2019 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election to the Kalyan Rural (Vidhan Sabha constituency) seat which I believe was stated in the article. This would imply presumed notability ("The following are presumed to be notable:
Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or sub-national (e.g., province- or state-wide) office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them." Based on this could you review your deletion decision please? Thanks - QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello QuiteUnusual - the rationale was given by the person who proposed deletion; I then delete if nobody has objected and the request looks reasonable: "A nominated page is marked for at least seven days; if nobody objects, it is considered by an uninvolved administrator, who reviews the page and may delete it or may remove the PROD tag."
You might want to talk to the nominator (Jikaoli Kol) about the notability issue.
In the meantime, I'm quite happy to restore the article for you. Requests for undeletion of articles which have gone through the Proposed deletion process are normally made at WP:REFUND but this time I'll log your request there on your behalf and get it processed. Cheers. --kingboyk (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I was asking you first before taking it to WP:REFUND in case you were aware of anything I wasn't (as I can't see the deleted page). Thanks for confirming - QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
QuiteUnusual: No worries. Sorry if I told you a bunch of stuff you already know and/or omitted the information you actually wanted, I was on my first coffee of the day :) --kingboyk (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
am radio in western australia
no one owns it, and the scope and intention of the article has been narrowed. JarrahTree 05:40, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
nothing is ever resolved, such optimism is always problematic JarrahTree 05:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
You deleted Franziska Meissner-Diemer page citing lack of notability. I think that was unjustified. I found the Page's subject from Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red.
When I created it, I didn't know anything about the subject so I decided to do some research on it first and then add more info and citations to it.
At least, you should have discussed it with me first.
Lightbluerain (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Lightbluerain: Hello, and thanks for the message. The article was speedily deleted upon the request of another editor, who left a message on your talk page. Speedy deletion is exactly as the name suggests; if admins waited to discuss every speedy deletion request the system would grind to a halt.
The page was deleted under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was article about a real person which did not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant. The presence of the article on a WikiProject's list (however admirable the WikiProject is) is not a free pass against demonstrating importance, I'm afraid. For this reason, it is better to start a new article in the Draft namespace or in your sandbox until such time as it suitable to be in the main article namespace. Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for creation.
That said, in this particular case, it may have been better if the article had been moved to the Draft space by the nominator or myself, so that you could continue to work on it, rather than be deleted. I will undelete it and move it to the Draft namespace. --kingboyk (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with this page. I was about to give up before you arrived. The photo has been a problem. The photo I got from Opert's sister was not taken by her so its ownership is difficult to prove. Now, with your help, the article is looking acceptable I will go through the photo rules and concentrate on that. Did you format the page for me? (Thanks!) By the way, how do I link to/from the other multiple mentions of Opert on Wikipedia?
Peter.R.Hill (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
@Peter.R.Hill: Hi Peter, good to meet you! I'm so pleased to hear that my intervention stopped you from giving up. I hope the work is not in vain (I think it won't be; I can't see how any reviewer could reasonably reject the draft again).
Yes, I have done some work on the formatting for you, and some minor copy editing. You can see all of the changes on the History tab.
Don't worry about links to Fred's page - I have already taken care of that by searching for his name on Wikipedia and then adding the links. Please see my message at Draft_talk:Fred_Opert#Redirects. We have 6 inbound links to Fred Opert, and 29 incoming links to Fred Opert Racing! If you find any other articles which mention Fred or his team which are not on those lists of incoming links, just edit the article which mentions Fred and add a link (just one link) to either Fred Opert or Fred Opert Racing. It's as simple as that.
Once the article is live, I'll make a redirect from Fred Opert Racing to Fred Opert, so that if somebody clicks on Fred Opert Racing they will get taken to the article about Fred.
If there is a Wikipedia article which should mention Fred or his team and it doesn't (i.e. it's not on one of those lists of incoming links), edit the article which should mention Fred or his team to add the information (and include a citation if possible). Link to Fred Opert or Fred Opert Racing as described above.
Now, with regards to the photo, if you are in contact with Fred's sister perhaps you can ask her for a photo she is willing to donate which was taken by one of her family members? Maybe there is an official photo from Fred's team, ownership of which would have passed to whoever inherited his estate (maybe his sister)? I'm sure something can be sorted out if Fred's sister is willing.
Please let me know if you need clarification on any of the above or if you need any further help. --kingboyk (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
You have done great work to make the page look good. Thank you. I had trouble when I entered "Last Series" into the info box.
Peter.R.Hill (talk) 09:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
@Peter.R.Hill:This is how I did it for Charles Montier:
| prev series = [[24 Hours of Le Mans]]<br/>[[Grand Prix motor racing|Grand Prix]]<br/>[[AIACR European Championship]]
| prev series years = 1923–1925<br/>1929–1935<br/>1931
@Kingboyk I hope you get this. I struggle to work out how to use "talk". If I click "talk" next to your name I can't add a comment on the page that comes up. I've worked in IT for a very very long time but struggle with Wikipedia!
Any way, Your article on Montier is fascinating. I have added a reference I found in one of my old books. You have already cited the other book I have by Clausager. Good work, love it. They were crazy days in racing really - safety? What was that?
Thanks again for your help. Peter.R.Hill (talk) 01:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Peter. Yes, they were interesting times it seems, with a lot of bravery involved.
I must confess that I now have a longing to own a Montier Ford. All I need now are to find: a car for sale; an expert who can inspect it; the money; and somewhere to keep it. Other than it should be easy :)
Thank you for adding the citation from another book - the more the merrier, so that is very much appreciated.
I'm not entirely sure why you're having difficulties with Talk given that you're doing ok with the complicated citation templates. If I could sit down and demo to you, we'd probably be done in 5 minutes. It's rather harder to wrote about. Let's boil it down to:
To leave a new message, go the Talk page, click "New section", enter your message and save it
To reply to a message, reply on the page the message was left on, by editing that page
Also, look out for notifications in the bell at the top of all pages and in the thing next to it (not sure what it's called). --kingboyk (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
I just saw your (now-archived) note at CatcherStorm's talk page - if you've got an AFC question, you should definitely swing by WT:AFC and ask! We're more than happy to answer any questions you might have, and you're (more than likely) going to get a reply from someone who definitely knows what's going on. Primefac (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
It's very kind of you to drop me a line Primefac, thank you. I'll bear that in mind for next time.
I've added myself to the reviewers list too so, time permitting, you may see me around. I'm assuming it would be improper for me to review the above draft myself as I have now contributed to it and have expressed up front that I think it's ready; so, unless I hear otherwise, we'll take CatcherStorm's advice and wait.
Thanks again. --kingboyk (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Having considered the letter and spirit of the reviewing instructions, I am now of the opinion that there's no reason at all why I shouldn't review the draft I stepped in to help with, as the process is about weeding out articles which would not survive a deletion debate. It is not some kind of award. WP:INVOLVED does not apply as I am not acting as an admin, nor is there any dispute. So, let's get this article into mainspace where it now belongs :) --kingboyk (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I noted your edit summary on the CSD at Draft:Kirgizjangal Pass. It doesn't worry me if it remains. In the past they have always been deleted per WP:R#DELETE as a cross name space redirect .
Had the draft been reviewed and accepted in the usual way, the Draft:Redirect would have been automatically deleted in the process. It just seems tidier without, but your call. Regards VelellaVelella Talk 07:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Velella; thanks for the message. I don't recall being asked to delete such a redirect recently, but I do recall seeing plenty of them in existence. I can think of two good reasons why they're worth keeping: 1) discourages people from starting new drafts on articles we already have; 2) less experienced contributors who don't know how to use contribs, page history etc can still find their work.
Can you clarify what you mean by "Had the draft been reviewed and accepted in the usual way"? It looks like it was approved via the AFCH script v0.9.1, which, if you asked me, I'd say is the "usual way". Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingboyk (talk • contribs) 07:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
No, you are absolutely right, my mistake. That is curious. Whenever I have approved a draft into mainspace, the original Draft has disappeared - or maybe I just imagined it had? Apologies for wasting your time so early in the morning (so late in the evening for me) Maybe I should cut down on the Sauvignon Blanc! Regards. VelellaVelella Talk 07:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Velella: No worries - have one for me! --kingboyk (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@Velella: Whilst researching another matter, I just stumbled on WP:RDRAFT: "Redirects that are a result of page moves from the draft namespace to the main namespace should be retained". --kingboyk (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks for that. I'll ignore them all in the future! VelellaVelella Talk 20:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
While they did twice create an A7 speedily deleted article and their username suggests a promotional / shared-use account, their edits don't actually suggest that it is an editor acting in that nature. Perhaps indef is a bit harsh for now? — MarkH21talk 08:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
@MarkH21: Hi, I made a mistake which I rectified probably while you were writing (selected "Promotional username, hard block" in Twinkle rather than soft). They're now soft blocked for username. That is indef by default, but they can create a new account and be up and running again immediately, or supply a new username and request an unblock. --kingboyk (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC) (original reply, but edit conflicted with your followup message)
Nevermind, I suppose it's still a case of WP:ORGNAME / WP:ISU. The editor can come back under a new username and hopefully they'll contribute positively after doing so. — MarkH21talk 08:36, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Exactly. It's not a punishment. It's rather that the username is not acceptable, so it has to be indef. HTH. --kingboyk (talk) 08:39, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
jAlbum article
Thanks for fixing a request from jAlbum talk page from 2014 Jimberryau (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
I tried to fix this a few days ago, but there seemed to already be a "JAlbum" redirection page so I was unable to do the "MOVE".
I had also made some corrections to incorrect (out of date) statements on the page and changed several instances of "Jalbum" to "jAlbum", but these were all "UNDONE" without any discussion, on the mistaken assumption that I have a financial stake in the subject. I have tried to discuss this with the "undoer" but have not had any response Jimberryau (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Jimberryau, You're welcome. By refuting the paid editor accusation on your talk page you have met your obligation and are free to edit unless told otherwise. The warning said "Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia" - and you have now responded.
I suggest you detail your changes with rationale on the article's talk page and go ahead with the edits if nobody objects. Just don't get into an edit war.
Finally, you could always consider editing other articles. When a new editor comes along who is seemingly fixated on one single article, that arises suspicions.
I hope this information helps but please be advised that I will not be entering into any further dialogue regarding jAlbum. Please don't seek to drag me into any dispute as I have no desire to get involved. I merely helped cleaning up the page move mess. --kingboyk (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I have no wish to drag you into any dispute,and no wish to get into any dispute myself, but since you have placed a "primary sources" tag on the jAlbum page which I have tried to correct, I hope I can ask you to clarify whether any further sources are necessary or whether the tag can now be removed. There are now 3 "primary" and 5 "secondary" source references. If any more are needed, can you identify the statements which you think need addressing? Jimberryau (talk) 08:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Jimberryau. I appreciate you asking me before removing the template.
You have 3 secondary sources, as one citation was a duplicate and one was invalid.
For me, that's still a little on the thin side, and I'm not sure about the "quality" of those references, so I won't be removing the template myself.
I suggest you follow the instructions at WP:WTRMT and interpret them as you see fit. Thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 08:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your prompt reply :) .
Can I ask for some clarification?
The duplicate citations to a review on "informer.com" are referring to different statements in the review and different statements in the article- is that forbidden?
Can you be more specific about which reference is invalid and why?
Can you be more specific about "the quality of those references" ? Jimberryau (talk) 10:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jimberryau: I'm happy to clarify, but this is going to be my last reply about jAlbum.
No, referring to the same reference more than once is not "forbidden", it's just that it is pointless to have the exact same citation twice in the list. Please refer to my edit and notice how informer.com is still cited twice, but as 1a) and 1b) and not with two different numbers.
TrustPilot was the invalid reference, and I removed it in this edit. You can also see my rationale if you click on that link, and then click through to the policy/guideline I based the edit on (which was WP:USERGENERATED).
I note that you didn't receive a welcome template on your user talk page when you first joined which contains a lot of useful info about our mission and how to use the site. I've rectified that and I hope you find the info useful. --kingboyk (talk) 10:38, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello. What does xFD mean? --Iruka13 (talk) 07:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello Iruka13. "FD" means "for discussion" or "for deletion" and "x" is a placeholder.
I think to discuss the possible deletion of a file, you would need to go to FFD. --kingboyk (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. --Iruka13 (talk) 08:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
Peter Rex
You recently deleted a page called Peter Rex, would you send me the full files for them so I can examine what was missing or wrong with them? Vittorioemmanuelle (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
@Vittorioemmanuelle: Thanks for the message. I've emailed you the text as requested.
If you need to reply to me, please reply to me here rather by email.
If you wish work on the draft and resubmit an improved version which doesn't read like a press release go ahead, but if you have any personal connection with the subject or have been paid to write the article then please consult WP:COI first. Thank you. --kingboyk (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]
Arbitration
Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 February. It will be on all wikis from 6 February (calendar).
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fred Opert, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IMSA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Good bot. Fixed, thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 14:58, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Categories in draft space
It's not actually a hard rule that categories always have to be commented out and can never just be removed outright. For one thing, in my experience working with draftspace, it's rare (although not entirely unprecedented) for a page creator to prematurely readd categories that have been removed outright, but very common for a creator to undisable categories that have been merely disabled — so removing them does have the benefit of reducing how much future work will have to be done on inappropriately categorized drafts, because drafts that have had their categories removed are a lot less likely to come back into mainspace again than drafts that have merely had their categories disabled are. As well, page creators don't always actually select the correct categories that a completed article would actually belong in — for example, musicians should be categorized as "[Country] [genre] musicians", not filed directly in Category:Music, so if a page creator has erroneously selected the general "Music" category then it's of no benefit to anybody to leave it there in disabled form only to have to fix the categorization again if and when the draft is actually accepted. And similarly, if a page creator has "filed" a page in redlinked categories that don't actually exist at all, then there's no benefit in leaving that on the page in disabled form either.
So there's really no right or wrong thing to do when it comes to draft pages in articlespace categories: both disabling and total removal are acceptable responses, not right or wrong methods that are either mandated or forbidden by policy. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hellknowz: Thanks for alerting me. I'll take a look. --kingboyk (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Done - and I think I even managed to do it without messing anything up! Please let me know if that's not the case. --kingboyk (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I don't really know how histmerge works technically, but it looks fine. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@Hellknowz: "How histmerge works technically": With great difficulty. I had to restore the draft (excluding the revision which requested deletion), move the draft to mainspace which requires first deleting the article, restore the article, and then rollback to the latest mainspace revision - hence my delight at seemingly having done it without breaking anything :) --kingboyk (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanking for helping me.
Hello Kingboyk!. I want to thank for remind me to add category. My article mainspace is not written in "italic". It is just for television series. Can you adjust to italic title case? The Supermind (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
@The Supermind: You're welcome! I'm not entirely sure what you are asking me - do you want the title which is ABOVE "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" to be in italics? --kingboyk (talk) 13:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, the article "Kiev Day and Night" is not italic which the topic is about television series. The Supermind (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that can be done (or if it can be done, is not good practice). Let's ask another Wikipedian for help. --kingboyk (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and it didn't work in this case because it wasn't spelled right [2] (extra space). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Well there you go, thank you User:Hellknowz. Now I come to think of it, I have seen italicised page titles like that before (as I now remember doing a double take). Thanks for letting us know how it's done. cc User:The Supermind. --kingboyk (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
RFPP
Hello, could please have a look at this request and the involved users and action the protection request. I'm working on it but she's not listening. Thanx - FlightTime (open channel) 22:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
@FlightTime: Page protection isn't really an area I operate in frequently, so I've just put a short term protection on there due to disruption, which buys you a bit of time. Blocking the user from that page (a feature I've not used yet), or from Wikipedia entirely on the basis of WP:NOTHERE, may be a better long term solution... --kingboyk (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC) (edit conflict)
– Note: you are not the subject of this notice, but rather, you have been mentioned in a passing/tangential way in the notice regarding Not Rosguill
@Dmehus: Thanks, but I don't really need to be informed of a mention in passing as minor as that (besides, I got a ping because of the posting of my username). --kingboyk (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know that. I wasn't sure how strictly to interpret the "you must notify" requirement at ANI. That's useful to know. So, more or less, I could've just notified the subject user and Rosguill (the victim of the impersonation)? Doug MehusT·C 18:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
I didn't mean to start a debate about procedures, but since you asked for my interpretation of the instructions I'm happy to offer one.
Short answer: "Yes". Longer answer:
The wording is (with emphasis mine) "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page."
Your thread was about the behaviour of Not Rosguill and might lead to sanctions against them, so they need to be informed.
Whether the thread was aboutRosguill is debatable but it's quite reasonable for you to err on the side of caution and consider yourself obliged to inform in the proscribed manner. At the absolute minimum I would have dropped them a courtesy note - as you did - informing them they are being impersonated and that you have raised the matter at [link]. I personally would likely have considered an informal note to be sufficient but it's your call.
The thread was not about myself or Hog Farm; we were just incidental players. In my case, I was only mentioned because as an admin I did an uncontroversial adminy thing; it is routine for such an action to be mentioned tangentially on ANI. As such, by my reasoning, neither I nor Hogfarm needed to be informed in order for you to comply with the instructions.
Mentioning us by username was helpful, however, as it raises a ping and we may be interested to read about what is going on and to know that we've been mentioned.
Personal preference, in which I imagine I am far from being alone on: I would rather not have "You're involved with shenanigans being discussed at ANI" plastered on my talk page even when left with the best intentions as a courtesy. To my mind an ANI template signifies drama, so I would rather not receive one unless I truly am involved. Pings to alert me of a mention are most certainly welcome.
HTH and I do appreciate that you are only "trying to do the right thing". Thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for both the shorter and longer explanation; very useful. In future, I may ping you in the ANI thread if I feel you might have something further to add but, otherwise, if it was just in the course of your mopping duties, I'll probably just save pinging you (unless you don't mind either way). Doug MehusT·C 19:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus:Feel free to ping me or to link to my username, which has the same affect, whenever I'm mentioned or if you think I might have something to add. Also feel free to message me if you have a query or complaint about my use of the mop or anything else. Just avoid the ANI templates please unless I'm a named party. Thanks again. --kingboyk (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
There is a new version of the Wikimedia Commons app for Android. It should fix the failed uploads problem. [3]
Problems
There was a problem with the new MediaWiki version last week. It deleted some messages by accident. The new version was late because it was stopped to fix things. [4]
Changes later this week
The MediaWiki action API is used by various tools like bots and gadgets. Some error codes will change. Some parameter values that do not follow the standard will no longer work. [5]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 February. It will be on all wikis from 13 February (calendar).
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Fred Opert Racing Team badge.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Fred Opert Racing Team badge.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Noting that Bbb23 has now speedy deleted as G3, since you were the nominator of the above article, did you want to close the MfD, would you like me to, or should we get someone else to?
Cheers,
Doug MehusT·C 03:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
note re new community item
Hi. Are you active with WP:WikiProject Music and WP:Biography?? If so, perhaps you could help me. I am trying to set up a shared community resource where various WikiProjects could exchange information with each other regarding various active projects, efforts and ideas that they are working on. would you be interested in helping me to develop this? I could really use some input and ideas; if the community uses this, it will take off; otherwise, it will not. I would welcome any ideas that you may have. this is currently an active discussion at Village Pump on the "Proposals" tab, but you are welcome to reply to me here. Please ping me if you respond. I appreciate your help. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sm8900: I'm very sorry but, no, I'm not currently active in any WikiProjects and haven't been for some years. I'm tempted to say "I'll take part anyway" but for personal reasons I think it's best if I decline. Wikipedia can very easily become a full time occupation and I fear that if I get involved in too many areas I will neglect real-life duties and obligations. Again, sorry I can't be of assistance on this occasion. --kingboyk (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
okay, no problem, at all. however, off the top of your head, might you be able to please name just two or three editors who might be currently active at either one of those or both? hoping to see who might have some interest. I appreciate it. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sm8900: Sadly most of the editors I used to work with have left Wikipedia or I've lost contact with them. One person I can heartily recommend, if she is still interested in WikiProjects, is Plange. She did a lot of the groundwork getting WPBiography up and running in the early days and I see she has edited this year (but not this month).
I am aware of several editors who are active within WP:MOTORSPORT if that project is of interest to you? (A7V2; SSSB (not listed as a member but recently responded to an enquiry of mine of the project talkpage and assessed a motorsport article I wrote); Philby NZ) --kingboyk (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Why did you lock and remove the POV tag on Ian Smith's Page ?
Ian Smith's page was not subject to an edit-war at the time when you locked the page, and the dispute regarding the articles neutrality was far from being settled ? Zubin12 (talk) 09:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I rolled back to the last protected version, and restored the protection, so that the dispute can continue to be settled on the talk page. --kingboyk (talk) 14:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Just to add: Once the dispute is settled, if the discussion is not closed by an admin and the page remains protected, please request unprotection at WP:RFPP. --kingboyk (talk) 14:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
A page you deleted
Hi, not sure if you've seen Talk:Sean John McCann, an IP is asking why the page was deleted. I'm not sure what the drill is on using talk pages of deleted pages. DuncanHill (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
DuncanHill, I can try and help. kingboyk was just mopping up an expired PROD of Sean John McCann, which looked like the PRODding editor claimed it failed our notability guidelines. I believe expired PRODs may be subject to undeletion at WP:REFUND and, presumably, it would then go to AfD, assuming the PRODder is still watching the page. Still, the IP editor shouldn't have recreated the article's talk page because now it's a talk page without a corresponding article page and eligible for WP:CSD#G8. Hope that helps. (talk page stalker)Doug MehusT·C 22:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus:, sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I know perfectly well why the page was deleted, it was on my watchlist, I saw it prodded, and deleted, and have read the deletion log. It is because it is on my watchlist that I saw the talk page had been recreated. What I am unclear about is how to respond to the IP recreating the talk page. The IP needs an answer, but the talk page, on which an answer would be expected, needs to be deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
DuncanHill, Ah, no worries. Yes, I'm uncertain if we should tag the talk page as G8. Presumably, if the IP editor wishes to have it restored, they can do so by WP:REFUND. I suspect, the administrators would have the capability to restore all of the previous talk page's revisions except for the recreated talk page? Doug MehusT·C 22:26, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Should we try responding to the IP editor on their talk page? Hopefully their IP address hasn't changed, and they know where to find the reply. Presumably, one of us should just make the WP:REFUND request after the talk page is deleted, and then we can notify the restored talk page, so the IP editor knows what happened? Doug MehusT·C 22:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@DuncanHill and Dmehus: Thank you Duncan for the message, and Doug for stepping in to answer while I was away. Just to confirm 1) Yes (for future reference, as it has already been deleted by another admin), you can tag a stray/recreated talk page for deletion under G8 2) Yes, PRODded pages can be restored at WP:REFUND, and 3) Yes, if circumstances warrant it we can most certainly selectively restore revisions of a deleted page.
With regards to how to respond to the IP editor who recreated the talk page to ask why the article was deleted, you could indeed leave them a short message pointing to the deletion log and WP:REFUND, but who knows if they'll see it? You could request a refund yourself. I've looked again at the article and think it unlikely it would survive at AfD, otherwise I would have restored it myself right now. (I'm happy to do so if either you request it, but you'll likely get a quicker response at WP:REFUND if you want to take that route). --kingboyk (talk) 14:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, and for taking another look at the article. I won't submit a WP:REFUND request. Perhaps one route to go, when tagging the stray talk page as G8 is to tag with multiple criteria and insert a custom note that links to WP:REFUND should the IP editor return to the talk page they created? This would at least point them in the correct direction. Doug MehusT·C 14:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
@Dmehus: A deleting admin can always leave a custom note in the deletion log alongside the canned reason for deletion but, again, I would have to cast some doubt on whether it would be seen.
I'm sure if the IP is sufficiently concerned they'll be able to find the Help Desk or Teahouse :) --kingboyk (talk) 14:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
How about an outcome the template doesn't consider? I've speedy deleted the category myself :) --kingboyk (talk) 16:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 February. It will be on all wikis from 20 February (calendar).
