User talk:SoWhy

about // talk // contributions // barnstars // essays // drafts

SOWHY's talk page

about // talk // contributions // barnstars // essays // drafts

Click here to leave a message.

Messages on this talk page are archived after 1 week.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 // Index

DJ Flash_2

Dear SoWhy,

I have found a source which proves the notability of the author DJ Flash. The book is called Ego Trip's Book of Rap Lists (https://www.amazon.com/Ego-Trips-Book-Rap-Lists/dp/0312242980/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500200452&sr=1-1&keywords=rap%20lists). Click on look inside, then type in the search DJ Flash (I believe it's on page 33).

Yours,

Hrvoje Grahovac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcoast1978 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Westcoast1978: As previously explained, notability is established by substantial coverage of a subject. The book mentions him only as one of hundreds of artists and contains no details about him as a person. Again, we don't doubt he exists and that he is a DJ but soooo many people are. Notability is more than mere existence. Regards SoWhy 20:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear SoWhy,

DJ Flash here. I understand your reason for deleting the DJ Flash Page. I also Agree with Duffbeerforme When he said it was "An over the top mess of promotion, original research and dud sources" For that I take full responsibility. And I respect the hard work & dedication all of you put into keeping Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. The 10 + years "DJ Flash" was listed in wikipedia have allowed me the opportunity to reconnect with so many friends & colleagues that before the advent of the internet & wikipedia, I had no hopes of ever reconnecting. Although i retained my name DJ Flash (i was only a DJ for a few short years 1979-83) before becoming a Record Producer & Label Owner. the Page/Article focused on the Body Of Works I leave behind as a Record Producer. I admit i am not knowledgeable in all the rules of creating an article or Page. But i thank the many contributors & editors who have contributed to the page over the years. I will continue to donate funds to wikipedia & will always support your good works. Looking Back I wish the page could have been Saved, Edited and Sourced better. But i will live with your decision. When I began my career their were only 2 Flash's ..Grand Master Flash on the East Coast & DJ Flash on the West Coast ... Now i notice their are 100's of DJ Flash's from all over the world. If their is any way possible to recreate an edited version of the Page i would be most appreciative for your guidance & instruction & if not ... I will respect your decision ... Kindest Regards .. DJ Flash 'Djflash1957 06:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Djflash1957: As I had explained above, not having a Wikipedia entry is not our goal if the subject is notable. However, said notability has to be established first. For that, we need reliable sources that substantially cover the subject (i.e. you). See WP:BASIC for more details. If you know of such sources (like old newspaper articles, books that contain details of you etc.), please provide them, so we can reassess the situation. Wikipedia operates on the principle that no action is irreversible and thus no deletion is either. We just need a good reason to reverse that decision. Regards SoWhy 13:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank You for your quick reply

I will make a wholehearted attempt to provide reliable sources. As i read Wikipedia's "Criteria For Musicians and Ensembles" (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theater groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

1. 2-Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

(If This Category Includes Record Producers Please consider this Link From Billboard Mag. Regarding an Album Concieved, Compiled & Produced by DJ flash) ( https://books.google.com/books?id=YQgEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA112&dq=dr+dre+concrete+roots+billboard&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLwtGzk6LVAhXJ7IMKHWaSD7cQ6AEIPDAF#v=onepage&q=dr%20dre%20concrete%20roots%20billboard&f=false )

Also here is a Article about the Album in VIBE Mag. ( https://books.google.com/books?id=dywEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=dj+flash+producer+west+coast&source=bl&ots=Veo85MHM1G&sig=l1Mm09BZ4GYZ110ZEaCf_tOOuk8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbwsmIj6LVAhVpwYMKHceqAg44ChDoAQguMAM#v=onepage&q=dj%20flash%20producer%20west%20coast&f=false )

1. 5-Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

If RHINO/Warner Bros. is considered A Major Indie Label. I Have Produced 5 Albums on that Label .please consider these Links ( http://www.rapreviews.com/archive/BTTL_westcoastrap1to3.html )

and ICE T "The Classic Collection" the album concieved, Compiled & Produced by Lee "DJ Flash" Johnson & mentioned in several Books Including Rolling Stone , All Music, etc... ( https://www.amazon.com/Trouser-Press-Guide-90s-Rock/dp/0684814374 )

( https://books.google.com/books?id=t9eocwUfoSoC&pg=PA401&dq=ice+t+the+classic+collection&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirhZPRm6LVAhWr6IMKHbdBDYUQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=ice%20t%20the%20classic%20collection&f=false )

( https://www.discogs.com/Ice-T-The-Classic-Collection/release/1922020 )

I feel as though these 5 albums may not meet wikipedias standards of Notability. Never the less I submit these Links for consideration. Thank you for your time and effort ,,, Best Regards Lee "DJ Flash" Johnson

'Djflash1957 08:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Djflash1957: Unfortunately, as far as I can see only the VIBE article actually mentions you by name and only in a sentence. Do you have more sources that talk about you explicitly? A short biography in a book or coverage of your work for example? Regards SoWhy 06:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy:

I will try to locate some things. It is rare for West Coast Artists to be featured in Books. Basically because Most Hip Hop Books are focused on East Coast Artists. Only recently have a couple Books been written about West Coast Rap Pioneers. Like i mentioned I'm not aware of all the requirements to be listed in Wikipedia. It is difficult to understand why a Record Producer with a 30 yr History of 25-40 Albums / Singles featuring some of the Worlds Biggest known Artists, must also rely on other sources (Books) to be considered notable. When In Truth only a handful of people would read the book as compared to the Millions or records embodying the Producers Works are sold all around the world. However difficult, I do respect your guidelines, Do Articles that mention DJ flash's place in Hip Hop History such as this one qualify for consideration ? kindest regards ( https://www.amoeba.com/blog/2013/10/jamoeblog/hip-hop-history-tuesdays-los-angeles-rap-hip-hop-the-first-decade-pt-i-.html ) djflash1957 03:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Djflash1957: The reason is verifiability. You know who you are and what you have done but others, including us, have to rely on what (reliable) third-party sources report on someone. So if we write that you produced 25-40 albums, we have to be able to point our readers to a reliable source that says so. Blog posts such as this one might be useful because they actually mention you and your work (although only a few blogs are considered reliable sources). I tried to find sources myself but it's quite hard since "DJ Flash" is not an uncommon DJ name (one that apparently Grandmaster Flash once used as well, which complicates things). I know it's frustrating but I'm happy you are wishing to work on it and I'll be happy to restore the article if I can find some more sources, I'll even be willing to copyedit and expand it. Speaking of sources, is this article about you? Regards SoWhy 11:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thank You for your open mindedness. Yes That Article you Ref Above [1] is about me. I hope you will take all these links into consideration. I have located a couple Other sources that may meet standards & they mention me throught each article. The first is from Rap Reviews.com [2] The second is a review from a Blog that i just stumbled upon a few days ago [3] . Also i will include this link From Rolling Stone Mag. [4] List Of Top 20 West Coast Rap Songs Pre- Straight Outta Compton (Era) My Group "Rappers Rapp Group" is mentioned on Track 16 "Radio Activity Rapp" And finally here is an Article from a Washington DC. USA Paper [5] Thank you again for your consideration, As i recall there is another (1995) Article from an old Los Angeles Hip Hop Mag called "URB" I will try to locate it. Kindest Regards. djflash1957 04:42, 2 Aug 2017 (UTC)

@Djflash1957: Not sure how reliable RapReviews.com is but it is a start, although it only mentions things you told them, so it might fail WP:SPIP. Blogs are usually not considered reliable sources and the Rolling Stone article does not mention you by name. The last one has a short mention. If you can find more, it would be best, possibly a large enough number of smaller mentions are sufficient to pass WP:BASIC. I will also endeavor to ask some fellow editors with access to old newspapers whether they can find something. Regards SoWhy 06:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

PS: {{replyto}} is used to ping someone, you don't need to use it for me because I already get a notification whenever someone edits my talk page Regards SoWhy 06:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Candidacy

I just wanted to say, regardless of how the RfB goes, I think you could be an asset to the community as an ArbCom member or trustee, so I hope you run. A campaign for one of those roles, even if unsuccessful, could help draw attention to some excellent essays you have written. 172.56.2.106 (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll keep it in mind, although I don't think I'm suited for one of those rules (and I don't think I have enough spare time either). Regards SoWhy 15:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If you run a single issue informational campaign devoted to raising awareness of how to properly use the CSD, though, then you can probably teach the electorate about an important topic without needing to actually serve. We haven't really had any offbeat candidates since Isarra ran in 2013-2014 so elections have gotten kinda boring. Anyway, thanks for your hard work and insights. 172.56.2.106 (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think your stance of narrowly-interpreting policies and guidelines makes far more sense than doing as some suggested, relying on common-sense and using IAR. The latter practices lead to chaos as everyone is doing whatever they think is right without a real basis in our collective beliefs. The former practices well-represent what we as editors have agreed upon. While I disagree with your NOBIGDEAL stance, I think Wikipedia as a project benefits from your continued involvement at the highest levels. Surely the WMF is going to fire one of our community-elected board members and a slot will open up. I know of at least one Wikipedian on ARBCOM who might not get re-elected. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A7 expansion discussion

Hi SoWhy,

It's pretty clear that my proposal to expand A7 is failing miserably and with your in-depth analysis of the examples I gave to Ritchie333 I have concluded that it's time to withdraw it. Your precise application of policy at the discussion has swayed me from neutral to support in your RfB by the way!

Thanks,

DrStrauss talk 22:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrStrauss: I know it's hard to see a proposal fail, so you have my sympathies. Thanks for being so graceful about it. Maybe we can think of a way to stop people from nominating such articles in the first place? A warning message in Twinkle's XFD module comes to mind as a potential solution. I truly think that some people simply forget about those alternatives and that reminding them might be helpful. Regards SoWhy 07:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For the most graceful RfX candidacy I have ever seen, you deserve this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thank you very much. I'm happy to receive some WikiLove (been a while) although being graceful when faced with criticism should be a matter of course. And in the end, it was merely me offering to help out some more because some people asked me to, not some life-changing extremely important role that I really had to have, so while I might be disappointed by the level of opposition, I am also happy about the many voices of support and am truly convinced that it's not a big deal to fail such a request. Regards SoWhy 08:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Your RfB

Hello SoWhy, your RfB has closed without a consensus to promote being reached. Thank you for actively participating, many editors praised your ability as administrator and I hope you continue to support the project in that role. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification and handling it. As I am not completely delusional, it was clear that this was coming. Still, a gathered some valuable feedback, so not all was in vain. Regards SoWhy 12:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the plunge SoWhy, I thought you handled it extremely well. –xeno^talk 14:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Hey, at least I got a barnstar out of it Regards SoWhy 15:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

• It's commendable the way you responded to opposition. Atypical case study of an Rfb. Well done SoWhy. Lourdes 16:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Here's something for the effort...

May you keep rocking and smiling!

A socialist red rose? How thoughtful Here's to hoping that at least my (imho perfectly normal) behavior can serve as an example to others, shall we? Regards SoWhy 17:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to compliment you on your handling of your RfB. I think you did a great job responding and answering the questions fairly and honestly and you handled the entire thing very well. -- Dane ^talk 22:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Coming from someone who opposed the request, this means a lot to me, because it demonstrates that while we may agree on some things, we can all stay civil about it and harbor no ill feelings. Regards SoWhy 07:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

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

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

*grumbles*

That was a real shame. For a time it looked as though we'd be welcoming you as the newest bureaucrat, which would have been awesome; I grew increasingly disappointed as your RfB crept towards yellow and then into the red. At least we'll still have your service to Wikipedia and I'm pleased to see that you've not decided to pack it in - I'm glad. :) I'm delighted I had the chance to support you, SoWhy - delighted indeed. Acalamari 01:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I know how you feel, although you probably should direct your grumbling towards your colleagues who "sank" the request with their !votes Joking aside, thanks for the kind words, they are really boosting my spirit. Regards SoWhy 07:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Your RfB

I'm so sorry it was unsuccessful. I think you were an excellent candidate. Maybe if I'd have challenged (ironically) some of the comments from supporters early on, it might have been different. Unusually, you were criticised both for being overly strict and overly lax in your interpretation of consensus. I'd encourage you to reflect on the opposes and continue your excellent work, and, if you're not too bruised, come back and try again some day. I'm sorry if I fell down as your nominator... RfX can be a tough place and if it's any consolation, you handled yourself with great dignity in my opinion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: Don't worry about it too much. You were a great nominator and your help and guidance were invaluable. Yes, it failed, but you couldn't have prevented a number of editors, prominently some of your colleagues, perceiving me as biased or inflexible when it comes to handling crat tasks; that's something I have to try and change myself. I doubt I will try that again (this time I had more opposes and less support than the first time around) but that's okay. As I said to you in the very beginning, back in April, it was merely me offering my services to the community. They are allowed to reject it and I am not too upset about it. Regards SoWhy 09:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

What Dweller said. Just wanted to chime in and let you know that I very much regret missing the chance to comment in your recent RfB. I have great respect for the work you do here, and your demeanor and level-headedness throughout the ordeal (and in general), is an example to be followed. Regards, decltype (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but you have to say that... Joking aside, thanks for the kind words. I don't need to hear them at an RfB to appreciate them. Regards SoWhy 10:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Hello SoWhy,

Thank you for your assistance with closing discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion; there certainly is a backlog over there that needs some attention, and I'm trying to find some to close as a "non-admin". Anyways, you may or may not know this, but if you cold, when you close or relist the final discussion on a day/subpage, could you please also remove the subpage's tranclusion on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (as I did here)? Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Side note: Though I opposed your RfB and I think we've "butted heads" at some point in the past, as Acalamari stated, I'm glad you didn't leave after your failed RfB. I can tell you're a net positive for Wikipedia, and for what it's worth, if you decide to stick around as an active admin, welcome back. Wikipedia is a very difficult habit to quit, and I say this out of personal experience. Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. RfD is usually not my area of expertise, I was just reacting to some requests at WP:ANRFC. I'll try to remember it if I can't get Evad37 to add that functionality to XFDCloser. Thanks for the side note btw, I do appreciate it. Regards SoWhy 06:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

No edit conflict?

Not an accusation, but re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mujahida Hussain Bibi , but it's curious how long the software takes to catch up on itself...? — fortunavelut luna 14:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I think the problem is that Evad37 has not yet added collision detection to WP:XFDC, cf. User_talk:Evad37/XFDcloser.js#Don.27t_close_already_closed_AFDs, so although I refresh often, sometimes someone else closes the discussion between me opening and finishing reading it. No big deal, I just reverted the close. Btw, since you are still using Mr.Z-man's script as part of User:Czar/closexfd.js, you might want to upgrade to XFDC as well, which is all-in-one and offers cool extra-features. Regards SoWhy 14:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

So it does- thanks very much. — fortunavelut luna 14:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Using semi-automated tools for link removal

Unsure if this is built into XfDCloser or if XfDCloser uses Twinkle (haven't yet played with the former), but regarding this sort of delinking, please try not to simply delink all instances without checking to see if it would instead be more productive to simply remove mention. Delinking an item in a list that requires entries to have Wikipedia articles just makes it harder to find problematic entries in those lists. When still linked, it's possible for me to use "what links here" to see where it may need to be removed. In this case, list of hip hop artists is on my watchlist and I saw the delink so could just finish the task, but if that artist were delinked from other lists, I'd have to now either search for "SD" (not a very productive search) or hunt through your contribs. Changing from red to blacktext also makes it harder to visually spot inappropriate entries in a list. In short -- and I realize this is more of a problem that I have with Twinkle, etc. than with its users (although everyone is responsible to make sure a semi-automated edit is an improvement before saving) -- I really think it's better not to delink deleted articles in lists (as opposed to in prose), since in the vast majority of cases it's more appropriate to remove and delinking makes that harder. Thanks for reading to the end of my rant :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Actually, XFDCloser should be able to remove items instead of delinking (see User talk:Evad37/XFDcloser.js/Archive 2#Unlinking DABs and See Also sections). Not sure why it didn't work this time, possibly because it didn't recognize this as a list. Thanks for the notification, I'll raise it with Evad37, see if he can address this for future AFDs. Regards SoWhy 16:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

A couple years ago I think that I opened a thread about delinking with regard to Twinkle, but, as I recall, nobody responded. I see XFDCloser being used for delinking more than Twinkle these days, I think, so thanks for following up with Evad37. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Mandingo

Ok, thanks! I guess I pulled the trigger a little too fast - a few days ago the band created a page for itself (actually in Spanish), so I assumed this was spam too. Sorry, and thanks for taking the time to givE me an explanation --‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

G13 RFC

Per [6] you are incorrect. Undo your revert please. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: You are correct that some discussions can be closed as such. However, I disagree that this is such a case. First of all, less than a single day without a comment is not what those instructions mean by "discussion has slowed" but several days without comments when no reasonable editor would expect further input. Then, I disagree that consensus was "reasonably clear". That might be because I opposed the proposal but then again, your assessment that it was might be because you supported it. Lastly, policies are highly important pages which should always reflect consensus as good as possible which is why major changes to policies should be assesses by non-involved editors, see WP:TALKFIRST. See also what I wrote on your talk page regarding the appearance of bias. Regards SoWhy 17:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: and SoWhy: I saw both of you debating. To remove the perception of bias, I filed at ANRFC asking for closure, but also indicating that I'm ok with not having it evaluated right away. Hasteur (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: That's the best way to go forward. Regards SoWhy 17:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

SoWhy is itching for an ANi for violation of WP:NAC just because I'm not an Admin. I went to WP:ANRFC to file after a week and ran into very clear instruction #1 which I referenced in my close. The bias is all SoWhy's who seems to hope dozens kf editors will come late to the party to outvote the changes. Legacypac (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Let's not make statements like that. It doesn't help AGF and civil discourse. It's not the end of the world wikipedia if this doesn't get addressed immediately. Hasteur (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: (edit conflict) I would have reverted any admin doing the same thing, although I doubt any would have made such an edit. Your assumption that my actions are biased by my opinion in the RFC is precisely the same as what others may think of your close of said RFC, e.g. that you just did it to prevent others from coming later and opposing. As I said before, I merely disagreed that this is a case described in WP:ANRFC #1. That I think changes to widely accepted standard[s] need to be made after assessment by uninvolved editors stems from WP:TALKFIRST I mentioned above which, unlike the instructions at WP:ANRFC, is actually a policy. Regards SoWhy 18:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The claim that a 42 Support 12 Oppose consensus is not reasonably clear stretches my AGF. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I would like to clarify some things: WP:CONSENSUS does not really have to do anything with numbers. So, hypothetical RfC with this tally could be closed as no consensus under some circumstances. For example some plain "per the above" !votes don't really have any weigh. And changes to policies normally require clear consensus. So I agree, you should really AGF. (SoWhy did as well while reverting) --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, WP:ANRFC states that uninvolved editors should close "where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Off course it's not only about numbers but no reasonable close would go against over 75% support. SoWhy claimed an involved editor should not close - yet as an involved editor they reopened. If someone does not like a close the correct thing to do is seek to overturn it in the approprite venue. Legacypac (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

What a reasonable closer would do is for those uninvolved reasonable closers to decide, no? Either we are both wrong or no one is. Saying you were allowed to close it but I wasn't allowed to revert you does not work. I merely restored the status quo, which is usually agreed can be done (cf. WP:BRD). Again, I did it not just because you were involved but because (as Pawnkingthree notes above) the very reasons you cited in favor of your close do not apply when "there are wiki-wide implications". Imho, any change to the speedy deletion policy can be summed up as such. Regards SoWhy 18:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I support the reverts there, separately by A2soup and SoWhy. --Izno (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, that is not how you challenge a close. In any event, the path of least resistance is to wait for an uninvolved closer to close with support for the change (which will clearly happen - the consensus is quite clear). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is merely an information page. WP:PROPOSAL is policy. And policy says "Ending a discussion requires careful evaluation of the responses to determine the consensus. This does not require the intervention of an administrator, but may be done by any sufficiently experienced independent editor (an impartial editor not involved in the discussion) who is familiar with all of the policies and guidelines that relate to the proposal." (emphasis added) I think you and I know I am usually one to follow the rules more strictly than others (it has been mentioned once or twice in a recent discussion) but even I don't believe a close that clearly contradicts the aforementioned policy has to be formally challenged. Again, I am not saying the outcome was necessarily wrong but that changing policies needs to be the result of consensus as determined by uninvolved editors to safeguard that it is not seen as one editor making changes in favor of their stated preferences. Regards SoWhy 19:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

SoWhy reverted both my RfC close and my edits to CSD13 with zero contact or discussion (until after the reverts) in violation of [7] policy and has refused to WP:ADMINACCT except for the unbelievable assertion the consensus is not clear. There is no wikiwide implications. This impacts only if we use G13 or Mfd on some subset of about 6000 pages in a current backlog. Nothing about my close was secret or underhanded for I even posted about it at AN and there is no urgent need to reopen the discussion to prevent some catastrophic event. If there is actual objections to my close other then that I am not an Admin, a policy based Close Review at AN would be most appropriate. In the interest of not having an ANi about SoWhy's breach of policy I've requested that an uninvolved Admin review the close and if they find the same conclusion, they restore it. Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

BRD might apply to the actual CSD change but that is not contested. I put a lot of thought into rewlrding it to concisely state what it needs to say. We don't even need a RfC to reword a CSD, just make a change and see if it sticks. It's a stretch to say the "Good practices" wording under WP:PROPOSALS, which may or may not even apply to a CSD change, trumps the clear on point wording at Requests for Closures. Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, I have neither made any comments about the content of your close nor have I justified reverting it on you not being an admin. I'm sad to see that you continue to claim otherwise without any evidence. Any change to CSD has wiki-wide implications because it does not only affect the pages currently existing but all future pages and may well influence the way drafts are created in the first place. I maintain that the close was irregular because you (as an involved editor, not as an non-admin) made it and it would have been equally irregular if I or anyone opposing the proposal would have made it. Btw, since you now see that multiple people agree that you shouldn't have done it, can we just drop it? Nothing useful will come of further claiming you were right and I was wrong. Regards SoWhy 19:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Several of your statements and your quoting of policy are wrong. Nothing good will come of an Admin snubbing policy amd procedure so openly. Use the proper procedure if you want to challenge the close. Maybe I should not have done the close, but having studyed the policy and thinking about it for several days while waiting for the discussion to slow (not stop) I determined my close would be within policy and I wanted a first crack at rewording CSDG13 itself. You did not have time to refresh yourself on policy, did not discuss your concerns with me or maybe even consider how your Admin action would offend me before reverting. Shame on you. There is no big rush here. Legacypac (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not act as an admin but as an editor and I believe I acted according to policy and not out of spite against you or anyone else, despite your assumptions to the contrary. And you admitting that you wanted to make the close to reword the criterion based on your interpretation of consensus strengthens my point that your close might appear to be based on your personal opinions on the matter. If you still truly believe my actions were violating policy, you know where WP:ANI is. Regards SoWhy 20:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

please stop reprasing what I say in ways that are not correct to my meaning. As you may or may not have noticed in your hasty revert CSDG13 already repeated itself and needs a fairly substantial rewording to remain (or get more) concise during this change. There is no ambiguity about what types of pages it applies too or possible benefit to me by imposing my suggested wording. I only want the community to get the benefit of my thinking on how to reach conciseness.Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Also since only an Admin is permitted to overturn a close, your assertion you did not act as an Admin is interesting. Legacypac (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can overturn a non-admin close. Where did you get the idea only an admin could? Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Inflexibility

You know I lived in Germany for 18 years? I had a great time there and I miss a lot of it. I left just a month or two before the wall came down (that's what - 28 years ago?). There was a joke, said by Germans about themselves; it went something like this: Deutsche Friedhöfe sind voll von Fahrern, die im Recht waren. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Less a joke than a pretty accurate description (it translates to "German cemeteries are full of drivers who were in the right" for all those talk page stalkers too lazy to pull up Google Translate). It will probably surprise you to hear that I am actually a pretty relaxed driver, who for example - uncharacteristically for a German - frequently yields his right of way to allow a smoother flow of traffic for everyone. But that's probably because I'm half-Italian

Didn't know you lived in Germany, though. Where exactly if I may ask? Regards SoWhy 17:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Niedersachsen (Hannover, Celle, Nienburg, Bergen-Hohne), then Berlin for many years in a street right in front the wall a few hundred yards from Genzübergang Invalidenstr. and only a 30 min walk to the TU and the HDK.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

your assistance please...

You deleted Talk:Marisa Lazo, as the talk page of deleted page.

Could you please email me a copy of this talk page?

I believe it is the first forum where I interacted with CommotioCerebri. I have a recollection that this is the first place I tried to explain to CC that the civil expression of disagreement is not a personal attack.

It's possible that my recollection is wrong: (1) that I was genuinely uncivil there, and I don't remember; (2) or that my explanation was insulting, and I don't remember; (3) that I merely thought I left an explanation as to why civil disagreement should not be considered a personal attack, but my browser crashed, or I was called away, before I hit save, or something like that.

I'd really like to know.

CC has made just 23 edits, so far -- at least under that wiki-ID. 18 of those edits are either excisions of material I contributed, or discussions of my contributions. I did warn them that focussing on one particular contributor's efforts was generally frowned upon.

On Talk:Marisa Lazo CC defended the edits of an IP contributor. I am pretty sure I specifically asked CC whether they made the IP edits. I can't remember now whether they ignored my question, or specifically denied being the IP, or perhaps merely implied they didn't make the IP edits.

I'd like to check what they wrote, as they did acknowledge, on someone else's talk page, that they had recently transitioned from making their edits under IP addresses, to using a named ID. I've edited on other, non-WMF wikis, like the Citizendium, which do not allow edits from IP contributors, and they have a marked increase in civility and decrease in vandalism. I certainly welcome any contributor to transition from IP contributions to named contributions. But I think anyone making this transition has a definite obligation to own up, if asked. We don't want any discussion where a single person is expressing one view, to look like multiple individuals hold that view, because they weighed in, using multiple IDs, or a named ID and and an IP address.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. Check your inbox. Regards SoWhy 08:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of Tubefilter and the deletion discussion for Steven Suptic

SoWhy: You declined the speedy deletion of Steven Suptic, citing that Tubefilter "could pass as a reliable source." That article currently has an AfD discussion here. Would you be able to provide evidence that Suptic meets the notability requirements to have an article? You said that "Tubefilter might pass as a RS in this day and age, needs more discussion." Since you appear to be somewhat invested in the topic, could you to take the time to contribute to the discussion there? Thanks. Clbsfn (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Clbsfn: Sorry, I am not really invested in the topic. I merely declined to speedy delete it as WP:A7 because it might be a reliable source and thus the topic needs more discussion. If you wish to invite commentary on whether Tubefilter is a reliable source, you might want to try posting to WP:RSN. Regards SoWhy 08:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

help needed

Hello! I would like to ask you a favor. I have replied at AN/Requests for closure that I will close a specific RfC but an unexpected problem has occurred. My PC is damaged so I have to edit using mobile, but it can't open this very section in edit mode (maybe due to its size). I however have the template with the statement ready in my userspace. Would you mind if I asked you to subst it at the RfC?? ( using this permalink at summary of course). The RfC is at talk:Donald Trump ( the one for the use of "liar" and "lies" and the closure here --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)