User talk:Lourdes

Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851 scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Van Diemen's Land v Port Phillip, 1851 has been scheduled as today's featured article for 11 February 2018. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 11, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Ealdgyth. Hope you're doing well. Thank you for the note. I had already updated the proposed blurb. Will look into the article once again. Warmly, Lourdes 19:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations on this! Although TFA day can sometimes be stressful; I'm never sure whether it's better to have a lot of people reading it and lots of interest, or for it to pass quietly without drama. Sarastro (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Sarastro1, hello. It's always such a pleasure to see the talk page notification mention that you've left a message. How have you been doing? My love and wishes of the new year for you and your family. Thank you so much for the congratulations. But let me be absolutely honest – the day you reached out to me offering to lead this article's development and the FA lessons I learnt from you thereon, are more cherished by me than the article coming on the main page. I don't deserve these congratulations – you do, as always. Thank you once again. I'll drop in by to chat one of these days. Again, ❤️ and new year wishes. Most warmly, Lourdes 01:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sarastro1! Yay! :):):) Lourdes 04:44, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for "the first first-class cricket match to take place in Australia, although that is more of a quirk of history as the concept of such games is rather anachronistic. However, it was a grand occasion and the first cricket game between two colonies/states in Australia."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

That's for you Sarastro. Thank you Gerda, on both our behalf. Lourdes 14:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't around much for TFA day. Life is scarily busy at the moment! But it seemed to pass without too much carnage. Congratulations again, and you do deserve them. The article wouldn't have happened without you and your research. Sarastro (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you :) Lourdes 07:31, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Good luck

I was very happy to see your RfA! I had been meaning to email encouraging you to throw your hat in the ring: you’re more than capable of advanced twinkle use . Anyway, best of luck. Also, always will be good to have another SWAT member. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Tony :) Lourdes 03:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

All the best!

I hope your RfA would be successful this time and wish you all the very best for it. Dial911 (talk) 03:56, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Dial. I hope so too. Warmly, Lourdes 04:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Good luck

..and well done. I won't echo my supporting vote too much, but the humility and ability to accept criticism is what's going to make you a great admin - TNT^❤ 09:20, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks There'sNoTime, your words are too kind at the RfA. Lourdes 09:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Best of luck!

Glad to see another throw their hat in the ring! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Amorymeltzer; I hope I at least get the hat back, at the end of all this :) Good to see your question. Lourdes 13:09, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

And​ thanks for the absolutely lovely words of support. Couldn't have got more or asked for more. Lourdes 13:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Congrats. I think your hat got lost so you won't be getting it back, but perhaps your new one will suffice? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Amory; you're the best. Lourdes 03:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Signature code

Hi there. I noticed you use

<small>'''[[User talk:Lourdes|<span style="color:black">Lourdes]]</span>'''</small>

as your signature. This seems problematic because due to the placement of the tags, the span-tag closes after the a-tag. It should actually be nested. Alternatives could be:

'''[[User talk:Lourdes|<span style="color:black"><small>Lourdes</small></span>]]''' which produces Lourdes

or

<b style="color:black">[[User talk:Lourdes|<small>Lourdes</small>]]</b> which produces Lourdes

The latter is shorter but provides a stronger signature on this page because of the way the software bolds self-links. The first alternative produces the same output as your current signature but keeps the code correctly nested and within the link. Regards SoWhy 08:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

SoWhy, noted and changed promptly. Thanks, Lourdes 04:33, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Recognition

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		Two things I've learned are that a) Admins come in a number of varieties. There is not a one-size fits all model. b) On many issues, good editors can disagree and it doesn't make sense to turn those disagreements into fights because we're all on the same side, really. Your comment really struck me. Although I still agree with the substance of my disagreement, upon reading your comment I instantly regretted what I had said. I honestly wish you the best of luck being an admin. Wikipedia benefits from your efforts here. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

• ❤️ Lourdes 04:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations

Thank you for stepping forward to serve the project in new ways. Have a safe trip. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:05, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328. Thank you for supporting too. Lourdes 07:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I got quite a laugh from that!

Shitpot Fry here to say that I laughed out loud over that, and blushed a little too! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha. You're a good sport.​Lourdes 03:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Your request for adminship

With 207 supporters, Lourdes' request for adminship is the first to succeed in 2018 (image courtesy of Linguist111).

Greetings Lourdes, I have closed your request for adminship as successful. Congratulations for both your successful nomination and for your place on WP:RFX200 - an impressive feat! As always, the administrators' reading list is worth reading and the new admin help pages are most certainly available if you feel that you might require some practice with the tools in a safe environment prior to applying them elsewhere on the project. Good luck! Acalamari 02:51, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks.​Sorry for the resulting drama, Lourdes

Congrats, Lourdes! First (and hopefully not only) successful RFA of 2018. Best of luck with your new tools - don't hesitate to ask me anything GAB^gab 02:53, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Your question was a killer at the RfA.​I loved answering it. Thanks GAB for that and for this message. Lourdes

Indeed, welcome to SWAT. Good place to be :) Also (as above), should you need any help with advanced Twinkle, feel free to ask, but I'm sure you'll figure it out fine. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• I love the SWAT acronym :)​I'll surely reach out to you, GAB or other admins for assistance. Thanks Tony, Lourdes

Congrats on your promotion! Lepricavark (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for supporting it Lepricavark. Lourdes

Yes, you'll make a great admin! Congratulations! Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• When I saw a support from Jjjjjjdddddd and then immediately from Hhhhhkohhhhh, I was wondering what's up :D Thanks Jjjjjjdddddd. Lourdes

• Felicitations on your passing RfA. Take it slow for the first few days while you figure out where all the new buttons are and what they do. And feel free to ask any of us for help. I think you will be a great asset to the team. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Yes Ad Orientem, I shall surely do that. I'm thankful to you all for accepting my RfA. Thank you Ad, Lourdes

Congratulations, Lourdes! :-) Rehman 13:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Rehman. Lourdes

Congratulation for having your tools removed in record time! Seriously though, congratulations for a well-run RfA. This place will be better because you have to tools. I'm glad you stepped up to serve. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:56, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

:D 78.26, I'm not sure they're going to give it back to me. Lourdes

They probably won't unless you ask.... Please do. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:17, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I shall, after this initial phase becomes calmer​:) Lourdes 02:39, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I join my fellow Wikipedians to congratulate you for passing the RFA. Wikipedia needs more people like you holding the mop.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 16:48, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you Jetstreamer. I appreciate your support in the RfA and your query too. Lourdes 03:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations on becoming 2018's first new admin! Linguist^unEins^uno 19:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• As someone said on this page Linguist111, hopefully not the only one. Thank you for your query in the RfA and your subsequent support. Lourdes 03:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Missed out on the BN drama, although I thought the request was highly unusual but it was understandable after reading the explanation. My sentiment is along the lines with Beeblebrox. Congratulations, and take care. Alex Shih (talk) 05:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Alex, I hope I don't end up creating any more like that...Phew :) Lourdes 07:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Congrats!!!S Philbrick(Talk) 18:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, it's so nice to hear again from you. Hope your travels were comfortable and the family doing well too. Congratulations again to you too for the great news. Love for the same, Lourdes 02:45, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Congrats, Lourdes! You'll make a great admin. Centibyte^(talk) 13:58, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Centibyte. Warmly, Lourdes 14:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Congrats! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• The ed17, the beer's on me! Thank you :) Lourdes 03:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Congratulations for your successful RfA! Its great to see new admins coming in! L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:03, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

• L293D, thank you for the tasty brownie :) Lourdes 03:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

ping

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Are you online RIGHT NOW? — xaosflux ^Talk 04:32, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

See section below. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A beer for you!

Here's a celebratory pint for you! Congratulations on your RfA passing! TheSandDoctor (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll share the pint with you TheSandDoctor. Thanks once more. Lourdes

--TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Your request at BN

I've processed the request you made at BN, when you return please start a new section on BN for re-flagging. Please note, there is a standard 24-hour hold from request to fulfillment. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Xaosflux. I'll follow that. Lourdes 03:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

"welcome back"! — xaosflux ^Talk 17:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

:D Thank you Xao Lourdes 18:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Reviewing

Hi,
Congrats on the A-ship!!

I've just started doing some new page reviewing; I've done only half-a-dozen or so, (I'm a bit cautious about it) but I noticed that the feed contains unreviewed pages from 10 years back, or longer. I've reviewed some but then thought there might be a reason why there are a number of ancient entries? I'm concerned I must be missing something! Case in point is Kanam which had been loitering since July 2006. It's a very short article but 'typical' of many articles about the Sub-Continent. Any observations (about that or 'generally')? Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the congrats Eagleash.

You're right; there are some ancient entries that have remained unreviewed for ages. One reason is because reviewers (for example, like me) skip articles that we're unsure of (for example, on topics that are niche), hoping someone else might review them later – and they simply remain unreviewed for long. Till last year, the page notice at the top of Special:NewPages contained the legend: "Please consider patrolling pages from the back of the unpatrolled backlog." for all editors. Since January this year, the legend is shown only to editors who have the new page reviewer right.

Over time, I've developed a detrimental habit of only checking the recent entries – I expect other reviewers might have this habit too (the pressures of raking up a good CSD rate, etc). Anyway, this is an issue that doesn't have any fix, except in the plain old way, which is to go back to the end of the list and start from there – which is what you seem to be doing nicely. Hope this provides you some basis.

Other than this, how have you been doing? Hope all is well. Warmly, Lourdes 18:14, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to reply before this but somehow it got pushed down the list of things to do! Thanks for encouragement. So far no-one has bobbed up and said 'you're doing it all wrong'. One thing I've discovered about the very old pages is that they are sometimes the subject of a very slow, very long, edit war. They get merged or redirected, someone reverts and they end up on the review list again. (That's what happened with Kanam...there was also an ancient merge disc. at the TP which I closed...actually before I realised what had happened!) I also find myself copy-editing or fixing articles when I come to review them and I'm not sure I should be doing that at that time. All helps though I suppose.

All is not too bad at the moment but RL was a bit of a nuisance a lot of last year. I really should get back into creating actual content again sometime! Best regards, Eagleash (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

That's an additional information for me, about the old pages in the review. I'll keep my eye out for such articles too. My best wishes as always Eagleash. Warmly, Lourdes 01:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your apology. :) I harbor no grudge and wish you a successful adminship! Acalamari 19:04, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Acalamari. Lourdes 06:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Violation

Administrator Lourdes, I come to you with a question. I have recently transformed WestJet Encore, an old article that was a little longer than a stub to a 5x expansion and DYK appearing in about 30 hours. Recently, there was an edit by User:WestJet. Note that the user's name is not Westjet, but WestJet.

WP:USERNAME is a Wikipedia policy, not a suggestion or a guideline. Part of the policy, stated in a box, reads "Usernames that only contain the names of companies, organizations, websites, musical groups or bands, teams, or public internet channels or creative groups are not allowed".

I want to look the other way and ignore the violation of Wikipedia policy. What should be done? Leave it alone and only selectively enforce policy, which may be seen as unfair? Or instruct the user to change username? I sort of like the WestJet name. As you can see, I put a lot of effort into the WestJet Encore article. Can you provide guidance and take over the matter? Or should the policy be changed?

Vanguard10 (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I've requested the username be blocked; I've warned the user to adhere to our paid editing policy and conflict of interest guidelines. If there's any further promotional edit, feel free to talk me up. Lourdes 06:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Vanguard10, the account has been blocked as of right now. The user has been advised to choose a username that adheres to our username policy and to make edits only after they follow our paid editing policy and conflict of interest guidelines. Thanks, Lourdes 14:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your guidance. I'm not a newbie but still learn things about WP. A few days ago, someone pointed out a better way or correct way to do things in DYK. I hope that even a soft block does not create anger.

One problem I see with the policy is that it makes people go into hiding. If the user was being paid (not clear cut now) but edited under the user name of Eastprop (east not west, prop not jet) or Lardes2 (not Lourdes), nobody would suspect a corporate link (if there was one). Maybe it might be better to ask people to just admit or disclose a link. Vanguard10 (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Vanguard10, our paid editing policy does precisely that. But irrespective of the policy, a username that promotes the name of a business is unacceptable; and that is why the soft block instead of a hard block. A soft block allows them to change the user name; a hard block doesn't allow that. Lourdes 01:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Vanguard10, just so you know, I'm not sour or anything (the unblocking was fairly quick) but I'd thought I'd clarify in case you couldn't see the discussion on my talk page. I don't represent WS, I am also not paid by them. According to Lourdes, I've made about six edits over a decade to WestJet related articles. Most of which were style or vandalism related (like capitalizing Westjet to WestJet). I started editing as an IP account, but realized that making a user name was better. I did this in like 2006, and I would have been like 16-17 and in high school. I don't know what WP:USERNAME was like back then, but I didn't think it would be an issue almost ten years later. I also had the WestJet username on YouTube before WestJet actually took it over. So, hopefully that helps you out a bit. MattBinYYC (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Matt, I've replied on your talk page. Thanks, Lourdes 02:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Your adminship

Hello, as the person who does most of the maintaining at Wikipedia:Former administrators, could I ask when you plan to request your adminship be reinstated? I was planning not to add your adminship to the lists and wait until it was re-added to record it because (a) adding a user is work that is avoidable when adminship will be re-added again soon, and (b) I have no idea how to classify your situation. There have been some subsequent desysopped admins for activity which is why I'm asking now. If it were up to me, I'd prefer that you get your adminship reinstated as soon as possible. Thanks! Graham87 09:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello Graham87, I've seen you around and admire the work you do here. I'll be requesting reinstatement at the BN at the earliest possible, but due to a combination of time-consuming RL work and some lined-up performances, I can't put a finger on which date exactly would it be. I don't know what should be the next step for you, but if you wish to add my name to the former admin list, please do so. Once more, all my admiration for your work here. Lourdes 09:38, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your kind words. Since I have time at this moment, and you're not certain when exactly you'll be able to request resysopping, I think I'll deal with the desysopped admins list now. I'll add you under the "resigned" section, because that would most closely match your situation. Graham87 11:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I, Tony the Marine, present you, User:Lourdes with your adminship. Pilot her well!

• "Despite the fact that you have the same name as my dear sister, I will support you" :D You're too good! Thanks Tony. Lourdes 03:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Belated congratulations!

I've just returned from a lengthy WikiBreak so missed your RfA in its entirety - I just want to say congratulations, you've come a long way in the last year or so and I have every confidence in you as an administrator! OcarinaOfTime (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

OcarinaOfTime, I'm grateful for your kind words. Thank you. Most warmly, Lourdes 02:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations!

...to you WP's newest admin. Best Regards, Barbara ✐  ✉ 23:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Barbara (WVS). Appreciate your wishes, Lourdes 02:46, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

It's time for User:Lourdes/PageCuration to go into the Wikipedia namespace

Hi Lourdes! I have a few things I'd like to discuss with you regarding the PageCuration script you made. First off, it can't go without saying that it's an awesome script and it's great that you created it! My observations however, show that it's become a widely-used tool and that it's become part of the Page Curation workflow because of how it's discussed and on the guideline pages how it links users to use the tool. Because of this, I think that it's more appropriate to have this page hosted on the Wikipedia namespace now instead of your userspace - it just keeps the use of out different namespaces consistent. I wanted to ask you about it first, but I was hoping to move the page to Wikipedia:PageCuration script (or something like that) and point all of the links to the script to point to there.

On another note: while I was checking out the script in-depth, I noticed that User:Lourdes/PageCuration didn't have much of an edit history at all (just two revisions), and also found out that the full edit history is located instead at User:Lourdes/tempPageCuration as a deleted page. We need to undelete that page and merge the edit histories of this script to your live one in order to keep the histories public and in one place. Did you make a copy and paste move? Why / how did this become fragmented? Either way, this needs to be resolved and that edit history put back together ;-).

I like to ask if you'd be okay with me if I got all of this done for you, or if you had any objections to doing this and (if so), why. The script page should be moved to the Wikipedia namespace to be consistent with the others, and that edit history should not be fragmented and deleted like it is now - that we actually need to fix.

Let me know when you can; I'm thinking about fixing the edit history in the meantime just to get that done - but I'll wait for a bit just in case ;-). Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to tell you this earlier: Congratulations are in order for the successful RFA promotion. Your RFA did a hell of a lot better than mine did... lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

That's why I hate you.​ :D Thanks for the congrats. It's great to see you on my talk. Hope you're doing well and all is going well in life Oshwah. With the Page Curation thing, sure, go ahead and do what you think is best – I'm okay with what you've said. Just one small note. With respect to your history merge thing, I might be wrong but I suspect you might have got the wrong page; in other words, there's the documentation page which you have linked above, but you might be interested more in the actual js page. I mean, it doesn't make much sense to hist merge the doc page – but I'll go by your discretion. If there's anything else, please do mention. Most warmly, Lourdes 06:47, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

What can I say? You're not alone - a lot of people hate me here... just look at how often people trash my talk page ;-). Okay, perfect - thanks for the information. I'll look at the .js page, the documentation page, and take another look at the deleted history at User:Lourdes/tempPageCuration and make sure any fragments or issues are merged and fixed (if applicable). And I'll get this moved over to it's new home! Thanks for the approval - I'll get this all taken care of for you. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 06:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Great. Thanks, Lourdes 06:55, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Alright! It's all done! The edit history that was deleted were of the documentation page, so I restored the page, merged the edit histories, and moved it to Wikipedia:PageCuration script. The location of the actual .js javascript (User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js) won't be moved, as doing so would break the import function call that everyone is told to put in their .js pages (since they won't find anything anymore), and hence the script would stop working for everyone on Wikipedia. We just wanted to move the documentation page over so that it's in the same namespace as the others... you know... consistency, yadda yadda, and all that stuff.... ;-). Thanks for letting me fix this up - we're all set to go and everything is much better now :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounds super. Thanks once more, Lourdes 07:24, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, you could move the script and leave a importScript-code at the old location, so the current transclusions won't be affected. But that's a matter of preference really, many scripts still reside in userspace after all. Regards SoWhy 16:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clickair destinations (2nd nomination)

I see that you closed this as a non-admin closure, but you are an admin. Even if you are on a break? I think you get to close as an admin now. Prince of Thieves (talk) 14:41, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I think it's matter of hats...if one is wearing one's admin hat, it is an administrative closure; if one is wearing one's non-admin hat, it has to be a otherwise. Unless one get's one's hats mixed up of course, and then it becomes a bad hat. Or, as the Murphy's law law of hats would have it: if one wears a sou'wester, the sun comes out, and if one wears one's Kiss Me Quick hat, it will turn cats and dogs... *hic* Cheers! —SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 15:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Not her fault — the code in User:Evad37/XFDcloser detects whether the user is part of the sysop user group, and makes its determination based on that. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah the wonders of automated help :) Which is curious because I use one of those tools that highlights admin signatures and Lourdes lights up as an admin, that's how I noticed. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Prince, I keep changing my signature, so the aqua background might give you that impression (check out my new one with a new font at the end of this statement). Amory and Serial are right by the way. Apart from the fact that Serial is absolutely mad when he's drunk :D Lourdes 16:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Just happens to be the admin highlight color! Appropriate I think :) I will say the new font looks better. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Lourdes 16:05, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

EFH

Hi Lourdes, to follow up on Wikipedia:Edit_filter_noticeboard - if you really want to get an WP:EFH flag for viewing we can continue that section - it has a normal 3 day discussion time; or an WP:EFM flag with a 7 day discussion time. Just asking for your +sysop flag back would solve everything as well and would be done in 24 hours, despite any of the discussions regarding your initial flag/defalg scenario I don't envision any actionable opposition will be met and encourage you to go this route. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 14:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I fully support you just taking your sysop-flag finaly, gosh darnit! Regards SoWhy 14:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Xaosflux, thanks for enquiring about the efh thing; that's very gracious of you. I think I'll take the ef rights along with the sysop rights when I go soon enough to BN rather than continue at the WP:EFN. Once more, thanks for asking. Lourdes 14:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, yes SoWhy. Will do soon enough. Hope you're doing well, Lourdes 14:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, clearly not soon enough for the rest of us! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

As I write, we're almost a quarter of the way into 2018 and have de facto recruited no admins. I recently made this comment (in relation to the end of ACTRIAL) that if we don't do something, we're going to need more admins at NPP, but admins do not grow on trees. I would highly recommend running full-speed to WP:BN and saying "NPP is suffering from post-ACTRIAL junk; may I have the tools back please". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes of course Ritchie, Amory. I would necessarily do that; just require some more time to sort out RL work and will be on it right after that.❤️ Lourdes 03:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, but what you are really missing out on is being able to see gems like Ianism, and the other redlinks at User_talk:TonyBallioni#Recent_A7s. Whatever anyone says in their RfA, Special:Undelete is the best part of the bundle. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh my, that's two decades of delight. Be sure to read both versions, your life will never be the same. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 17:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Title conflict, we're going to need to disambiguate that in the deleted archives :D — xaosflux ^Talk 19:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

:) :) I know what you guys are up to Lourdes 02:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

One day you will get to learn the deep secrets of what some trolls think other people taste like too! — xaosflux ^Talk 03:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Lourdes. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Indian Premier League seasons and results – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 6. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Giants2008. That's lovely. I would have preferred 7 April if it is possible. Warmly, Lourdes 00:26, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, April 7 is not possible. TFL runs only on Mondays and Fridays, and April 7 is a Saturday. The 6th is the closest available date to the one you requested, which is why I chose it. Giants2008 (Talk) 12:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@sedrouL, why was 7 April particularly significant? (Can't see a reference to it the article itself, that's all.) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Serial, the tourney starts on that day. Giants2008, 6 April is a great choice too. Thanks, Lourdes 16:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks and update

• Giants2008, I'm pleased to see the number of per day views for the TFL cross 17000 views, that too one day prior to the actual listing. It's right now listed on the main page and I'm intrigued to see how much will be the jump in views, because of this listing. Interesting, the TFA on the main page has reached around 300 views per day, one day prior to the listing. The past TFL reached 1000 views or so on the day of the listing. The Charlize Theron filmography listed before that reached 16000 views on the day of the TFL listing. So I guess there is anyway a generally growing interest in the tournament in India, which is leading to the high number of views for this TFL. Anyway, just thought of sharing and thanking you once again. By the by Serial Number 54129, this year I'm going to watch this tournament on the net to understand it better. Lourdes 04:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
• Just a note: The TFL reached 26,800 views on the day of the listing and 69,360 views one day later. Probably the highest views for any TFLs in a long time. (yay!) Lourdes 03:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
• Giants2008, another nice record for our archives of most viewed lists: this list got 247,417 views on 27 May 2018. Take that :D 16:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC) Lourdes

Seriously

Go be an admin and do admin things. We didn't spend several man-hours on figuring out whether you would be okay with the bit for you to have an extended period of self doubt. There's work to be done. Go do it. GMG^talk 00:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I have concluded if Lourdes does not want to be an admin, there's no point forcing her at (metaphorical) gunpoint, so I have been looking for other new recruits elsewhere to help control the post-ACTRIAL flow of CSDable pages. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm.... what about groveling? I'm a good groveler. GMG^talk 12:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Look, I'll tell you what, you know your nice friend, that maligned force of nature, the international Wikiterrorist known as Mr. Fuzzybottom - let's put him forward. How are you for this Sunday? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Eh. He's way too aggressive with A7s. I mean, I understand his perspective, but nominating Hope and Empathy for CSD is just crossing the line. GMG^talk 12:22, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but he might write Practical Unix Terrorism and make a DYK out of it. [1]. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:27, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: That suggestion had me going there for a moment. Even had me checking contribs and being momentarily confused...before chuckling as I realized the joke and re-read your post here. Good one Ritchie333, you had me going there for a second . Had me going at the DYK part too --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• I mean, thanks for the thanks. But the only thing we expect you to do is to use whatever access you have to help us make more knowledge more free for more people. If you weren't doing that already we wouldn't' have given you extra buttons to begin with. You don't have to be right all the time, and you never will be, but being right isn't the point. The point is that this is damned well sure gonna be the encyclopedia that my daughter will read. So for her sake, help us make it better together because now you can in a way that you couldn't before. GMG^talk 23:05, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes I will do so GMG. In good time once my RL work is over, which is hindering my logging in too. Lourdes 16:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Your close on ANI board

It's not about the content dispute it's about editing etiquette, the admin in question doesn't give enough time or a fair account to other users. It doesn't matter who is admin or not, I wanted a reply that treats another as an equal with respect instead of ripping up an article one that works with it, can you please review your outcome. Govvy (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I have reviewed the same. Warmly, Lourdes 03:57, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Can't hide in the opposes

Grab that banhammer, Lourdes! Chris Troutman (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I've fallen, and need you to pick me up! — xaosflux ^Talk 17:25, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I can still find you and tell you to get thee to WP:BN, Lourdes with a 0. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:43, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

+1 TonyBallioni (talk) 01:27, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(watching) I could give two good reasons why this repeated refrain may not be best for the project. Two possible outcomes—neither one wanted. i) Lourdes does indeed go to BN...to hand in the tools for good, and we lose an admin. ii) Lourdes does indeed go to BN, gets the tools back...and then proceeds to never make an admin action for the rest of their career, and we effectively lose an admin. Or—call it iii)— we remind ourselves that WP:NODEADLINE applies catholically, and that que sera, sera...and someday ("O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!") we might just find ourselves a new and improved, all-blocking, all-protecting, all-mopping Lourdes...at our service. Ymmv of course. Happy days! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:57, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Disagree. I mean, yeah, I get it. Still, she is by all accounts a good sysop, and if she closes just one AfD as delete, the project will be improved. Honestly, I just wanted to mock her for the link thing some more. Also, you're doing links wrong. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

As long as I'm here, I might as well comment on your RfA question. I do that myself sometimes, and I think my rationale (self-deprecating, inject some humor) is similar to GMG's, but it wasn't ever made clear to me that it might be confusing for others. At this point I'm not certain it will convince anyone to oppose or support (we've got bigger fish to fry), but I do think it's helpful to understand the editor and I do appreciate it being noted. I'll certainly try for fewer of them, or at least make it clear I'm talking about myself. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Amory, your views are always quite appreciated by me. I understand the point you're making about my query. With respect to the else above, Chris, Tony, Amory, of course, I will go to BN and regain the tools in good time. There's no doubt about it. And Serial, you'll always be my fav for backing me up :) L0URDES 17:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

On a side note, will you settle on a signature anytime soon? Regards SoWhy 12:26, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

:D Lourdes 16:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Y'know, maybe all WP:SWAT members should use SoWhy's signature style :) Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:55, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

That would require my changing from the default, which isn't happening TonyBallioni (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Can't hide in the supports either. This may be GoldenRing part 2, but what we really need is you to don the One Ring Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

But if Tolkein had said, "Actually, lads, that bling to bind you is really WP:NOBIGDEAL"—it wouldn't have been much of a story would it...although it certainly would have increased your baggage allowance if you ever wanted to take as hand-luggage though. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 12:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Huh, LORDes, you managed to thank me at the exact same time of me coming up with the idiotic idea of adding this:

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified have already passed RfA! You personify an administrator without tools, and have gained my support; already!

Having already performed a miracle, you are eminently qualified be Our Lord Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh my, Galobtter thank you again. I'll be there on the battlefronts soon enough and look forward to interact with my friends and other admin colleagues on administrative work. In good time, as I've mentioned earlier. ❤️ and a penny for your cheer. I_0urclc5 19:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

So I actually found that "Adman" page the other day, and it's not at all what I expected. I thought'd be about how sysops without the perms are sysops, and had intended to clean it up and send it your way, but alas. Although I do believe I've discovered an inconsistency in our policies as a result! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Signature again

Hi Lourdes, I just wanted to point out that for those of us using Preferences | Gadgets | Appearance | Strike out usernames that have been blocked, the latest iteration of your signature makes it look as if you could be blocked. This may cause well-wishers a slight perturbation: Noyster (talk), 12:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(watching) Well,at least there's no danger of them blocking themselves at the mo  :) :D —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Noyster. I've just been messing around. Now that you know I'm not blocked, if you do want me to remove the strike through, please do tell. And hey Serial, how've you been? Lourdes 17:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:SIGLINK you should, however, keep a link to your user/user talk pageGalobtter (pingó mió) 17:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Sup Lourdes. All good: notwithstanding a healthy dose of SNAFU of course. Got that FA eventually. That was certainly an experience :) talking of which—if I can pick your brains—you know tech stuff, heh? Hope your well there. Bloody annoying atm: the schools have broken up for a week, which means, on the one hand, a bit of peace and quiet from that school over the road, but on the other, the curry house has stopped doing its weekly discount. WP:BALLS :D Take care! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations on John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk. Wow! And best of luck with the rest :D I_0urclc5 04:43, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

It waz OK  :) But don't suppose you know an answer to this, do you? —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 15:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Serial, unfortunately nope. I'm not that savvy with the coordinate map thing. Lourdes 04:20, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

And why are you not running for the RfA now? Lourdes

Hey Lourdes, to reiterate: per WP:SIGLINK you must have a link to either your user page or user talk page in your signature, especially as a quasi-admin. If you don't, you may end up actually blocked, which nobody would want (not a threat, just a joke about how this thread started). Your recent edit on RfA didn't have a link - but your edit immediately before did. Are you manually adding your signature instead of using the four-tilde trick? Because that would explain a lot of things. ansh666 18:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey ansh, you're right. Enough of messing around. Will fix the signature. Thanks, Lourdes, 18:57, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

No need to stop the fun, just be a bit more careful. Cheers, ansh666 20:34, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Definitely agree on needing more humor, but you won't like the rest of this

If only RfAs here too follow the path of the WikiVoyage one. Maybe, but I'll note that he actually did janitorial and sysop-related work at Wikivoyage before that RfA, so in some sense that was the more appropriate case. I don't think the community suddenly shifted to "autropatrolled+10k edits+3 years without a block" but, if we have, so be it. Beyond humor, there is one thing I think we could start working on to be more like that Wikivoyage one, and it should be pretty easy. His RfA there was really an afterthought; it seems a bureaucrat just unilaterally flipped the bit 24 hours before the RfA even opened. I don't know if we can go that far, but I can think of at least one user who could have a 'crat flip the bit just as easily. Perhaps you know her? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 10:22, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha. This is a typical Game Theory situation for both of us. Let me put the ball in your court. For a moment, let's keep the arguments of whys and why nots aside. If PBS' RfA is closed as successful, you'll have one new admin whom you did not support. But if you reconsider your oppose, you'll have two admins, one whom you support and one whom you don't. Come on, choose well Amory. I_0urclc5 14:07, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Let me break the game theory; I will agree to switch to oppose if Amory switches to support. (no backsies, Lourdes )Galobtter (pingó mió) 14:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Super Mario Effect

Re: User talk:Andrevan#Good faith unblock suggestion

In videogames, The Super Mario Effect is as follows: When Mario gets a power up that turns him into Super Mario, a mistake that would normally kill him as ordinary Mario simply turns him from Super Mario to ordinary Mario, then he has to make another mistake to be killed. Likewise when an administrator does something that would get an ordinary editor blocked, he is desysopped, turning him into an ordinary editor. Then he has to do something else wrong to be actually blocked.

In my opinion administrators should not get special treatment. Some want to punish them more lightly, and some want to punish them more heavily, but I think all editors should be treated the same if the offenses are the same. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Guy, yes, I understand. That's a fair point (and a nice analogy). Warmly, Lourdes

Guy, I concur with you. I think it's getting better though. On the other hand, have you ever been in the army? When a private soldier does something bad, he gets jankers for a day or two. An NCO doing the same thing just gets busted down one stripe (but it takes longer than a 'standard offer' to get it back). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I was very high on the lottery for the Vietnam draft when the war ended, so I just missed it. I had the usual attitude towards being drafted. Years later when my opinions changed and I tried to enlist, they wouldn't take me because by that time I was considered a key employee in the defense industry. So zero time in the Army, years of time working directly with military units on various bases (not always US bases) in exotic locations.

Ideally, if the private has to clean the latrines for a week for a particular offense, an NCO or a 4-star general should have to do the same whether or not he gets demoted. That's pretty much how they do it in the Japan ground self defense force. I am beginning to see this here; admins getting short blocks for minor infractions that would have resulted in the same short block for anyone else. I wonder if my wide publicizing of the Super Mario effect had anything to do with that. (The actual effect is described at Super Mario#mushrooms; if anyone knows who first applied it to Wikipedia admins, I would like to start giving credit for that insightful observation). --Guy Macon (talk) 14:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry...

...if my block log disappointed you. It disappoints me too. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you're one of the most mature editors here BMK. I've seen your comments around and although I disagree with your points of view in many places, including RfAs, I would tend to think you're RfA material. Of course, your block log was highly unexpected (honestly) as I couldn't have expected you to be edit warring. Am sure sometimes situations arise that lead us to such reverts. Would really like you to be careful going on and not get blocked again (but don't take this as any advice from me to you – because knowing your experience, you obviously understand). Love, Lourdes 10:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Amita Chopra

Hi, I have just tried to clean up Amita Chapra. I notice that it went to AfD in late 2016 and that you cleaned it up at that time. The notability criteria was deemed to have been met then because she held a post with ministerial rank but in fact none of the sources in place at the point of your completing the clean verified that claim. I realise it is ages ago but am I missing something? Aside from mirrors, I cannot find anything to substantiate it and she seems to be little more than a party apparatchik who sometimes gets her name in the news, of which there are many hundreds in every India state for each party (and you wouldn't like to imagine how many parties there are!) - Sitush (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Sitush, hope you are well. I've added a ref. Do check it out. Thanks, Lourdes

Hi, in 10 or 11 years of intensive editing of India-related articles, I have never seen that source before. I don't think it is reliable and am pretty sure that they have copied the info from us. Minor plagiarism of this type is extremely common in the Indian media, even with huge newspapers such as The Times of India. I have even searched Hindi government records, such as are available online, and can find no support for it. - Sitush (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Actually, The Print has only existed since August 2017 - see here. That itself makes it dubious because it has not had time to build a reputation. - Sitush (talk) 03:53, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, I don't agree. Founded by two apparently most respected editors Shekhar Gupta and Barkha Dutt,[2] with investments from Ratan Tata and Nandan Nilekani[3], with The Print's news and opinion appearing in other reliable sources,[4][5] it seems quite reliable. If you believe that they've copied info from us, that makes a better case than considering The Print as unreliable. Your call. Lourdes

If you visit RSN you will see a current thread about the WikiJournal of Science. That, too, has some notable people involved with it but the consensus is going towards "not reliable" because it is too new. I am 95% sure that if I took this to people like RegentsPark and SpacemanSpiff then they would say it isn't good enough, especially bearing in mind the number of sources that just refer to her as a member. The consequence of that, of course, is that the article would almost certainly be deleted because she is nowhere near meeting NPOLITICIAN and, indeed, pretty much every source we have is a soundbite relating to the same event (again, the Indian media often copy from each other without attribution). - Sitush (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Then take the source to WP:RSN and get more feedback. My suggestion would be that you would have a better chance invoking WP:EXCEPTIONAL, saying that a "cabinet minister" is an exceptional claim and needs to be backed by multiple reliable sources; and there is only one source that claims the same. If someone lands up with more reliable sources, you can take a call then. Lourdes 04:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a fair point about EXCEPTIONAL although it is rather astonishing that there most definitely are virtually no online sources that mention it in either language, let alone ones that are not mirrors etc. I really don't want to be bothered with RSN unless absolutely necessary because India stuff rarely gets much input there other than from people such as myself and the aforementioned. Might be easier just to return it to AfD and see what people find there - I think they were misled last time due to the appalling quality of the article at the time of nomination and the use of non-English sources. I know you tried to fix the problems during the AfD - it is just one of those things. Will have a think and a last dig around, although I'm not hopeful because I've even search phrases such as "madhya pradesh state womens commission" and the best I get is "member". - Sitush (talk) 04:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher)W.r.t the Indian politico-legal scenario, I'm pretty sure that the puffed statement meant that by the virtue of her position as the Chairperson of the State Women's Commission, she is eligible to the same entitlements as that of a cabinet-minister.Given how powerful the post is, I don't doubt that but trying to establish notability by bringing her under the purview of NPOL, (as a cabinet-minister), is IMHO way exaggerative.∯WBG^converse 04:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I have opened a thread at the article talk page, which is what I should have done in the first place, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

No problems. Lourdes 07:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Borderline case

Hello Lourdes. You've commented in one of the complaints currently open at WP:AN3. You're an admin it appears you are not directly involved in the dispute. If you had to close the case yourself and propose a rationale for your action, I'm curious how you would state it. For me it's still in a gray area, but obviously something's going on and I wish there were an admin action I could take that could be easily explained and justified. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You're right. I would probably tell the user that we're letting him off this time and that they should then calm down, discuss before they revert, and not get antagonistic all around. (The response from the user would probably be, "No, block me!" I don't know what to do then). Lourdes 17:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

RfA

Lourdes, if possible, could you kindly support me for Administratorship. fredericknoronha (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey Frederick, please first read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. Also, please give me an idea of what admin areas you are interested in contributing to, and what might be your past experience in these areas? Thanks, Lourdes 17:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Lordes I need your help

you said I could add a reference to Botswana getting transgender rights in 2017 on the 2017 in LGBT rights but I can't because this other user named Mathglot said this when I asked them if I could do this: No, you cannot use Wikipedia as a source in a footnote on another page. Since anyone can edit it, Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source, for the purpose of referencing. Lordes can you help me please? Sphinxmystery (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I can. Tell me if you still need assistance. Sorry for delaying this reply; RL work and stuff, you see. Lourdes 06:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Love you Gerda, you're the precious one. Lourdes 06:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

OpenGL User Interface Library

The OpenGL User Interface Library redirect you have created makes no sense due to WP:SURPRISE. Please resolve. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Djm, do clarify please on why the redirect "makes no sense"; and also where would you suggest the redirect should be pointed to? Warmly, Lourdes 15:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• There is no mention of the subject of the redirect on the target, so no redirect can make any sense. Which is why I said keep. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

(watching) But no-one else did, hence the redirect  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 16:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• @SerialNumber54129. I am not finding this funny and that comment is not helpful. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: I don't make many jokes around here, and that certainly was not one of them. I was merely trying to break the truth to you in as gentle a way as possible. But for clarity, I will rephrase: The article was redirected because the closing editor weighed the comments made and concluded that there was an editorial consensus that the page had insufficient notability to bear a stand-alone article and that the community had decided, per WP:ATD-R, to redirect the page. Three editors, !voting "Redirect", based their !votes on policies and pages (WP:N, WP:V and WP:UNDUE spring to mind); one—you—did not, and was unable to persuade the community to agree with you. You might have better luck arguing for a re-opening based on the fact that one of the editors has subsequently been CU-blocked; but I doubt it would materially affect the outcome, and indeed, doing so might attract more editors to the AfD and reach an even more unassailable result.

I hope that clears things up. Take care and happy editing! —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 17:54, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• @SerialNumber54129. Unless you are in hidden conversions with Lourdes it is impossible for you to know Lourdes' mind, though I appreciate you you may well have interpreted Lourdes' actions correctly. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Lourdes passed an RfA owing to—at least—two things: an impeccable understanding of consensus, and a demonstratable and proven track-record to illustrate it—really, I was merely suggesting that with that close, we received an object lesson in it. Anyway, no worries. I imagine we've caused them enough Scary Scary 'New Message' Alerts for one evening  :) All the best, —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 18:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

• RfA is irrelevant ... we have a redirect that appears stupid due to WP:SURPRISE. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

"Non-admin closure"

Hi Lourdes. I hope you're doing well. I see you've been active around admin-related areas recently, and you've annotated a few of your closures with "non-admin closure". Well, that's not really the case, is it? If I recall, the reason you requested removal of your administrator tools was because you were planning on traveling somewhere with limited Internet access. Now that you seem to have a stable Internet connection, as well as interest in participating in admin areas, how about taking up that mop? It is still up to you, of course, but given your recent contributions, I'm a little confused as to why you haven't done so already. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Mz7, hope you're doing well. True, I've been marking "non-admin" given the status of not being an admin. However, my current one week of free time – which gives me some opportunity to dabble into closing AfDs – will soon come to an end. Once I'm through with my RL shows and performances of the season, I'll be surely taking up the mop. Thank you and good wishes, Lourdes 20:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah gotcha. See you around, Mz7 (talk) 23:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Subject-specific guidelines

Wikipedia:Subject-specific guidelines, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Subject-specific guidelines and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Subject-specific guidelines during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. � (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Case Files: Ravenhearst Unlocked

Hi, I don't participated and i would like to say my arguments for deleting or keep. 1. The game was already in a discussion of deletion, and it have no consensus Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Case Files: Key to Ravenhearst so the current discussion is useless and have reason and must be merge with the previous one. 2. Sure is not notable because wikipedia hate the Casual Playing, so for them no casual games are notables and the sources for this kind of game is not reliable. But for the Casual Playing sphere his notability is medium but not great. 3. I understand that the more recents games are not concidared notables, but the 9 firsts games are totally notables. 4. There is not notable because the of the prejudice of casual playing in the world.72.10.128.43 (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

• Can you join the discussion on the Talk:Mystery Case Files page please?Frapril (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
• (talk page stalker) The deletion discussion ran for seven days and no less than four editors agreed that the content of the article should be merged, which it was. Lourdes correctly closed the discussion, and I am not convinced that it should be reopened. Mz7 (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Bizarre close?

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of web browser engines (typography support) as "no consensus" – despite the fact that there was not a SINGLE !vote for deletion in the relisted debate! And to make matters worse, you stated "no prejudice against an early re-nomination"...

The discussion should have been closed as either WP:SNOW keep, or just keep, in either case with no prejudice to a merge discussion on the talk page. And if anything, you should have cautioned AGAINST renomination of a page that nobody seems to actually want deleted! Modernponderer (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) On the contrary, there were policy-based !votes to keep delete, draftify, and merge: that does not in any possible way = a keep result (and as for a SNOW keep-!). FYI. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129, I am not sure why you decided to restate what I had already written, just with a strange interpretation. The only possible result was "keep" because there were no delete !votes. The process is articles for deletion, not articles for discussion! Modernponderer (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting today's deliberate mistake  ;) now see above for my answer to your original question. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:42, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

User:Serial Number 54129, there were no !votes to delete in the discussion I'm referring to. There is one delete !vote on the page, but it is the result of an improper relisting: after a WP:DRV decision to relist, you are supposed to create a new deletion discussion – old ones should never be reopened.

Furthermore, even if there had been an actual delete !vote the result should still have been "keep", just definitely without the "snow" part in that case. Modernponderer (talk) 12:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hi Moderponderer, hope you're doing well. Let me address your query in the perspective of each !vote given sequentially post the deletion review re-listing, as listed below:

1. "Draftify" by Hut 8.5, has been supported by a valid reasoning, and I have considered the same appropriately.
2. "Speedy keep and move" by you has no policy or guideline basis; I have given the !vote appropriately less weight.
3. "Keep and fix" by DGG, has no policy or guideline basis; I have given the !vote appropriately less weight.
4. "Merge" by Pmffl; there are personal opinions given on why the editor wishes the article to be merged; so I have combined the editor's original nomination reasoning and the additional reasoning to accept the !vote.
5. "Keep but encourage merging" by SmokeyJoe has no policy or guideline basis; I have given the !vote appropriately less weight.
6. "Merge" by SMcCandlish; no policy or guideline basis; I have given the !vote appropriately less weight.
7. "Keep" by Newslinger has policy and guideline support; I have given the !vote appropriately higher weight.

Therefore, in my view, considering "draftify", "merge", "keep", I see no consensus emerging as to what actually should be done with the article. No prejudice against the renomination is to give credence to the draftify and merge opinions of the two editors whose !vote I've accorded higher weight. Feel free to ask me for further clarification. Thanks, Lourdes 11:57, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm definitely asking for further clarification, as I would like to know why in the world you have decided that almost all of the keep !votes have "no policy or guideline basis". Modernponderer (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello Modernponderer. Because they have no policy or guideline basis... I can further link to our policies and guidelines, but that would seem patronising, and I really don't want it to look like that. Thanks, Lourdes 12:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You have essentially discarded !votes claiming that they have "no policy or guideline basis", and then refused to explain what you mean by that... and the vast majority of said !votes just happened to be on one side of the debate. Very well, that is your prerogative as the discussion closer.

But you should be aware that the discussion is subject to being bounced back to DRV again now, should I (or another editor) decide to do so. So you may have just created significant, and entirely unnecessary, work for your fellow Wikipedia editors. Modernponderer (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok. You should then read up on our policies and guidelines, because I feel you have very less idea of how Afds work; and you'll be wasting time taking this to drv (there's no deletion that has happened here); or maybe you meant something else but in your hurry wrote drv. Whichever way, please read up first. Thanks, Lourdes 12:40, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe just a lack of experience? Up until that point, five AfD votes in as many years tells, I guess. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 13:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

You might want to recheck the badly broken tool there, User:Serial Number 54129 – as it doesn't seem to handle username changes, it's worthless for any sort of statistical analysis. Next time please check a user's contributions manually before writing something like this.

And overall I don't appreciate the borderline personal attacks from both of you, as this has nothing to do with me and everything to do with how that discussion was closed. Modernponderer (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Um. It kind of has something to do with: Your interpretation of the close. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 19:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Serial here. There is no borderline or otherwise personal attack. You asked for clarification; and the summary response is that your understanding of Afds is limited and not enough to even understand the clarifications being provided. That said, I'm ready to support you in improving your understanding of Afds and how they work. Lourdes 04:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

^{( Buttinsky)} @Modernponderer: You argue that a possible outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of web browser engines (typography support) was "WP:SNOW keep", but that is not the case. Potential snow keeps are typically discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grass skirt, where there is an overwhelming consensus to keep, often, as here, after only a few days. (The discussion is interesting for other reasons.) I agree with you that the appending of NPASR is perhaps unusual insofar there was a clear consensus to retain the material in one way or the other either as a stand-alone article or merged into one or more targets, and should any dispute arise, such a dispute is solved through a MERGEPROP rather than a new AFD.

That being said, XFD discussions that are closed as "no consensus" default to "keep", please see Wikipedia:What "no consensus" means, so, are there good reasons to take this AFD to DRV for the second time and try to get the closure overturned to "keep"? Would mentioning that the (dear) closer overlooks Excelsiorsbanjo's unbolded keep !vote make a difference or is it cancelled out by the fact that SMcCandlish's merge !vote was guideline based (WP:CONTENTFORK) and therefore should have been given more weight? What about the unusual situation that nominator changes their mind and !votes "merge" without posting a formal WP:WITHDRAWN? Your own "Speedy keep" vote is misunderstood: speedy keep is only possible (a) within the normal minimum discussion period of 168-hours, see WP:SCLOSE, if (b) one of the SKRITS apply; here we are well beyond 168 hours and no criterion applies. "Speedy keep" should not be confused with "Strong keep" which in itself is a !vote of some debate, please see WP:AIYR.

The article has already been moved as you suggested to Comparison of browser engines (typography support) by Newslinger, and Excelsiorsbanjo has made an update in Special:Diff/852090702/852474076. Isn't time best spend with continuing that work? All the best, Sam Sailor 16:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Ross Mathews

About [6]. Cfred is the mediator? How can , or how are you saying it doesnt matter. He looked over the edits. He said what was the problems. That specific info had to be in the citation. He made sure of that. I then added to it with more sources( parade, as well as a hometown Washington newspaper). I am going through episodes of "Hello Ross" so I may cite specific episodes of where he says/shared what as Cfed said the spific info has to be in that source. 2601:155:8300:1659:F551:3B17:414B:8B8F (talk) 12:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Take this discussion to the talk page of the article. Don't cross WP:3RR. You'll be blocked for a longer time than you were blocked just a couple of days ago. Lourdes 12:47, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about usage of blockquotes in citations.

Hello!

You reverted my revert about blockquotes in the citations of Rent control in the United States. (Just saying this so you remember who I am.)

In the article: Costa–Hawkins Rental Housing Act, an editor new to the article went through and removed all of the blockquotes in citations; there were 9 sets total, 3 put in by me (because as I said before, I think it makes it easier to read on mouse-over), and 6 put in by the original author of the article. (Most if not all was written by one editor, Elfelix ). That editor used citation blockquotes in some places and not in many others. Is it acceptable/normal practice to use blockquotes to accentuate text you WANT people to read in the references? I was under the impression that people don't read the references sections, and only see them when they mouse-over to look at the source of specific statements.

If this IS the norm, than I would think new editors (to an article) shouldn't be deleting citation blockquotes en masse like that, without understanding why the original author chose to accentuate those quotes.

Your opinion/advice? Thanks!! ---- Avatar317 (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

Slight correction: The new editor removed ALL blockquotes, including the ones in the text section, as well as the ones in the citations. ----Avatar317 (talk) 22:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Avatar317

If it's okay, could we take this discussion to the talk page of the Rent Control article? Warmly, Lourdes 10:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

For the great answer to Q8 at Kudpung's admin survey. Enterprisey (talk!) 02:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• :D Thank you Enterprisey Lourdes 02:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Thank you!

I have responded to your comment in the Candace Owens talk page! Paul "The Wall" (talk) 12:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Great to see

that you've re-taken your bit:-) Happy mopping! ∯WBG^converse 09:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Blades...don't she just look good in blue  :) ——SerialNumber54129 09:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

WBG, Serial, thanks so much :) Lourdes 10:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Status confusion

Am I only cleared for patrolling new pages or can I approve an old Draft:David M. Lubin? He holds what appears to be a named chair, satisfying WP:ACADEMIC criterion 5 (and that was in the article when it was rejected previously). Another question: When deciding notability, do we just go by what's in the article or what we can dig up? Because I've found a number of significant reviews of his work, e.g. in The Washington Post, Literary Review, and various other publications, which would satisfy WP:AUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Clarityfiend See WP:AFCPURPOSE; anything that would be used to determine notability at AfD you should use in accepting, so those reviews are relevant. (also, have you got the AfC helper script installed yet? once you've installed that you should be able to easily accept that draft) Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Clarityfiend hi and hope you're doing well. As your name has been added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants, you are allowed to approve drafts. The new page reviewing right was additionally provided to you. And yes, what Galobtter says is right. Please ask again if anything is unclear. Thanks for volunteering at the Afc desk. Warmly, Lourdes, 08:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"Final discussion before blocking you"

Hi, Lourdes. I see you have given a user an ultimatum at the 3RR noticeboard.[7] Good idea, IMO. But I strongly advise you to put the warning on their user talkpage as well. There may come a point when you need to be able to show they were aware of it. (Always safest to don the admin braces as well as the admin belt.) Regards, Bishonen | talk 15:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC).

Absolutely Bishonen. Hope you're doing well. Lourdes 18:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

You know, even with quotes around the heading, one still has to do a double take when seeing it one's watch-list...:) Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm one for the startling edit summary, I admit it. It might have been more fun to leave out the quotes. Bishonen | talk 21:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC).

:D Lourdes 02:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Firemonger

The Firemonger Article is at AfD and the talk page appears deleted by yourself 13 Oct 2018 (If I understand correctly). I'm not sure has has happened but should the talk page be restored. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

• I had another look. I suspect you did an soft delete close on 13th october, realised with 3 mins 168 hours had not run ... and then undone it within 3 mins but didn't restore the talk page. (NB: Prefernce/Gadgets/Appearance/ .. ticking Add a clock to the personal toolbar that displays the current time in UTC and provides a link to purge the current page ... can help. ). OK ... one of those things but please restore the talk page .. thanks... Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, and yes. Lourdes 07:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

You want to close this?

Hello Lourdes, and thanks for your work at WP:AN3. Do you want to close the dispute about Lady Amelia Windsor? Juanpumpchump hasn't clearly accepted all your conditions, but it's now too late for them to self-revert anyway. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure EdJohnston, done. Lourdes 18:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Problems with counting?

Hi, cant you count whos closer to 3rr, or who started reverting that Fiat joke? I canr believe wikipedia is full of kids , who get some satisfaction with old automaker jokes -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Typ932, hope you're doing well. I've left a reply at the noticeboard. Warmly, Lourdes 01:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Im doing ok, there was no concensus that we add jokes automobile articles, you didnt said why you ddint warn mr Davey who start that edit warring , he start reverting it at 1st place, there was no concensus that we start adding jokes to encyclopedic articles , I started discussion AGAIN in WP:Automobiles about the case, if we allow one joke there will be more jokes to other car manufacturer articles also -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello again, Why I did not warn Davey and only warned you was because you were the one repeatedly removing sourced material without initiating discussions on the talk page, despite multiple editors telling you otherwise; this is considered disruptive. Anyway, as discussions have started at the talk page of the article in question, you should continue discussing this issue there. Ping me for any administrative assistance you may need. Cheers, Lourdes 06:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion and some others aswell we dont need jokes in wikipedia sourced or not , this is enclopedia not fun book, thats why I removed them straight away, and because this same thing has happened maybe 5 times earlier, they will be removed in future , some people just dont like those blatant attacks, there is much more wise ways to tell if some had quality problmes or something else problems than write jokes about it. For example is there jokes Volkswagen emissions scandal  ?, no because we try to keep wikipedia as no-nonsense encyclopedia. There is other media for those jokes -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure. You should discuss this at the relevant talk page. Thanks, Lourdes 06:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

This is relevant because this concerns your behaviour (read that heading) not the the actual article problem, because you warn wrong people, if you are administaror (or something else) you should know certain things, and not warning people based on your own opionion or without knowing whole story. thanks-->Typ932 ^T·C 06:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I repeat my warning to you again. If you attempt to remove that material once more without reaching consensus on the talk page, you will be blocked immediately by me. So please tread very carefully from hereon. If you believe my view is inaccurate, you're free to ask for a review of this at WP:ANI. Warmly, Lourdes 06:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I warn you again dont be stupid , someone else will revert it thats for sure , there is quite many people who dont like jokes or blatant attacks in wikipedia . btw your behaviour isnt suitable for admin, its not nice to threaten people, without any reason, I think we dont need anymore discussion about this case, but this should give you something to think what you are doing right or wrong. bye -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I act stupidly many a time, still working on that. My behaviour as an admin too is not something that should be benchmarked. I agree with you that it's not nice to threaten people without any reason; of course, in your case the reason for the warning is quite clear, and it's for your betterment that you should not edit disruptively again. Cheers again, and happy editing (constructively), Lourdes 07:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Warning is clear? wtf you are talking about? Im not so stupid you think Iam, bye again , maybe you dont need add nothing more here (no need to answer those questions) .. -->Typ932 ^T·C 07:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Keep calm, carry on. Once again, good bye, Lourdes 07:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For your calm and patient approach to everything - I don't quite know how you can be so patient but it's certainly a good trait to have and you should be proud! :), Thanks again and thanks for all of your contributions to the Encyclopedia :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 02:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hey Davey2010, waddup! I clearly have to learn a lot more in patience (one of my, perhaps my only, role model in patient discourse is Drmies). Thanks for the lovely barnstar. Lourdes 02:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Me, patience??? Drmies (talk) 02:21, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
    • :D I meant patients. You discourse patients regularly, don't ya Lourdes 02:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Kate Fischer article

FYI : Majikalex32, who you just blocked for 24 hours, is now continuing to edit war on this article and refusing to engage in any sensible discussion. It is very tiresome. Can you please look into this. Thanks. Yahboo (talk) 13:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

please check the 'talk' page. it is me who its trying to discuss this rationally. I am being bullied and both Curdle and Yahboo are refusing to let me add to the article at all.... even if the material I add is brief, to the point, accurate and referenced correctly. yet Curdle seems to be able to totally re-edit the page at will.. but I need 'consensus'? the consensus needs to be democratic, not just irrational..'we are not going to let you edit' mentality/. I welcome an independent moderators intervention. Majikalex32 (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The second edit this user made on their return was to the Kate Fisher article, where they began reinstating their previous edits, without discussion and against previous consensus. They then appeared at the BLP Noticeboard, (where I had posted trying to gain input about the article from other editors) where they began again implying I have a COI, and again attempted to refactor my comments. They have been repeatedly edit warring on the article itself and repeating their personal attacks there.Curdle (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• EdJohnston is leading the discussions on the editor's talk page. So we'll see how that goes. Thanks, Lourdes 18:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

so why are you deleting my entries on the wiki page about this persons recent arrests by Police Curdle? wy do you not think this should be included on her bio? just curious as to your reasoning behind this. the entries I have written are short. accurate. clear. well referenced. curious as to why you want them removed? this is why I wonder if you have some form of COI... you seem to just want this page to be squeaky clean. I tried to discuss with you tonight on the talk page. you couldn't even give me a valid reason you just come to places like this and accuse me of abuse or edit warring. well if my entries are valid leave them alone. stop editing them and deleting them and I wont have to revert them. you are just trying to get me blocked or banned again so you can once again have complete ownership of the page. Majikalex32 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

User:Majikalex32 if you continue to dramatize your unawareness of Wikipedia policy on multiple pages, including User:Lourdes' talk page, you may get blocked as a general nuisance. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I am a new(wish) editor. how are you meant to learn about these things unless you are told or shown. I posed a reasonable question above. its not meant to be a dramatisation. Majikalex32 (talk) 18:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet block evasion on Kate Fischer

Hello again. Can you please have a look at the recent editing of this page. It seems very obvious that a very "new" editor is our repeatedly disruptive friend seeking to avoid his/her current block. There is also apparent sockpuppet editing on the talkpage by another very "new" editor. It is all a bit ridiculous. Thanks. Yahboo (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Cc to EdJohnston Yahboo (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Yahboo, as the warning on your talk page says, you'll be blocked very soon if you don't stop edit warring. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong in a content dispute; if you continue your reverts once more in such a manner as you did today, I will block you. Consider this your final warning. Lourdes 13:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

And for your concerns, I've started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Majikalex32. Lourdes 13:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a great pity that you didn't take this matter seriously and take action against the blatant sockpuppetry instead of leaving a warning on my page for responsibly reverting the sockpuppet's edits. Not good enough from an administrator. Yahboo (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello Yahboo. I've opened a sock investigation, as mentioned above. Let the checkusers check this out. I need a confirmation from you that you will not cross 3RR again and you will not edit war again (I'm surprised you did), failing which, I will block you to prevent disruption. Thanks, Lourdes 14:04, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunate that you ignored the warning here. I've blocked you for 24 hours. Please desist from edit warring once you are unblocked. Thanks, Lourdes 14:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou for very much for starting the SPI- Should have done it myself but never having done one before I was a bit intimidated. And also thanks for the warning last night, it reminded me I was being a bit of an idiot and getting a bit carried away, and that it would be a good idea to stop editing and refuse to engage when suspiciously socklike new users started pinging me from the talkpage today. Sorry to take up more of your time and talkpage, but just for future reference, if any dodgy looking new users/IPs start turning up at a later date and start making the same edits (this editor has disappeared then come back after a few weeks twice already and they seem rather determined), what should I do? should I request another SPI ?..I get worried that if I am wrong, it could be considered a bit bitey Curdle (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm watching the article. If you see any suspicious sock like activity, come here; I'll take care of it. Thanks, Lourdes 18:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Lourdes, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal

• There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
• Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!

Project updates

• ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
• There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.

New scripts

• User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js^(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit War

Lourdes, Hi, I think it is the first time we've spoken. There is an edit war at Jeff Jacobson (CEO), I was going to post it...scope_creep (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey scope_creep, the ip continued edit warring after multiple warnings. I've blocked the IP editor for 24 hours for now. Hope you're doing well, Lourdes 02:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Lourdes, better now I think.:8-) Thanks very much. That land of nod was calling tonight. Still is. To sleep, perchance to dream, To meet the dawn that's on the way. Night.scope_creep (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

​Imma silly girl to be a fool; you didn't play the golden rule; cause once you're done with one world; there's another waiting there.... Lourdes 19:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

You found it. I thought it was my wee secret. I'm showing my age. ;) scope_creep (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

And I mine ;) Lourdes 04:46, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

Consider this your formal warning for edit warring at Template:Centralized discussion. I personally suggest that you tone down your crusade against the phrase "fuck off" for the time being as it is seriously clouding your judgment. Nihlus 14:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nihlus, you should probably join the talk page discussions that I initiated and discuss the issue there. That might be procedurally more appropriate than investing your time here. Warmly, Lourdes 14:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I already have. However, whether or not I join in the discussion in a time frame quick enough for you is irrelevant to your edit warring. Nihlus 14:19, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

That probably is evidence of your ignorance of procedural matters, where participating in discussions is primary to resolve editorial disputes. Irrespective, glad you finally joined discussions instead of blindly reverting. Please do continue discussions on the respective talk page. Thanks, Lourdes 14:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Excuse you? I get off of my computer for the night and you want to turn around and call me ignorant for not responding to you fast enough? Are you serious? This is laughable coming from an "administrator" edit warring before discussing and while a discussion is taking place. Nihlus 14:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)