Jump to content

User talk:RL0919: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
B-bot (talk | contribs)
Bots
514,065 edits
Notification that File:Roy Brewer Life magazine 1946.jpg is orphaned and will be deleted in seven days per WP:CSD#F5
No edit summary
Line 363: Line 363:


Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --[[User:B-bot|B-bot]] ([[User talk:B-bot|talk]]) 03:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you.<!-- Template:Di-orphaned fair use-notice --> --[[User:B-bot|B-bot]] ([[User talk:B-bot|talk]]) 03:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

== Deletion review for [[:List of hip hop albums considered to be influential]] ==
An editor has asked for [[Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of hip hop albums considered to be influential|'''a deletion review''']] of [[:List of hip hop albums considered to be influential]]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRVNote --> [[Special:Contributions/78.18.237.81|78.18.237.81]] ([[User talk:78.18.237.81|talk]]) 03:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:39, 11 February 2022

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Village of Charlie Creek

Would you reconsider the delete on this one? Community center, plus a church, plus a public utility all by the name Charlie Creek. Thank YouSuper (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Supercopone: The attributes you describe are not considered indicators of notability under our guidelines for notability of geographic features or under our general notability guideline. Additionally, you made this argument during the deletion discussion, and the other participants apparently did not consider it to be a good reason to keep the article. So unfortunately, no, I do not see a reason to change my close of this discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 04:39, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links I will read up on them.Super (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Henry Farrow

Was wondering if you would be willing to include this in the Hoax Museum collection, which can only be done with admin tools. Instructions at Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia in the collapse green box, looks pretty easy. If you add it to Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/William Henry Farrow I should be able to do the rest adding to the table on the main page. Would also like to determine the exact article creation date. -- GreenC 04:51, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenC: Removed my original reply, which I realized was not entirely accurate. I will add the entry. --RL0919 (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added to list. --RL0919 (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Now part of the museum permanent collection. -- GreenC 06:29, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for User:Prahlad balaji/Userboxes/coder

An editor has asked for a deletion review of User:Prahlad balaji/Userboxes/coder. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More useless .js pages I missed in the batch MfD

Looks like I missed a couple in that MfD. I have also found:

I can't believe how many of these there are -- and the ones that are just an empty comment aren't even the same. Was he sitting down to type all of these out individually? And why? jp×g 22:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to motives, but the above list is cleared. --RL0919 (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A t-shirt!
A token of thanks
Hi RL0919! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk ~~~~~
A snowflake!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glenn Spears

I would like to contest this deletion. The table that lists the sources was incomplete, and I believe inaccurate. I think this deletion discussion should have more time. Semper fi! FieldMarine (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not inclined to re-open a discussion that produced several days of speculation about the possibility of GNG-supporting sources without proving any – the opportunity to provide them was there. As an alternative, if you want to work on the article as a draft to find and add GNG-supporting sources without any particular deadline, I'm happy to restore it for that (in userspace or draftspace). --RL0919 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was actually still working on the article when it was deleted, and did not get a chance to respond yet because I was still adding sources. I believe there was an additional 15 sources added since the table was created evaluating the sources, so it was incomplete. Also, IMHO, I do not believe all the evaluations on the table were accurate, and planned on challenging some and getting clarification on others. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have some questions for you. In your experience, as a rule of thumb, how many GNG sources are generally required for an article to meet the Keep requirement? Also, for a source to be considered GNG, how much coverage on the subject should there be? Is there some guidance or discussion on this somewhere? Thanks, Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The only official minimum number of sources is "multiple sources", meaning more than one. Unofficially, many editors recommend the approach outlined in the WP:THREE essay. As to the amount of coverage, I assume you mean how much content is needed in a specific source for it to be "significant coverage" as discussed in WP:GNG. This is unfortunately harder to quantify, and there are several essays about it with varying advice, none of which I can point to as especially popular among AfD participants. This is where the participation of editors in the discussion is especially valuable. There is also the potential complication of routine coverage being discounted, although I think this will be less likely to apply to a military officer than it would to some other subjects. Finally, an important consideration for several of the sources already discussed in this case is whether the sources are independent. Content produced by a subject's employer (in this case, the US government) would typically not be accepted as showing notability.
Anyhow, I will restore the article and relist the discussion for another week to give you a chance to bring any additional sources and arguments. --RL0919 (talk) 04:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate the help. The links are very helpful. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I had to revert your close

It's your opinion that any given rule has to be rigidly followed, period, so I consider your close a supervote. By headcount, I have 38 participants to date, only five favored a procedural close. Almost half those are admins, and none of them recommended proceduralg, let alone DID close, altho they could have. I think that says something. I know you meant well by the light given you and it's not possible to prove that you're wrong and I'm right or vice versa, but I feel strongly enough that I felt compelled to do this.

I'd let it lie. Let a thousand flowers bloom. Clearly a number of people want to debate this here, so why not let them. What a mess this has been! But making new things is messy. It'll work out, let the people have their say. Herostratus (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: As you may have already noticed, I reverted your reopening and protected the page. It is not a "supervote" to close wrong-venue discussions in accordance with the rules of the venue. People are certainly welcome to have their say about the topic, in an appropriate place. If you want to appeal my close, the process for that is also well-established. --RL0919 (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus, before you get too upset about the reclose and protection, consider this: While RL0919's close is factually incorrect - MFD does not say what the close says it does - the page appears to be morphing back to a proposal stage, which MFD does say is not applicable. Since proposal stage is where it should have been all along, at the end of the day we're at the right place - a non-deleted proposal phase page - even if the route we took to get there was messed up several times. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions regarding "Policies, guidelines and process pages" are clear enough: "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early. This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy." And for proposals: "Proposals still under discussion generally should not be nominated. If you oppose a proposal, discuss it on the policy page's discussion page." So if it is an active process page, it should not be nominated at MfD, and if it is a proposal for one, it should also not be nominated at MfD. --RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Established pages" can't possibly refer to a 2-week old process that 5-10 people developed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A panel of three uninvolved administrators closed the RfC proposing the board on 10 December 2021, declaring it successful. There were 48 editors in support. The board has been operational since 14 December 2021, with over 70 editors participating in discussions on it. Whether the implementation of it was handled well or poorly is something that can be discussed in forums intended for such discussions – which MfD is not. Anyhow, that you could describe it in the manner that you did above simply reminds me that WP:UNINVOLVED is one of our most important administration policies. --RL0919 (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mean you, RL0919, been heavily involved (and edit warring) when you protected the page, so why are you saying this? Herostratus (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guys... it is the wrong venue according to your personal interpretation. You're cherry picking quotes and you know you are. W:NOT points to WP:NOTBURO which may I remind you is a policy. That page says

Wikipedia...is not governed by statute... Although some rules may be enforced, the written rules themselves do not set accepted practice. Rather, they document already-existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policies without consideration for their principles.

So then, moving over to WP:MFD's instructions about itself. The lede (which summarizes the basic thrust of what a page is about) opens with:

Miscellany for deletion (MfD) is a place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic pages in the namespaces which aren't covered by other specialized deletion discussion areas. Items sent here are usually discussed for seven days; then they are either deleted by an administrator or kept, based on community consensus as evident from the discussion, consistent with policy, and with careful judgment of the rough consensus if required.

The first section below that has

What may be nominated for deletion here: Pages not covered by other XFD venues, including pages in these namespaces: ...Wikipedia [namespace]... [and] Any other page, that is not in article space, where there is dispute as to the correct XfD venue.

It is true that, way down below, a row in a table described as "guidelines to consider (underlining added), it says that pages to not send to MFD include "Policies, guidelines and process pages" (emphasis added; WP:XRV is indeed a process page). The detailed text then opens with "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated" (emphasis added, and note that Wikipedia:Administrative action review is labeled up top as "This is a newly created process...".) The detailed instructions then go on to say "This is not a forum for modifying or revoking policy [NB: XRV is not a policy]. Instead consider tagging the policy as {{historical}} or redirecting it somewhere." I don't think you should do either of those, but if you want to be a slave to what's written that's what's suggested.

That's way down below, on a page that (unlike NOTBURO) is not a policy page as far as I know. What thought went into writing those few words, how well-attended and cogent was the discussion that led to it, how powerful the consensus was... I don't know (could be researched). If it's taken to mean "If somebody publishes a new process, you can't MfD it. You have to either accept it, mark it as historical (silly for a brand-new page), or unilaterally blank it and redirect it [where?]", as you seem to be, my opinion is that that is not excellent or even functional and wouldn't fly anyway.

Whatever. He said, she said. This rule, that rule. You're wrong, and it happens. God knows we all are. But what we don't want to do is be wrong and then double and triple down and then protect our error. It's objectively a bad thing to do, as that is not what admin powers are for.

I mean, I too actually think the page should be kept and said so. But that means nothing. What matters is that the community gets to have its say. One way to interpret your actions is that you're being like "Discussion? I don't give a rat's ass about any discussion. I don't like this discussion, and I'm ending it, and using my extraordinary powers to shove that down your throats, and you guys'll take it and like it, capice? Now go fix some spelling errors or whatever you people do."

I'm not saying you think that, exactly, but the point is it could be taken that way, or at any rate engender that type of emotional response, and that alone is something we don't want. It is demoralizing. That is not how you nurture a volunteer organization.

Yes Floq the discussion was morphing some I guess, if you say. Discussions among human beings do. Is that bad. You don't like the way the discussion is going? Go do something else, don't be like "I suppose 35 people (and growing rapidly, and including you yourself Floq) are voting with their feet that it is worthwhile to take the time to think about this and participate, and its a quite lively and interesting and idk maybe productive discussion, but guess what? I personally don't like the trend here so I feel like throwing all that work away and making them start over somewhere else, and nobody can stop me."

The suggestion to go to WP:DRV is kind of insulting actually. You know that that takes time, a week maybe, and active discussions that are closed down that long are dead. (Anyway I've been informed that DRV is not for closes and that the correct venue for that is WP:AI.)

One more time: I'm requesting that you re-open the discussion and quickly (before it becomes moot -- its already damaged), if you would be so kind. Herostratus (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MfD is not the right place to overturn a recent RfC by deleting a process page that the RfC called for creating. MfD is also not the place to discuss the details of how to implement such a process page. Those are discussions that should be held at the relevant Wikipedia Talk page or perhaps a general forum such as the Village Pump – and such discussions are in fact happening right now. By closing the MfD, all I have done is keep the discussion out of a venue where it doesn't belong and help it go where it does belong, and that's all I was trying to do. I don't care much what the outcome is for the AARV page itself. Re-opening the MfD is not consistent with my "personal interpretation" of the MfD guidelines, and I do not see a net benefit to it even as a WP:NOTBURO or WP:IAR option, so I won't be doing that. If you want to seek the interpretations of others in the hope of resurrecting it, you are free to do that at the drama board of your choosing. But really, why, when there is what seems like more productive discussion to be had elsewhere about the substance of the matter? --RL0919 (talk) 03:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Would you mind history merging Draft:Out of Time (The Weeknd song) to Out of Time (The Weeknd song). Cheers --Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 07:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Synoman Barris: Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand this request. Looking at the deleted edits for Draft:Out of Time (The Weeknd song), there does not appear to be any meaningful history to merge. The draft was moved to mainspace, and the relevant history followed it there, leaving only deleted redirects in the history of the old draft title. --RL0919 (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I realised the history was not significant. Thank you for replying and cheers. Megan B.... It’s all coming to me till the end of time 17:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of VP discussion

A discussion you may be interested in has been opened regarding whether athletes meeting a sport-specific guideline must demonstrate GNG at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in publishing draft

Please sir/mam, help me. I want to publish my draft and I send it for review some 3 weeks ago but there is no any response by anyone. May you please check and publish my draft. I am giving you the link: [1]

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobe8q8661 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobe8q8661: I don't often review AFC submissions and the subject of the article is not my expertise, so I'm not really the best person to help you. It can take some time for a reviewer to get to a draft; 3 weeks is not an unusually long wait. Someone will review it eventually if you can wait a while longer. --RL0919 (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Average new users first article when an Ultimate Vanguard Editor who single-handedly created donald trumps wikipedia page finds the article

I believe your determination of consensus of this MfD is mistaken. From a pure numbers perspective, those who did not want to delete the article outnumbered those who did. From a reasoning perspective, five editors provided detailed reasoning for either userspace or keep, four editors provided detailed reasoning for delete, and Robert McClenon is the outlier with a "delete or userfy" vote. Below is my rough analysis, with a "(+)" beside those I deemed to have detailed reasoning instead of a simple vote. 

Move to userspace:
    ToBeFree (+)
    Skarmory 
    Hut 8.5 (+)
    
Oppose deletion:
    MarshallKe (+)
    Godsy
    Plutonical (+)
    Lallint (+)

Delete or Userfy:
    Robert McClenon (+)
    
Delete:
    Liz (+)
    Vitaium (+)
    Tamzin (+)
    Scotty Wong
    P199 (+)

MarshallKe (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarshallKe: Numbers are not the deciding factor in this case. Once it was brought out that the page was admittedly created to criticize another specific user, deletion was the position with the stronger basis in policy/guidelines. In any case, the editor in question already created a different but similar parody page in his user space. --RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for the explanation. No objection to that. MarshallKe (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 3#Pathan (film)

Hi RL0919. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathan (film) (2nd nomination). I have asked the community to restore Pathan (film) to Draft:Pathan (film) at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 3#Pathan (film). Cunard (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadhbh O'Neill

Hi, I believe that the Sadhbh O'Neill article was recommended for deletion and replaced with a redirect to an upcoming political event, in which she is due to stand. Can I ask why this was subject to deletion? This is a person of considerable note in Ireland, which plenty of political history and a lot of media coverage - both domestic and international There is no clear note on why this was subject to deletion - or why it is more helpful for Wikipedia users to land on an event page, rather than a person page — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrPaperwings (talk • contribs) 16:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrPaperwings: There is a longstanding consensus (reflected in the guideline at WP:POLITICIAN) that coverage generated by a political candidacy does not make a candidate notable. Much of this coverage is routine and does not reflect any lasting interest in the specific people involved. It is also hard to ensure the reliability and neutrality of content about otherwise non-notable candidates due to the heavy amount of spin put out for and against candidates, and the frequent conflicts of interest among those who heavily edit such articles. If you believe she was already notable prior to her candidacy, please be aware that holders of lesser local political offices (such as city councilors) are also not usually considered notable.
In any case, the back-and-forth over the redirect is not acceptable, and I have protected the page to prevent that from continuing. If you believe her notability can be demonstrated even with the issues above accounted for, you could submit the question to WP:DRV, where previously uninvolved parties can review the potential for restoring the article. (FYI to User:Sdrqaz, who mentioned me elsewhere in regard to this issue.) --RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MrPaperwings: You ask why this was subject to deletion? See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sadhbh O'Neill - it was linked on your talk page, but just 6 minutes before you posted above so you were probably busy typing already and didn't see it. PamD 18:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Roy Brewer Life magazine 1946.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Roy Brewer Life magazine 1946.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for List of hip hop albums considered to be influential

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of hip hop albums considered to be influential. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 78.18.237.81 (talk) 03:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RL0919&oldid=1071146994"