What's the appropriate forum for requesting that arbitration restrictions be removed? --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 01:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
What's the appropriate forum for requesting that arbitration restrictions be removed? --[[User:DrFleischman|Dr. Fleischman]] ([[User talk:DrFleischman|talk]]) 01:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|DrFleischman}} This sanction cannot be appealed except to the Arbitration Committee as it is not an ''editor sanction''. Per, [[WP:AC/DS]]: {{tq|Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction.}} <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a</font> ☕️]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 04:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
:{{re|DrFleischman}} (talk page stalker) The first place is with the Admin that placed the sanction, whence the need to log it on [[WP:DSLOG]] so they can be identified. If the admin doesn't agree to remove it or is unavailable, the request can be made at [[WP:AE]], [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:ANI]]. If there is a question about scope (i.e. the restriction seems overly harsh or misapplied), [[WP:ARCA]] can be used. In general, the admin is the easiest route. If it's not logged at DSLOG and not readily apparent who placed the article sanction, remove template from the article talk page and see if an admin restores it. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 03:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
:{{re|DrFleischman}} (talk page stalker) The first place is with the Admin that placed the sanction, whence the need to log it on [[WP:DSLOG]] so they can be identified. If the admin doesn't agree to remove it or is unavailable, the request can be made at [[WP:AE]], [[WP:AN]] or [[WP:ANI]]. If there is a question about scope (i.e. the restriction seems overly harsh or misapplied), [[WP:ARCA]] can be used. In general, the admin is the easiest route. If it's not logged at DSLOG and not readily apparent who placed the article sanction, remove template from the article talk page and see if an admin restores it. --[[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward|talk]]) 03:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
::{{re|DHeyward}} I do appreciate you filling the Dr in and all (although you're entirely incorrect)... but, why ''are'' you stalking my talk page? <small style="color:#999;white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:lightgrey 0.3em 0.3em 0.15em;">— [[User:Coffee|<big style="color:#ffa439">Coffee</big>]] // [[user talk:Coffee|<font color="#009900">have a</font> ☕️]] // [[Special:Contributions/Coffee|<font color="#4682b4">beans</font>]] // </small> 04:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Invitation for comment
As someone who deals with current event articles, I am soliciting comments from you on my first attempt at a Wikipedia essay: WP:DJTG/WP:HOLDYOURHORSES. I've started a section on the talk page of the essay for comments (or you can just edit the article). Having worked on current event articles and terrorism lists, I thought this essay might be useful when addressing editors who add content prematurely (e.g., labeling an even as Islamist terrorism before RS proclaim it to be so). If you have the time and energy, feel free to comment or edit on it. Cheers! EvergreenFir(talk) 04:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, @Coffee - I've seen you around here and there on Wikipedia, and you seem like a nice guy, so I thought I'd ask you about a problem I'm having. It involves the article on Migingo Island, on which there was extensive edit warring between me and IP editors in January and February. I realise now I shouldn't have continued reverting, but should've brought it to someone's attention before it got out of hand. Here we are, 50 reverts later.
Unfortunately, your fully protecting the page doesn't seem to have solved anything: none of the IPs have responded to my comments on the talk page, and their reverts nearly always come without a coherent edit summary. The edit I am making involves a few minor syntax/grammar corrections, as well as adding a figure for the island's population density (important as it's known for its huge population density). I'd just like you to check over my edit, and suggest a course of action. Thanks for your time - QuasarGt-c 16:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you imposed the discretionary sanctions on Foreign policy of Donald Trump, and an edit notice from Feb 18 is applying on this new page that MelanieN, myself, and several others had created focusing specifically on administration policies. Not sure if you also plan on applying sanctions to this article, but thought I should alert you since the edit notice is appearing now that the page is in mainspace. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBalloni: Thank you for the heads up. I've ensured the sanctions are applied to both articles. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trump RFC
Hi Coffee. I started an RFC today regarding whether the lead should say whether Trump is currently the president. I subsequently added a bit of clarification below the RFC question. Then another editor added a further note which in my view is false and misleading:
“
ALSO NOTE: Editors arriving here, PLEASE INDICATE which WORD or PHRASE you want in the sentence. "current," "incumbent," "serving as,"or "any." BE SPECIFIC. Otherwise, there's no point in having this RfC.
”
Several editors already !voted without indicating a specific word or phrase, and I am worried that the extra note that I just quoted will lead their votes to being discounted by the closer, and also worried that the closer will find no consensus unless most voters state a single specific word or phrase that they all prefer. The whole point of the RFC is to take one step at a time, and only determine now whether the lead should somehow say that the president is Trump. We can have a survey after the RFC about how to do it. What can be done about this misleading note that has been added by User:SW3 5DL? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Coffee, Anythingyouwant disregarded the previous discussion that was nearing consensus on this sentence, Donald John Trump is the 45th, and current, President of the United States. There was some discussion of an RfC, but the wording was to be specific. Then Anythingyouwant, put up this RfC which asks "Should the article say Donald Trump is the current president." I thought, as apparently do the other editors arriving there, believed that this reflected the sentence that was getting consensus. BUT no, it turns out Anythingyouwant has no intention of honoring that. Instead, he is claiming that any support ivote means it is okay to say that Trump is the current president, without using that specific language. Anythingyouwant had wanted, "incumbent," but that had no support. So imho, this is a slight of hand, and so I added that if editors are looking for specific language, then they need to specify that and I gave them the language that was being used in the extant ivotes at the time I put up the notice. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SW3 can potentially obtain any language that he wants following the RFC. There was no sleight (note spelling) of hand whatsoever, other than his disruptive note atop the RFC that may well derail the RFC and render the whole thing a complete waste of time for all involved.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To give you an idea of just how specific editors wanted this sentence to be constructed, it has generated 6 threads of discussion, ivoting, and more discussion. It started with, "Why is incumbent in the hatnote?" here, then moved on to "Survey about Lead" here, then on to "Discussion about survey," here, then yet another permutation,here, and then more Discussion here. No one supported Anythingyouwant's choice of 'incumbent.' Nor did they appreciate the hatnote he put on the article just so he could get 'incumbent' into the article. This RfC does not reflect the narrowing down to the final choice, with discussion of a possible RfC. If editors had been allowed to go forward with the discussion, we would have settled on the language and number of choices to offer in an RfC. But Anything took that away. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee, here is a comment he made to an editor who suggested, "serving as," Anythingyouwant told him the RfC is not about how to phrase this stuff. He's claiming the RfC is not specific, yet he posts a specific sentence as the RfC question, and does not share with the other editors that they are not actually ivoting on, "Donald Trump is the current president." This is deceptive. The RfC needs to be clarified. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SW3 5DL: Your statement appears to assume that the closing editor will not be able to parse this difference when they close it. I ensure you, any experienced and neutral editor (or admin) who reads the RFC will be able to decipher the appropriate consensus. We aren't often tripped up by people's attempts to present the truth fallaciously. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 02:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: I apologize for suggesting otherwise. You are right, and I know that. Admins are adept at sorting this stuff. Thanks for the reminder. Renews my faith. I am starting another RfC based on the previous discussions and editors suggestions. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The word "incumbent" has been in the hatnote for months. If it is removed, and the word "current" is put into the lead paragraph, that would be entirely consistent with the RFC I started.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SW3 is continuing to meddle with the RFC.[1]. If his meddling is allowed to stand, then I fully intend to withdraw the RFC and will do my utmost to meddle with any RFC he starts (or has already started).Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee: Okay, I will start another one. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you about?
I've a question for you. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SW3 5DL: I am, I am handling some major OTRS requests right now so I may not be able to answer immediately or at length. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 01:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do not post again
I have already asked you not to post at my talk page, yet you have done so again. If you wish to discuss the article, please use the talk page thread that has been open for over two and a half hours. It even links to the bit in the MoS you claim doesn't exist, and clarifies that there was no sandwiching on all screens in the recent FA you tried to use for evidence. All this is present on the article's talk page, not the little seen talkpage in my userspace. I suggest any discussion takes place there, and I repeat, I suggest you do not st to my talk page any more. – The Bounder (talk) 09:29, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bounder: You posted at my talk page to ask me to not discuss your edits with you? Why exactly do you think you own this article? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:30, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not indulge in gaslighting. I will repeat again: any discussion about the article should take place on the article's talk page, not mine. – The Bounder (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Bounder: Your edits will be discussed at your talk page. It's odd that you don't seem to understand this, yet came to my talk page of your own volition to do just that. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.
Technical news
After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more. Happy 10 years Coffee! Now back to work!
Best regards, Majora (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nabla: Your concerns are duly noted. I didn't see a need for a reply. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 03:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pings
Hi, I pinged you on Talk:Ben 10 but i didnt get the notification of ping being sent as usual. In last 24 hours i pinged like a dozen users but didnt get any notification. I am not sure if they are going through. Would you please look into that? And also, did you get any notification about my ping? Thanks. —usernamekiran[talk] 22:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC) —usernamekiran[talk] 22:50, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commons images on the main page
Hello! As stated in ITN's edit notice, images should not be transcluded on the main page until they've been uploaded locally or protected at Commons. (Please see Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection for a simple method of triggering Commons protection.) Also, please remember to remove the existing "(pictured)" notation when adding it to a different item. Thanks very much. —David Levy 14:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You transcluded another unprotected image at ITN? And then you removed the note advising against this?
As explained at Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection (to which I linked above) and at Wikipedia:In the news/Administrator instructions (linked from the template's edit notice, to which I also linked above), the automatic Commons file protection doesn't take effect immediately. It's triggered when KrinkleBot detects that an image is in use on our main page (or one of the designated queue pages) and transcludes it at Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en. Under normal circumstances, this can take several minutes to occur. (That isn't an issue at TFA, DYK, OTD, TFP and TFL, whose content enters a designated queue up to 24 hours in advance. ITN, conversely, is updated directly.) When technical issues arise, the delay might be longer, and the bot sometimes experiences outages lasting up to several days.
The aforementioned Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection page is an extension of the designated queues, created to provide a simple means of triggering the Commons protection by transcluding an image there and allowing the bot to act (assuming that it's functioning properly) before placing it on the main page. Please do so, in the interest of preventing high-profile image vandalism such as this (a very NSFW photograph that recently appeared on our main page when an unprotected image was overwritten at Commons). Thank you. —David Levy 22:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Levy: I completely missed this message from you until just now. I wasn't aware of that set-up, and was instead just watching the RSS feed of the Commons image (a kind of old-fashioned approach) until the protection was set. Why isn't that page in the hidden comment? It would definitely seem to prevent future mishaps. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Levy: In fact, I quite think: "please ensure you list this article at xyz until it is protected at Commons BEFORE placing it here" would make a lot more sense than "Do not insert an image without first ensuring that it has been uploaded locally or protected at Commons." which seems to just be a rule with no instruction. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The hidden comment is just a reminder. (Note that a temporary local upload remains a valid option. Also, manual Commons protection – initiated by an administrator there – is another suitable method.) But okay, I'll edit the hidden comment to mention the page there too. Thanks for the suggestion. —David Levy 23:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@David Levy: 1. It isn't much of a reminder if it doesn't remind you of what you need to actually be reminded of. 2. I am not an admin at Commons, nor do I speak to any on an immediate basis, so that Captain Obvious observation is completely useless. 3. Why don't you just do something useful instead of beating a dead horse? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that my previous reply came across in a hostile tone. It wasn't meant to. I sincerely apologize for any offense caused.
I was attempting to explain the logic behind the hidden comment's wording (and the omission of specific details). The portion of my message that you removed was intended to convey that the reminder was reliant on the assumption that the administrator reading it was familiar with the specifics beforehand. I was describing my previous thought process, not faulting yours.
I mentioned the use of local uploads and manual Commons protection for the same reason. I wasn't implying that you, personally, should employ either of those methods. My point was that the wording was purposely general to avoid excluding any of several available options, with "protected at Commons" encompassing either manual protection (which might already have been set by someone else, in which case no additional protection is needed) or cascading protection initiated by the bot.
It can be difficult to strike an appropriate balance between thoroughness and brevity. In the past, admins commented that they'd ignored the template's edit notice because it was too cluttered, so I tried to streamline it as much as possible. Likewise, mindful that a sea of text can backfire, I worded the hidden comment in an effort to provide a succinct reminder.
Wording is always subject to improvement, of course. If you interpreted the above "thanks for the suggestion" as sarcasm, please note that it wasn't. Immediately after posting that reply, I tweaked the note accordingly. I regard this as an improvement (and I hope that you agree). I genuinely appreciate your constructive criticism and welcome any that might arise in the future. Sorry again for giving you an impression to the contrary. —David Levy 02:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Current consensus setup
Greetings Coffee! I think you had a great idea to move the consensus section to a subpage at Talk:Donald Trump/Current consensus. I'm already TE, so I can keep maintaining it. Now, wouldn't you think such a setup could be a good way to promote article stability and avoid repeated disputes on other controversial articles? After a few months at the most heavily read and edited article ever, I think it has proven its usefulness and resilience. What would be the appropriate forum to describe the setup and suggest its wider usage? If we make such a proposal, we should first write some usage guidelines, inspired from experience at this first case. Pinging Mandruss for opinion, as the initiator of the "current consensus" summary list. — JFGtalk 15:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: I had been pondering about this myself recently, and I really do want to pursue this as well. I'm a bit busy currently though, so give me a few days and if I haven't gotten back to you just re-ping me. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:37, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1. The subpage needs a TE protection icon for clarity. 2. The hidden N O T E needs to be revised if we are striking rather than removing superseded or otherwise obsolete consensus entries (which I support). I still think automatic numbering would be a bad idea. 3. You've just added a major new element that has not been time-tested: template editors as gatekeepers of consensus. Thus advocating this setup to the world may be premature by about 6 months. Even if that works at Donald Trump, the setup would be limited to those articles that have regular participation by one or more TEs, it would work only to the extent that TEs are objective and fair judges of consensus (we can't assume that all or even most TEs are JFGs), and it would stop working as soon as they move on. (I don't know, maybe you plan to present that as an optional feature, and ECP could be considered as an alternative.) 4. I'm willing to kibitz on a guideline. 5. Pinging JFG. ―Mandruss☎ 14:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The TE limit is not a big deal; if nobody among maintainers has the appropriate right, edits to the consensus should be sufficiently rare that pinging an admin should be painless and fast enough. That's better than leaving the content open to 30/500, although I must say we haven't seen much vandalism of the list itself at the Trump article, so perhaps ECP would be sufficient. Ultimately, each of those controversial articles has enough "regulars" that I see no difficulty in "recruiting" volunteer maintainers. Care should be taken to avoid ownership accusations however; we've received a few of those over the months. Clear guidelines should specify when a consensus can be inserted, extended or superseded there. With the mandatory pointers to consensus discussions or RfCs, I don't see much potential for conflict in there. Agree that item numbers should be preserved, and I prefer striking than deleting the superseded entries: this provides more transparency and tracks the evolution of consensus, showing that the list is compatible with WP:CCC (another accusation that was sometimes expressed). — JFGtalk 16:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been unclear that I support striking rather than removing, per you. ―Mandruss☎ 16:49, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss and JFG: I too think we should wait just a few months before we try to let editors know about it site wide (always good to get more "beta" testing done), but I am all for starting what had been started at the Trump article (a system of consensus establishment without a separate subpage) on all of the currently restricted political articles (whenever editors at those pages are ready). To that end, I've reworded the instructions in the {{2016 US Election AE}} template (which regardless of its name, is the standard current political DS notice). — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note typo "soley". Also "made to solely" s/b "made solely to". ―Mandruss☎ 23:58, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FriyMan: A sad say for our comrades in Russia; I wish we didn't have to update articles like this. Thank you for your work as well FriyMan! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 20:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not expect anything like this to happen in my country. We are all in mourning. Thank you for support. Cheers, FriyMantalk 20:14, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Serious problem – undeletion needed
Hi, it's possible you are the wrong person to ask, but as an admin you can figure it out more easily than me anyway. Someone needs to undelete 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing or wherever the article which was edited by User:Kiril Simeonovski is now. I think this was you [2] but as said, I could easily be wrong about where the contrib history is located. Since the article title is now claimed by another article, and I suspect a history merge would be inappropriate given that both articles were edited simultaneously, it would have to be moved to some other location, you or whoever implements this can choose where. The other alternative would be to keep the attribution history in some other way, but as far as I know the norm is just to keep both articles and ensure they are appropriately tagged to ensure the article with the other edit history isn't deleted. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for example.
Please note the status quo is definitely not acceptable since as someone who was around while the 2 articles existed, I can confirm most of what was said here Talk:2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing#Article title namely that there were indeed 2 articles, and content from one of the articles was copied to another. Please remember that as the content was copied, even if it's no longer used in the article the fact it is in the edit history means attribution needs to be preserved for whoever actually created that content.
So we need those editors who's names are in the other deleted article or we have a WP:copyvio problem, and a particularly serious one since we are violating our own editors' copyright. Note that I've looked at the edit history of Kiril Simeonovski so can confirm that the edits have indeed disappeared rather than simply being moved to another location.
Hi Coffee. From my experience as an administrator on the Macedonian Wikipedia, I can tell that the problem appeared when moving "2017 Saint Petersburg Metro attack" to the already existing redirection "2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing" caused the latter one be deleted with its history. Usually, when you encounter moving to existing article, a warning message pops up asking if you really want to delete that page. A workable solution to keep the history of edits of the other users who have edited the article before it was merged to one article is to first move the existing targetted article to any trivial name ("2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing" to "2017 Saint Petersburg metro bombing"), then delete the redirecting page ("2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing") and finally move the article to the deleted redirecting page ("2017 Saint Petersburg Metro attack" to "2017 Metro Petersburg Metro bombing"). I have done this in the past and it did work well in all cases. Best regards.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
// Page swap
importScript('User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Andy M. Wang/pageswap]]
Save the page, go to a sample article, and look for the "Swap" entry which should appear under the "Move" entry in the "More" tab. Follow instruction to get a feel for it. Don't worry, you can cancel at the last recap screen in the wizard. The script will perform a round-robin move, and it can swap subpages too, e.g. talk page archives, which comes in very handy. After the script has swapped the pages, you still need to go edit the redirect so that it points to the new main article and not to itself. — JFGtalk 16:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiril Simeonovski and Nil Einne: I managed to make a fool of myself on the main page (since it is featured in ITN), but I sucessfully finished the restoration of the page history. Somehow, I missed those edits when it warned me about the previous page. Anyways, I hope it's all good now. Let me know if you need anything else! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 22:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Coffee, I don't see any persistent vandalism on this article. In fact, very little at all. There are a few minor content disputes, that's about it. What was the rationale for blocking IP users? Thanks, 141.6.11.23 (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have lifted the protection and am actively watching the page. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 21:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles" request
Hi! I was wondering if you could provide a copy of the page Template:Aphmau. I talked with the admin who deleted it, and he/she said that I should look in the category "Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles" for people who may be willing to restore pages. I want to restore Template:Aphmau because I want to use it to improve the page Draft:Aphmau. Please get back to me! Jamesjpk (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Coffee. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 07:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.
Probably time to add talk page access to this block since the user keep copying entire articles to his talk page, including fair use images, [3][4][5][6]. Meters (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexander Iskandar:: I'm not undeleting anything until I have some form of proof that you clearly understand our notability policies. You've been here way too long to be creating that many inappropriate articles. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how do you determine some articles should be speedily delete due to disputed notability and some "inappropriate articles" just being left forgotten with notability template above the page. Do you understand what I mean? Alexander Iskandar (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time look over all 5 million+ articles we have here every day, my most utterly sincere apologies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are the companies listed on the Malaysia Exchange notable and deserve its own article in this English Wikipedia? Usually, the companies listed on the Malaysia Exchange is a holding company, big business and become parent company to many subsidiaries. They always have Berhad (means Limited) in their company name. On the other hand, private held companies normally are subsidiaries to big business. Is it possible to merge subsidiaries inside holding company article? Alexander Iskandar (talk) 17:33, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A cup of coffee for you!
Start the morning off right! -- Danetalk 11:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Unita Blackwell you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding recent report to AIV
Hey! I made this report to the AIV which was removed as being "unactionable". I believe that was the best course of action seeing that the intentions of the IP editor were not clear, so thanks for sorting that out. I was hesitant to just "delete" the report, since I'm still a relatively new editor and wasn't sure of the procedures to make that change (all my previous reports were obvious vandalism). The reason I reached out to you was to ask you if the three reverts I made to the page were a violation of the 3RR or not. I know that in case of obvious-vandalism, 3 reverts are allowed but this was a more ambiguous situation. Thanks in advance! Jiten Dhandha • talk • contributions • 23:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article Unita Blackwell you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Unita Blackwell for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Coffee. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Coffee. I sent you an Email.I'm new to Wikipedia, hope this was the right way to contact you.Creamymagic25 (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think what I said in the AFD might have confused you, but I think the actual consensus is to redirect to Little Mix#Perrie Edwards, which I've done. I just felt that the two pages Perrie Edwards and Perrie Edwards (singer) should have their histories merged, which I've also done. I don't know if you can actually do this but if you can, do you think you should change the result from merge to redirect? anemoneprojectors 09:06, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AnemoneProjectors: Oops. I'm even happier I pinged you now... I apparently grabbed the wrong link when I closed the discussion. I've fixed the error. Thank you — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your ping didn't ping me, because I've noticed that if you edit the ping template, it doesn't do what it's meant to! But it's all good, now, anyway. anemoneprojectors 09:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
3RR block
Hello. I wonder if I might ask you about this 3RR block. I warned both that editor and another for continuing their ridiculous edit war on various Everton footballers earlier today, specifically at Mason Holgate. I don't have a problem with the block, although I'd hoped that both parties might just agree to pack it in. But I was wondering why only one editor was blocked, given that the second reverted three times on Holgate in just over two hours, and then went off to someone's talk page to ask them to report the first, which as far as I can tell they didn't do. Thanks for your time, Struway2 (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Coffee,
I think you inadvertangly redirected the page for O' Parvardigar (Pete Townshend song) to the album I Am (Pete Townshend album). The The EP album Hoverfish and I suggested, that had the same information and more about the song, is O' Parvardigar (album). Can you fix it? Dazedbythebell (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The BAG Newsletter is now the Bots Newsletter, per discussion. As such, we've subscribed all bot operators to the newsletter. You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future newsletters by adding/removing your name from this list.
Users now have the option to hide AWB from their watchlists via a script (WP:HIDEAWB, discussion)
The guidance on how to deal with bot issues has been overhauled (WP:BOTISSUE, discussion)
The bot policy has been updated to clarify that bot operators are required to register accounts. (WP:BOTACCOUNT, discussion)
Wikimania
Wikimania 2017 is happening in Montreal, during 9–13 August. If you plan to attend, or give a talk, let us know!
Thank you! edited by:Headbomb 11:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(You can unsubscribe from future newsletters by removing your name from this list.)
Arbitration remedies
Hi Coffee, would you mind explaining your rationale for adding arbitration remedies to pages that haven't had any recent disruption? Take for instance Carter Page, which has seen productive editing since its inception, as far as I can tell. I believe you're free to impose sanctions at your discretion, but I hope you're aware they come at a cost? I, for one, generally try to avoid pages with arbitration remedies since progress often slows to a trickle and some editors use AE (or threats or AE) to trip up or impede the work of their opponents. I'll probably take Carter Page and a few other articles I was active on off my watchlist in the near future because of your decision. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DrFleischman: The topic area of Donald Trump has a clear history of disruption and these sanctions have had a clear working history of preventing such disruption from occurring. I hate to hear that this decision is making you refrain from editing the area, as I assure you that is not the goal here. But, we also cannot change known working remedies just because they might slow down the process of editing, especially when that is the entire reason why they were placed. Just like you wouldn't expect a neighborhood to remove the speed bumps on its roads just because some people stopped driving through. It is unfortunate, but sometimes topic areas on our site receive too much visibility to be treated differently. At any rate, I do hope you continue your editing here on our site, even if it isn't in the US political arena. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The speed bump analogy sounds very apt to me, thanks! DrFleischman, please keep editing; such "challenging" topics need every reasoned voice. — JFGtalk 09:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for explaining. Though I disagree with your reasoning here. Pages like Carter Page have seen zero disruption. The fact that they're conceptually related to Donald Trump is beside the point. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 15:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's the appropriate forum for requesting that arbitration restrictions be removed? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DrFleischman: This sanction cannot be appealed except to the Arbitration Committee as it is not an editor sanction. Per, WP:AC/DS: Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DrFleischman: (talk page stalker) The first place is with the Admin that placed the sanction, whence the need to log it on WP:DSLOG so they can be identified. If the admin doesn't agree to remove it or is unavailable, the request can be made at WP:AE, WP:AN or WP:ANI. If there is a question about scope (i.e. the restriction seems overly harsh or misapplied), WP:ARCA can be used. In general, the admin is the easiest route. If it's not logged at DSLOG and not readily apparent who placed the article sanction, remove template from the article talk page and see if an admin restores it. --DHeyward (talk) 03:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DHeyward: I do appreciate you filling the Dr in and all (although you're entirely incorrect)... but, why are you stalking my talk page? — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AfD
Hi,
A few secnds ago, I added an article for deletion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 13, but after saving the page, some irrelevant text appeared there. The page history doesnt show anything out of ordinary either. Would you please take a look at that? Sorry for the trouble, and thanks —usernamekiran[talk] 11:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page comments
Hi Coffee
Please be careful with regards to comments like this, other editors may be tolerant of this level of tone and informality and happy for this conversation to be held on their talk page but it can lead to claims of incivility from other editors that will then need to be addressed. Amortias (T)(C) 12:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was incredibly heated by his comments on such a public forum, but I will admit that my response was a touch too incivil (and emotionally loaded) even for my own liking. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 12:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are huge backlogs on this site, thousands of unreferenced articles, ginormous OTRS queues, over 18,000 pages waiting to be reviewed, and yet somehow we find time for this... — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:23, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coffee, please feel free to delete and even revdelete this. But how on earth do you expect the project to retain editors to get at those backlogs if admins let fly with rude comments like that? Yes, all manner of trouble has now come of it, including another admin retiring, because you couldn't live up to what's expected of an admin (and frankly any editor on the project). Please think about why we have a civility policy and be less abrasive, and maybe more work will get done around here. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yngvadottir: Yes, if I sit around considering that I'll also accomplish more work. Do you consider your comment rude? If not, that's a strange standard you have going there. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:31, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Coffee, the new SPA editor: User talk:116.203.76.37 removed an WP:AFD tag from the above article, without any explanation. Thanks. scope_creep (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: This appears to be S gupta (talk·contribs) evading their block... I've deleted the article and blocked the IP and the article creator. If you see any other edits like this please let me know! Thank you — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator changes
TheDJ
Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Vandalism report, since AIV is currently locked. NeilN talk to me 00:51, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Proper place for this. NeilN talk to me 05:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48
Denied — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
; see Talk:Unita Blackwell for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 22:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 09:43, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
User blocked for edit-warring. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 16:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
