User talk:A Train

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
NYCS-bull-trans-A.svg
Since 2005


Archived talk sections

Archive I (Feb-July 2005) Archive II (1 August 2005 - 8 August 2005) Archive III (9 August 2005 - 21 August 2005) Archive IV (21 August 2005 - 26 August 2005) Archive V (27 August 2005 - 11 September 2005) Archive VI (12 September 2005 - 14 September 2006) Archive VII (15 September 2006 - 1 March 2007) Archive VIII (2 March 2007 - 12 May 2007) Archive IX (12 May 2007 - 19 October 2007) Archive X (19 October 2007 - 2016)

Current talk

Contents


ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back![edit]

That's a name I haven't seen pop up in a while. Glad to see the A Train is running again. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey dude! It's good to be back. Glad that some of the old heads are still about. A Traintalk 13:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:RESYSOP[edit]

As a recently returned sysop, welcome back to the admin corps! We always need help at WP:ADMINBACKLOG if there are any areas you can help with that would be most welcomed. Happy mopping! — xaosflux Talk 13:00, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Good to see you again, Xasoflux. I'm rolling up my sleeves to attack that backlog. A Traintalk 13:10, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Article Deletion[edit]

Re: proposed deletion of Black Women Creatives (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Black_women_creatives&action=edit&redlink=1) that's fine to delete the article Herewego72 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me know if I can help you write an article that will stick. Wikipedia always needs more content from under-represented folks. A Traintalk 17:25, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Novak Djokovic[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Novak Djokovic. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Commented here A Traintalk 07:56, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Revdel Request[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

First of all, welcome back! Also, could you revdel the personal information from the last 4 edits here. Raju Paras added his phone number. Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hey thanks! Good to be back. :) A Traintalk 11:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman)[edit]

Won't fix

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Paul Singer (businessman). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

This one looks pretty hairy and I don't have time right now to do enough background reading to properly participate. A Traintalk 10:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy[edit]

Won't fix

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't have time for this one. A Traintalk 07:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jill Stein[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jill Stein. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Commented Commented here. A Traintalk 07:17, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD closure[edit]

Hello A Train, You closed this AfD as no consensus. This is a clear case of keep and should have been closed that way. If you have not already, please read the AfD discussion. Kindly reconsider the closure. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 08:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Good morning @AKS.9955:. If you're really hard up on it I can spend some time writing out a detailed rationale for my close, but maybe before I do that you want to tell me why you think an AfD discussion where almost half of the editors argued for deletion is a "clear case of keep". I think your definition of the word "clear" might be a little more generous than mine. :) A Traintalk 08:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hello A Train, I am not hard up about anything and this was just a feedback. Since you are an admin (although you were away for a long time), I am sure you would know that AfD discussions are not closed on the basis of counting votes. Even if we count votes, it is 10:7 to the advantage of keep. All I said was, please review the discussion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 09:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm perfectly aware that we don't count !votes at AfD, thanks. What exactly is it that I'm supposed to learn from an additional review of the discussion? I'd love your feedback but you aren't actually giving me any -- you're just telling me that you disagreed with my decision.
For what it's worth, here's a quick tour through my rationale. I down-weighted several of the arguments made by editors who supported keeping the article because they made no attempt to cite policy or evidence (like this one, this one, and this one). Your own argument in the discussion never actually cited anything specifically to do with the article in question, you simply drew analogies to other existing articles, which is the very essence of WP:OSE. So when comparing the arguments that were actually rooted in policy, it was a very evenly split discussion, and thus, no consensus. A Traintalk 09:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ruggero Santilli 2nd AfD Discussion "No consensus" closure[edit]

I count eight "Delete" votes (counting my tacit one for having opened the 2nd AfD discussion) and seven "Keep" votes.

I'm assuming good faith in asking if your closure of the discussion is the eighth "Keep" vote required to make this a "no consensus" discussion.

I'd also like, for my own information, to know your bases for the statement "There were some very strong arguments on both sides, as well as some low-effort !votes that I effectively discounted."

  • Whose votes did you discount, and why, please?

I have been following the discussion every day, but didn't have a chance to read, much less respond to Maester Anderson's arguments (in which he accused some of us of not acting in good faith by deleting articles with dead links pointing to them, and restated Karl Popper's praise of the subject in a way which deserved an answer. I'd have appreciated some time to answer his charges, and his contention that a single encomium by one person is proof of notability.

If you check the article's talk page, you'll see one paid editor is already curating the article. While assuming Mr. Buckley's good faith, would it be possible to check IP on Maester Anderson to see if that IP comes from the Tampa-St. Petersburg area? It's a little effort, but Maester Anderson making what could be boilerplate from the subject's own statements in support of his contributions to physics and mathematics deserves a little scrutiny.

I am, of course, assuming your good faith. That's why I'm bothering to send this note at all. We've already had one admin close this discussion as "Keep" when there were more "Delete" votes. It's possible to question the process leading to closure of a discussion without questioning your good faith, but I do have questions about Maester Anderson appearing out of nowhere, supposedly a new editor, with the comments he's made. Maester Anderson questioned my good faith and that of other editors, and this discussion was closed and archived before we could respond to the accusation.

Reposting this on my talk page and creating a talk page on the 2nd AfD discussion for the article. loupgarous (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Vfrickey:, I'm a little short on time at the moment but I can come back and give you a detailed breakdown of my close rationale tomorrow if you still want it then. For the moment, may I humbly suggest that you read up on how AfD works? You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that AfD is a straw poll. AfD discussions aren't decided by simple majorities, they're decided by rough consensus. If you don't feel like reading policy, have a look at other closed AfDs and see if you start to see a pattern emerging. Feel free to take this to WP:DRV if you like, but I kinda doubt you'll find a different result there. A Traintalk 19:11, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
I think the close was a good one, but I also have concerns about the sudden appearance of the SPA Santilli apologist User:Maester Anderson. In your close, you recommended a close monitoring of the article for this kind of activity. I'd raise an RFCU request, but I think it is probably simpler for an admin to check it out, and determine if the duck test is warranted. A number of other SPAs have been blocked at the article in question. Sławomir Biały (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sławomir Biały:, @Vfrickey:: I completely disregarded User:Maester Anderson's arguments (such as they were) because the account was brand-new and it's customary and prudent to assume that such accounts have been made for the sole purpose of jumping into the AfD and thus don't represent real community voices. A Traintalk 11:14, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
A Train and Sławomir Biały, thanks for your time and candor. It's my first time initiating an AfD discussion and I do see "no consensus" as a reasonable finding, despite the tally being "Delete" even counting User:Maester Anderson's vote. It's important for me to understand the process in these matters, and I now feel I do. Thank you both. loupgarous (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016[edit]

New York City FC Academy[edit]

Are you going to take it to DRV? I agree there should be consistency and there's no reason five should be kept and two deleted. What was the other one that was deleted? That should be taken to DRV as well. Smartyllama (talk) 19:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey @Smartyllama: -- I'm on the fence about taking it DRV now that I've looked into it. I think it's weirdly inconsistent that we have articles for some MLS academies and not others, but when I went to look for references that would demonstrate that NYCFC Academy could pass WP:GNG on its own, I came up a little short. So I'm not sure I'd bring it to DRV with our best argument being "these other academies are in the encyclopedia so this one should be, too". That's basically WP:OSE and I think we'd (rightly) get shot down. What do you think? A Traintalk 21:47, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
PS -- and I guess if we were taking this to trial or something, we'd have a slam-dunk case because the AfD nominator completely misunderstood what the subjects of the articles even were... but alas, DRV isn't a courtroom. :D A Traintalk 22:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

in regards to and edit.[edit]

Hello, I have a problem. I went to make and edit for and article, tried to provide evidence, and was attacked. Can you please help me when you can? If this is not the correct place for this, can you direct me where I need to go to get this resolved? I just know how to edit articles, so I'm illiterate to where I need to go from here. Thank you Hydr0x (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hydr0x: The proper place for proposing changes to an article is at the article's talk page, not the talk page of the reverting editor. In your case, the correct page is Talk:American English. You can open a new discussion in the same manner you did here. As for your issue with another editor, I'm sorry that another editor was brusque with you and used all caps. Given the history of vandalism to the page in question, people are a bit touchy. If you feel the situation is still not resolved, you can read about the remedies available to you at Wikipedia:Civility. Ibadibam (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. Unfortunately, it seems like I got on bilcat's bad side. So I'm afraid if I post there I'll get banned. I noticed he's been editing for over 10 years (which is cool), and I'm a noob. I just want to show my evidence as to why I made the edit and be done with this. Thanks again for responding and being nice. Hydr0x (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi there @Hydr0x:, is this all resolved for the time being? I wasn't involved in the earlier incident so I'm not up to speed. Sorry if you had a negative experience with your first brush with other Wikipedia editors. I promise that the vast majority of editors here are lovely people, and even most of the bad interactions come from lovely people who are having a bad day. :) Let me know if I can assist further. A Traintalk 21:44, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Earlier I made and edit and it was reverted. I then left a message on the talk page of the person that reverted the edit (bilcat). I had proof of my edit but I couldn't provide a link to the youtube video in the edit summary. It looks like earlier somone made and earlier edit similar and was blocked (a month earlier). I'm kind if afraid to post there and get banned, as unfortunately I got on bilcat's bad side. I don't want on anyone's bad side here on wikipedia. The reason why I made the edit was because I did a youtube search on "american english" and came across a labov interview with over 800,000 viewers, its near the start of that search, a very popular video (850,000+ viewers) Then I did and 'american english" search on google and came to the wiki page for that article. That article supposedly is cited as labov saying a certain american english (General American) existed, yet very clearly in this interview he says it doesn't. Meaning the cited source can't be accurate. (The interview in question is one being passed around major universities, according to david pakman.) This is near the very start of the american english article page. If you get time, youtube search "American English is Changing Fast" and fast forward to exactly the 40 second mark. Labov denies "General american" exist (this is why i edited it out of the article originally) It's on the Dave Pakman show, who interviews Labov. When you get time, please help me with this. Not sure what to do. Thanks. Hydr0x (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Good morning, @Hydr0x:. That sounds like a disagreement about content, which is not rare on Wikipedia. The guiding principle around here is consensus, which means working together with other editors to improve the encyclopedia. There's a lot of editors who work on the American English article who are knowledgeable about the topic -- I am not one of them, sadly. So what I suggest doing is exactly what Ibadibam has suggested to you above: go over to Talk:American English and make a new section explaining the change you'd like to make, and you'll find that within a day or so that other editors will come by and talk it over with you. You might end up getting consensus to make your change, or a different change, or nothing at all -- but that's how it's done around here. Thanks for signing up to edit Wikipedia; it's a wonderful project and I hope you stick around. A Traintalk 07:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, A Train. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science Fiction. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016[edit]

A new essay[edit]

Hi A Train: First of all, nice user name! I noticed in an AfD discussion that you have a background in media. As such, I invite you to check out the new essay at WP:CHURNALISM. Note that this is largely the wording of another user (see the talk page for attribution). North America1000 17:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello, @Northamerica1000:, I'm quite fond of your username, too. What a cracking continent. I will read that essay with interest. I would also note that if you wanted to revisit the recent AN/I post about SwisterTwister I would provide a note in support of the matter. The Squarespace AFD is the platonic ideal of an unhelpful contribution to Wikipedia. A Traintalk 19:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Inre ANI, the user has stated that they don't want to communicate, so it left me little choice. The recent ANI discussion got dumped into the archive without a formal closure. At the discussion (Ignoring consensus section), instead of admitting to ignoring consensus or responding to community concerns there, the user blamed me for filing the report, stating in part that I could have discussed their behavioral matters on the article talk page. This would have been inappropriate in my opinion, as article talk pages are for discussing article content. North America1000 19:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, that is not an ideal result. I can see from the discussion there that Swister Twister was asked to elaborate on his reasoning at AfD -- he appears to have taken the advice with gusto. Now instead of terse one-line noms we're getting walls of text that wouldn't look out of place on Timecube.com. I'll try to have a word with him on his talk page to see if that helps. A Traintalk 20:03, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Good luck having a word[1], I don't think the user is planning on any changes. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't seem like it. Alphabet soup, it's what's for dinner™. Safehaven86 (talk) 18:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Welp, I tried. I'll take it to ANI in the morning. He's no longer a net contributor at this point. A Traintalk 19:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

There you have it:Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:SwisterTwister.27s_continued_AFD_disruption. I genuinely have no clue why I was treated with such utter contempt by the few editors who managed to get a post into the ANI before it was archived, but that's how it went down. A Traintalk 12:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:AlMaghrib Institute[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:AlMaghrib Institute. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Commented here. A Traintalk 17:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Resilient Barnstar Hires.png The Resilient Barnstar
For getting attacked without merit recently at ANI and not letting it get you down. So sorry there was such a bizarre response to your civil and thoughtful thread. You did not deserve the snark hurled your way. Safehaven86 (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Safehaven86. :) A Traintalk 16:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Help Needed[edit]

Hello A Train, I am a new editor of wikipedia and adding contents to pages from last year (2015). I have edited the Kali page several times. As a new user I added contents from blogs. When I thought that the page was robust enough I applied to make the page a good article and lock it. Both of my requests were granted. Now the User:First_Light came and reverted my edits. The user claims blogs are not good source and tagged better-source-needed. It is ok to take such steps. But in the Kali talk page User:First_Light uses adjectives like - disruptive and other statements which seems to be insulting in public. It is not expected from a user who is long enough in wikipedia and I feel it degrades the reputation. Also I created a separate page for Dakshina_Kali which the user User:First_Light has merged with Kali. Ok, I accept it but he claims for copyright violations. Please review Dakshina_Kali. I expect an action from your side against taking my user name on public (talk page) and using terms that harms my reputations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UserK (talkcontribs) 11:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi UserK, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you decide to stick around, get familiar with how things work, and keep contributing for a long time to come. I looked through your contributions and I saw that you haven't actually posted anything on First Light's talk page, or on the talk page for Kali. Wikipedia is, first and foremost, a collaborative project, and we expect editors to work together to create articles that comply with Wikipedia's policies. We have a policy about reliable sources, and User:First_Light is correct that most blogs aren't considered reliable. Why don't you head over to the Kali article's talk page and talk to First Light and the other editors there and see if you can't come to an agreement. I'm not an expert on Hinduism by a long shot, so I'll leave it to you and the other editors over there to sort out the details. Sorry if you feel slighted -- I'm sure First Light intended nothing of the sort and from where I sit, their comments seem entirely civil to me. A Traintalk 16:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your support.I have added a new section of Kali talk page called Questionable deletions from the page and the answer of Why different page is needed for Dakshina Kali?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UserK (talkcontribs) 06:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What If (Simple Plan song)[edit]

I'm a little puzzled by your comment in closure of this where you stated that you disagreed with me but also that "The parenthetical qualification makes it pretty unlikely somebody would stumble onto this by accident", which was kind of my point - anyone searching for this song (which as simply an album track seems pretty unlikely for starters) will likely type "What If" into the search box, which will take them to the What If disambiguation page, where they will find a link to the album, so the chance of this disambiguated title ever being useful as a redirect are extremely slim, which is why I argued for deletion here. We wouldn't normally create disambiguated redirects for every track on an album that we have an article on, so it seems illogical to keep one simply because someone created an article that, as the AfD demonstrated, really shouldn't have been started in the first place. --Michig (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

My point was that someone might very well find it if searching specifically for the song, and then they'd get a helpful redirect to the album. A Traintalk 17:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:James Watson[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:James Watson. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016[edit]

Iron Lady[edit]

Hi A Train! Following your AfD close, I've done some cleanup work at Iron Lady (disambiguation) and merged the nickname's history (abridged) into Margaret Thatcher#Iron Lady nickname. Now that Iron Lady is a redirect, we have some relevant entries from Talk:Iron Lady which are hidden from casual readers and should appear at Talk:Iron Lady (disambiguation) instead. Could you possibly perform a history merge there? — JFG talk 14:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

JFG, I'm happy to oblige. This will be my first history merge in a few years so forgive me if I take a while to re-read all the instructions. :D A Traintalk 09:08, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@JFG:, I punted this to User:Anthony Appleyard, who very kindly took care of it straightaway. A Traintalk 20:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Jim Morrison edit war[edit]

Can you please do something about an edit war that is going on with the article about Jim Morrison, member of The Doors rock band? An editor with the screen name "Signedzzz" constantly insists on removing a paragraph in the "Death" section that is sourced by a major biography of Morrison -- one of the article's major sources. Thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.42.66 (talk) 02:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey there, I think that by raising your concerns on the article's talk page that you're doing exactly the right thing. If you can convince other editors of the Jim Morrison article of the value of that paragraph, then you'll have a consensus to add it back in. At the moment, I'm not sure I see anything going on over there that would warrant the attention of an administrator. What exactly is it that you were hoping I would do? A Traintalk 12:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello again[edit]

I have added a bit of content you contributed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biocom to Wikipedia:CHURN, as it applies nicely to the essay. Copy attribution has been provided in an edit summary and on the page itself. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 13:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of converts to Islam from Christianity[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of converts to Islam from Christianity. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Hobo Gadget Band[edit]

Can you close the deletion discussion for Hobo Gadget Band. It's been a while since this has been in discussion? Thanks SquishyZ1 (talk) 01:21, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Douglas MacArthur[edit]

Yes check.svg Done

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Douglas MacArthur. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Commented here. A Traintalk 09:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi A Train.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, A Train. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Stevo Todorčević[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Stevo Todorčević. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 November 2016[edit]

The Challenge Series[edit]

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

Please comment on Talk:Mumtaz (actress)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mumtaz (actress). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Myth[edit]

Dear administrator,

I seem to have messed certain things up just in order to correct a bad link. I need to talk to a high ranking wikipedian! I was correcting an inter-wiki link. The page Myth was linked to the wrong page in Persian (farsi) wiki. I managed to correct it. But all other languages disappeared. I'm sorry. Can you help to restore things back to normal while keeping the new link to the page in Persian wiki?Salarabdolmohamadian (talk) 20:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It was a Wikidata issue, and I already got it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, C.Fred. A Traintalk 10:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Family of Barack Obama[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Family of Barack Obama. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bibliography of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
Thanks @Northamerica1000:! Same to you. :) A Traintalk 18:40, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 December 2016[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murder of Maria Ladenburger. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tom Brady[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tom Brady. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2017[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Casey Affleck[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Casey Affleck. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Thomas Mair (murderer). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Melania Trump[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Melania Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Daddy Yankee[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Daddy Yankee. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Willie and Joe[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Willie and Joe. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017[edit]

Please comment on Talk:Sebastian Gorka[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sebastian Gorka. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kevin O'Leary[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kevin O'Leary. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)