User talk:J947/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions with J947. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 > |
| All Pages: | 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 - ... (up to 100) |
Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
New Challenge for Oceania and Australia
Hi, Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceania/The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/The 5000 Challenge are up and running based on Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge which has currently produced over 2300 article improvements and creations. The Australia challenge would feed into the wider region one and potentially New Zealand could have a smaller challenge too. The main goal is content improvement, tackling stale old stubs and important content and improving sourcing/making more consistent but new articles are also welcome if sourced. I understand that this is a big goal for regular editors, especially being summertime where you are, but if you'd like to see large scale quality improvements happening for Oceania and Australia like The Africa Destubathon, which has produced over 1700 articles in 5 weeks, sign up on the page. The idea will be an ongoing national editathon/challenge for the region but fuelled by a series of contests to really get articles on every province and subject mass improved. The Africa contest scaled worldwide would naturally provide great benefits to Oceania countries, particularly Australia and attract new editors. I would like some support from existing editors here to get the Challenges off to a start with some articles to make doing a Destubathon worthwhile and potentially bring about hundreds of improvements in a few weeks through a contest! Cheers.♦ --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 49, 2016)
 Three Martinis
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Homework • Sponge (material) Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
December 2016
Thanks for the corrections to my edits on Whanganui (New Zealand electorate). I'm hoping to systematically work through them all to update with 2014 results all before the 2017 election. There are still many yet to complete.Ajf773 (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I know. Shall I make a list of them at WikiProject New Zealand and cross them out as we go along? J947 18:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds good, I was thinking of doing the same. Ajf773 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- There is a list on the politics task force talk page and according to that, there's not many more to be done. The list itself isn't quite up to date any longer, as a few results tables have been done since it was last updated. Schwede66 18:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Also, some of the electorates that have been crossed out actually don't have the 2014 results in the article. I am going fix that soon. J947 18:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Done, and also some electorate articles have recently updated to reflect the election results. J947 18:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Also, some of the electorates that have been crossed out actually don't have the 2014 results in the article. I am going fix that soon. J947 18:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- There is a list on the politics task force talk page and according to that, there's not many more to be done. The list itself isn't quite up to date any longer, as a few results tables have been done since it was last updated. Schwede66 18:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds good, I was thinking of doing the same. Ajf773 (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- I just put in the Te Tai Tonga results for the 2014 election. J947 19:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- Hi J947! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 20:11, Saturday, December 10, 2016 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
- Hi J947! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 22:40, Saturday, December 10, 2016 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Minor edits
I see you are doing lots of good work on New Zealand politics articles. Top marks. Just one word of advice - you check the 'minor edit' box far too often. Only a very limited number of your edits are 'minor'; please have a read of this page which is the guide when to use that. But it's no big deal, please keep up your good work. Schwede66 07:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: By the way, I'm pretty sure that most of the edits I marked as 'minor' were minor, especially the ones that were just adding a comma into an election table in electorates. J947 16:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 50, 2016)
 The Dreadnought hoaxers in Abyssinian regalia; the bearded figure on the far left is in fact the writer Virginia Woolf.
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Three-martini lunch • Homework Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
Reference errors on 16 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Draft:Wellington Country by-election, 1858 page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 51, 2016)
 Helena Bergström in 2014
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Hoax • Three-martini lunch Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
The Signpost: 22 December 2016
- Year in review: Looking back on 2016
- News and notes: Strategic planning update; English ArbCom election results
- Special report: German ArbCom implodes
- Featured content: The Christmas edition
- Technology report: Labs improvements impact 2016 Tool Labs survey results
- Traffic report: Post-election traffic blues
- Recent research: One study and several abstracts
Ikaroa-Rawhiti election results
Yea 2014, not 1999. I got lazy and used the auto complete, but accidentally saved on the wrong option! Ajf773 (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 52, 2016)
 World plate tectonics (click on map for more details)
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Helena Bergström • Hoax Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
This week's article for improvement (week 1, 2017)
 Some of the Aeolian Islands
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Tectonics • Helena Bergström Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
NZ electorate link template
Hello J947, my preference would be for the template links to stay in place even if with the resulting link being redirected. The rationale for that is at some stage in the future, we may rename all electorates to consistently use the "(New Zealand electorate)" dab even if it's not otherwise needed. This would align us with UK practice; see for example the Scottish category. I know that User:Fanx is also keen for this to happen. Schwede66 05:07, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: By the way, why shouldn't we go through all the New Zealand electorates right now and move them to a title with the "(New Zealand electorate)" dab? J947 05:29, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
- We'd have to get community support for doing so. There might be a bit of work involved digging out the background from the UK, and writing a rationale suitable for NZ. There's no point moving everything, for other editors to come along later and undoing things, arguing that it's against policy... No trouble going outside of the normal conventions, but if we do, we do need a good amount of support for it. Schwede66 05:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The New Zealand Barnstar of National Merit | |
| As far as my watchlist is concerned, you were the best new Kiwi editor for 2016. Your contributions are most valuable, and I hope you keep up your good work for a long time to come. Have a good 2017! | ||
| this WikiAward was given to J947 by Schwede66 on 19:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC) |
- Thanks Schwede66! I've just supported your rfa and no people have opposed yet! Good luck for the New year! J947 23:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This week's article for improvement (week 2, 2017)
 Professional audio – pictured is a portable setup of various live audio production and recording equipment
The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Aeolian Islands • Tectonics Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • |
|---|
The Signpost: 17 January 2017
- From the editor: Next steps for the Signpost
- News and notes: Surge in RFA promotions—a sign of lasting change?
- In the media: Year-end roundups, Wikipedia's 16th birthday, and more
- Featured content: One year ends, and another begins
- Arbitration report: Concluding 2016 and covering 2017's first two cases
- Traffic report: Out with the old, in with the new
- Technology report: Tech present, past, and future
Hello!
Hello Mate! I just wanted to give you a friendly greeting, and welcome you to the new Wikiproject Green Party! I can't wait to collaborate with you! Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Me-123567-Me: Thanks! I might not be able to participate much due to other tasks, but I will try to when possible. J947 00:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject Green Politics
Moved the main page, updated the image, and updated the talk page banner. I have to head out, so do what you can. Create new categories and list the old ones for speedy deletion. (Not that I need to tell you how to use Wikipedia!! :-) ). Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Not all of the categories can be moved I noticed this with Category:Green party templates. Me-123567-Me (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
David Caygill
Hi J947, I removed the navbox from the article because he isn't included in the box himself. Mattlore (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mattlore: He is now. J947 00:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but he wasn't in March 2016 when I made my edit. Mattlore (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Mattlore: I know. In 2010 Schwede66 asked with this edit: "(add NZ Labour Party template (is that done for ex MPs who weren't party leaders?))". Shall we determine consensus whether they should or not? J947 00:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but he wasn't in March 2016 when I made my edit. Mattlore (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Double redirects
There's no need to fix double redirects manually as that's regularly done by a bot. Moving an article through all versions that leave a redirect behind causes this but it'll fix itself within hours. Schwede66 21:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Town of Dunedin by-election, 1859
On 31 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Town of Dunedin by-election, 1859, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1859 by-election in Dunedin, New Zealand, was won by James Macandrew, who had precipitated it with his resignation from office? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Town of Dunedin by-election, 1859. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Town of Dunedin by-election, 1859), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
hi
stop it Lakitu3222 (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Categories
Hi J947. Please avoid categorizing articles in Category:Dead people. That category is supposed to be a container category: for categorizing articles about individual people, please use the subcategories such as Category:Deaths by year or Category:Deaths by cause. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry J947 20:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- And have a read of WP:SMALLCAT, please. We might have to upmerge all the 'mmm yyyy events in New Zealand' categories. Schwede66 08:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
editing error
Learn how to spell before you edit. You wrote occour instead of occur. You should be blocked from editing because of your silly mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvfmgnlllj (talk • contribs) 04:24, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Jvfmgnlllj: Thanks for the point but please don't be pointy when someone else has done something wrong; it's not nice. J947 04:28, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello help me to make my project. Its going to remove, I worked on it a long time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luca_Litrico Article Why is nominated for deletion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luca_Litrico Klimgeran (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 6 February 2017
- Arbitration report: WMF Legal and ArbCom weigh in on tension between disclosure requirements and user privacy
- WikiProject report: For the birds!
- Technology report: Better PDFs, backup plans, and birthday wishes
- Traffic report: Cool It Now
- Featured content: Three weeks dominated by articles
Started your peer review
I started a peer review for Bruce by-election, April 1865. I would appreciate a little quid pro quo. Could you do the peer review for Abebe Bikila. Thanks— አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Janweh64: Sorry, but I don't think I know enough about Wikipedia to review a peer review; I only started editing last november. J947 17:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
It has 9 references and I'm planning to add more. Me-123567-Me (talk) 18:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Go nuts
I'm done with my part of the layout changes on WP:Greens. Go nuts! Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
DYK for William John Dyer
On 21 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article William John Dyer, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that despite originally contesting the 1859 Town of Dunedin by-election, William John Dyer did not participate in the poll called afterwards? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William John Dyer. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, William John Dyer), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
AfD of Politics
I just deleted the page as disruption. Hope you don't mind. --NeilN talk to me 03:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
DYK for Bruce by-election, April 1865
On 25 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Bruce by-election, April 1865, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that two electors who put forward candidates at the April 1865 Bruce by-election in New Zealand were nearly candidates themselves? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bruce by-election, April 1865. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Bruce by-election, April 1865), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Mifter (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Removing link(s) to "New Zealand": WP:OVERLINK
Hi. What is up with that? Thanks. El_C 09:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- @El C: Please read the policy. J947 09:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- J947 you need to STOP removing links to New Zealand everywhere as it is clear your intepretation of overlink is not the same as everybody elses. MilborneOne (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Schwede66: Help. J947 09:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Hello, J947. I came here to ask the same question. I'm particularly puzzled as to why you are removing links "per WP:OVERLINK" in articles where the link you removed was the only link to New Zealand in the article. What exactly is your understanding of WP:OVERLINK as it applies to New Zealand? NewYorkActuary (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- And I'm here over the same issue. I have run across a couple of cases, but in those you removed links to New Zealand where the links were not only clearly not overlinking, but were very useful. For example, in Longest word in English you removed the only New Zealand link in an article, in a section that was specifically referring to a very long name of a New Zealand town, and in Canadian English you removed the only New Zealand link in the article but left the Queensland link in the same sentence. Edits such as these are disruptive. I suggest that you undo your mass removals of New Zealand links. Meters (talk) 17:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- @Meters and NewYorkActuary: Please read the second indent. J947 20:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm here for the same reason. WP:OVERLINK doesn't give you blanket permission to go through Wikipedia and remove all links to "New Zealand". Particularly egregious was your edit to Peter Stuyvesant, where in a list of countries, all of them the first mention in the article, and all of them linked, your edit unlinked only "New Zealand". If you were actuallly following WP:OVERLINK, you might have a case if you had unlinked all the countries listed there, but only unlinking "New Zealand" seems pretty damn WP:POINTy to me.If someone hasn't done so already, I'll be rolling back your edits.Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- So, I have rolled back the edits that could be rolled back. Any editor, other than J947, who wishes to revert any rollback I made should feel free to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- I've noticed on multiple that New Zealand was linked more than once, and on another one it was the only one in a list of countries to be linked. J947 23:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- Frankly, I don't think your judgment on this can be trusted. Leave it to other editors to make those kinds of changes. The encyclopedia won't die if they're not made, and if someone makes them -- properly -- so much the better. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Happy to help as per the request above. WP:OVERLINK, by my understanding, applies (in the context of New Zealand) when you have a string of geographical place names (e.g. Foo-suburb, Foo-city, New Zealand). It *may* also apply when the sentence gives the required context (e.g. "The New Zealand Legislative Council was the upper house of New Zealand."). But where this isn't the case, I don't think that overlink applies. What you may have seen is me removing links to New Zealand via AWB, as unlinking the country is defined in my normal settings. But before saving, I undo those instances where overlink doesn't apply. It's of course entirely possible that I slip up and don't undo the linking before I hit the save button. Schwede66 22:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to everybody here. J947 22:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
RfC
It seems that J947 isn't satisfied to learn the lessons to be had from this incident, now he's started an RfC on changing WP:OVERLINK, which can be found here. Pinging the editors involved in this discussion: @El C:, @BilCat:, @MilborneOne:, @NewYorkActuary:, @Schwede66:. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed you, Meters, but I see you've responded at the RfC. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 February 2017
- From the editors: Results from our poll on subscription and delivery, and a new RSS feed
- Recent research: Special issue: Wikipedia in education
- Technology report: Responsive content on desktop; Offline content in Android app
- In the media: The Daily Mail does not run Wikipedia
- Gallery: A Met montage
- Special report: Peer review – a history and call for reviewers
- Op-ed: Wikipedia has cancer
- Featured content: The dominance of articles continues
- Traffic report: Love, football, and politics
Administrators' newsletter – March 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).
Administrator changes
Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi
Guideline and policy news
- A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
- AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
- Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
- The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.
Technical news
- A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
- Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
- A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
A kitten for you!
for your nice supportive offer to the article creator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max Darkosadze 
Coolabahapple (talk) 06:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks Coolabahapple! :) J947 06:56, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
AfD closure
Hi. Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangkok 12th district, but when you said, "there are no 'delete' votes," you probably forgot that the nomination itself is a !vote for deletion, so it's actually only 2 for keeping with 1 against, which is probably too close for a non-admin closure. Also, keep in mind that AfDs are not votes; one of the arguments for keeping was "I believe ... are notable", which is a poor AfD argument. I'm not looking to re-open the discussion, but at best it should have been a no-consensus closure. Please consider modifying the closing statement. Thanks. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Disk space
In reply to this comment:
Don't worry about a few million bytes (=a few megabytes). First, it won't work (every edit creates a new copy of the entire page, so editing a page to remove a character, or even to blank the page, increases disk use). Second, disk space is cheap. When you're buying large disk drives in bulk, the kind of space you're talking about saving probably costs about 1¢. Third, in general, we don't need to worry about performance. Unless the devs complain at us, we can assume that it's okay. There are a few things that we can do that are slightly better or slightly worse, but it's just not a big deal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
my article on ReMix Reek
what is the problem with my article? thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remixreek (talk • contribs) 01:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Remixreek: It is very promotional. Also, please see WP:OR. I can help you get used here if you want. J947 01:41, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
SMILE!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
- Thanks for the message Me-123567-Me! A smile to you too! J947 18:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
AWB on clear CSD candidates
Just a question if there is a reason why you are using AWB to tag clear CSD candidates? I'm only asking because ones like that are not going to be around long, and AWB tagging of obvious CSD articles tends to clog up the watchlist of the people who've tagged them. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- @TonyBallioni: It's timewasting to avoid tagging articles. A reason to use Twinkle more is because it has got a option for tagged articles to be on your watchlist or not. By the way, have you ever noticed the 'Mark all pages as visited' option? I use it when I'm looking at pages of a high priority for me. J947 04:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think we're probably going to disagree on this, but the reason many people keep the pages they tag on their watchlist is because they want to see if the tag is removed, and adding tags to an article that has zero chance of survival seems more like time wasting to me. Not a big deal, I was just curious and always like hearing other views. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dario Korolija, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macedonia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
PROD instead AfD Guetty Felin
Hello J947, I was NPPing and saw that you gave Guetty Felin a Prod notice instead of sending it out to be AfD. The subject does not appear to be notable, so even if the creator did dig up a citation, it would probably end up on AfD at the hands of deletionists. Is there some method to PROD vs AfD that I don't know about? Thanks. L3X1 (distant write) 03:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- @L3X1: I'm not sure if the article is notable or not. I PRODed because it was an unreferenced biography of a living person. J947 03:40, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
- Ok, is it bad form to then AfD the article to obtain a consensus regarding Notability? Or should I wait a week to see if a citation is produced and then AfD it if the citation is not definitive. L3X1 (distant write) 03:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
CSD tag on Grayson Beairsto
Hi, I'm sorry but CSD A7 is appropriate for this page. What we want in sources is not just sources that show that a person exists but sources that show that the person is "important or significant". And all I see in the sources is that this is a university student who holds a role in his university student union and in this position has provided two-sentence quotes on news websites about campus issues. That shows that this person exists, but it doesn't come close to being "significant coverage" by Wikipedia's standards. (As another way of looking at it, the coverage isn't "of him" - the newspapers are interviewing him to provide comment on topics he might know something about.) You might also want to look at WP:POLITICIAN - basically, we don't take articles about student politicians normally. Blythwood (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar |
| Awarded for outstanding achievement in the field of editconflicting me when tagging new pages ;) —Frosty ☃ 03:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC) |
- I edit conflicted with you as well earlier while we were both tagging {{db-person}}! Thanks for the barnstar! :) J947 03:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Promod dasgupta smrity vidyapith
Eh.. can you explain to me what it says then? Sorry, but I didn't understand a word of it or what on earth its supposed to be about... —Frosty ☃ 03:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Frosty: Deleted now; it was about a school and it had info there as well. J947 03:37, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Speedy deletion declined: Michelle Von Emster Case
Hello J947. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Michelle Von Emster Case, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you. SoWhy 08:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm curious to understand how is this an unambiguous keep. If I go by the fact that AFD is not a vote, I see a merge or at best a no consensus outcome here. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
- Lemongirl942, the closer here has been an editor for all of four months and has taken a fancy to closing controversial AfD's. See below for another example. Since that is two inappropriate closes in a week, it's time to notify an admin. Do you know an admin who can address it? 198.58.162.200 (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisted articles for deletion
Hi J947,
What's the deadline for the relisted articles for deletion? (I would ask for this one)
Frock~trwiki (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Frock~trwiki: I would have normally closed it as 'keep', but I thought (given that most editors participating there were relatively new) that there might be some sockpuppetry, so I relisted it. J947 17:47, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi,J947
Actually I understand you, because I know the rules. If I were, I would think the same.
My purpose, bringing in a valued article to the Wikipedia on condition that it should. (Esspecially about theater subject, as I do in my old articles in Turkish)
But about voting, I understand there was misfortune. I think I know the reason. I just shared the page to show that it's my new Wikipedia article (I always do in Turkish ones as before). (But never any notes about voting "keep". Because I beleive, if the article will be kept, it deserves to be suitable and because of the people really see it is a relevant article. ('cos, I beleive these kind of thinks like critism or votings, can much improve the articles, like we see the difference begining and complete look of this article.) At the same time as a Wikipedia reader, I would like to see the same essence in other articles.
But offcourse honestly, I wish many users to see the article, for sharing multitude consensus and I wonder the especially experienced users' ideas like you.
So, I tried to search to find something to explain that users are not sockpuppetry I don't know if it works but... (I don't know how to look the users IP, so the users voted with their IP's, I searched from an IP search web site. Different IPs, two of them seem very near, the other one is far from... but they are all in istanbul.)
What can I say I think more... If it will be ok. for you, you can remove these comments. Because I do not want to think the others think same.
(Thanks God, we have one more voting from a master editor : )
And I wondered when the relist articles will be concluded. Because I could't see a period. I'm sorry it's my first voting experience. I've been working hard and I'm a little excited : )
Thanks for your attention,
Regards,
Frock~trwiki (talk) 09:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, J947
I'll be happy to hear your opinion,
Regards,
Frock~trwiki (talk) 11:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
- Hi,J947
Like I explained at the discussion page about sockpuppetry doupt; "(Imagine) If I have a Facebook group together with my account over the 50.000 people, If I share the the page there "Look friends, It's the last new page I have prepared at Wikipedia (at Wikipedia tr as I always do, because you know also here we try to reach more people by relisting ect.) That people can view and would like to comment. And I don't think they are Wikipedia users or active users. They're just Facebook users. When they saw post, they just viewed for this page."
So, I mean; As a user who has prepared this article for weeks, and prepare more articles to support this one, please for the fair decision, don't allow the article to be deleted by people who say
"I had randomly looking but delete" or
"I haven't looked closely at the most recent batch of additions but delete" or
Because of unsubstantiated doubts or
Comments that do not match with Wikipedia rules. (about sources)
I need your feedback,
Regards,
Frock~trwiki (talk) 08:41, 04 April 2017 (UTC)
Non-admin closure of Bernardo Guillermo
Why did you close this Afd for Bernardo Guillermo and say that it was very close to delete? You are not an admin and should not be closing items that are controversial, as in very close to delete. Read the policy please. Non-admin closures are only for very clear cases. I see you closed another one a few days ago that was also controversial.198.58.162.200 (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Three contested non-admin closures
Ok just to bring them all together here, so that your activity in non-admin closures is clearer:
- You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangkok 12th district and received a complaint above;
- You closed Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sober_(Selena_Gomez_song) and received a complaint;
- You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernardo Guillermo and I complained just above this entry.
That should tell you something: i.e. stop closing AfDs until you get more experience or become an admin. Maybe User:Oshwah can check this over? 198.58.162.200 (talk) 06:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
- Also the 24 March relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Islamo-Leftism. An AfD where a single editor is wielding a WP:BLUDGEON to drag a discussion of a politically sensitive but otherwise straightforward WP:WORDISSUBJECT on and on and on with endless iterations of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT despite a pretty clear consensus. I don't really blame J947 for not wanting to read this endless discussion, only for enabling manipulation of the process. No experienced editor would have done relisted this. No experienced editor woud have brought it to AfD (a disruptive newbie started the AfD).E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
- J947, it takes a while to learn the ropes. Lots of us get a little carried away at first, I know I did. complex systems take time to master.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Relisting AfDs
When you are relisting an AfD nomination, please remember to comment out or remove the nomination from the original log per WP:RELIST. I've been fixing this for at least two days now. --Kurykh (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- @Kurykh and Evad37: I've been using User:Evad37/XFDcloser for a long time now and it used to do it automatically. I don't know what the problem is. J947 00:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know what the problem is... nor why only a few AfDs would be affected (Rapper Maddy, Like Me (musical), The Class of '58 is what I could find). The vast majority of relists have had no such problems, including all of J947's most recent relists. I've added a warning message if for some reason the regex doesn't find the transclusion on the old log page, but I doubt that's actually the problem, since The Class of '58 had no problem relisting the first time [1]. - Evad37 [talk] 03:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Untitled
Hi I was just testing out Wikipedia solz for changing bill English he a great pm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmejeff (talk • contribs) 04:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
- Please test at Wikipedia:Sandbox, okay? J947 04:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello there, I just noticed that you tagged this page with A7(band), however, this article is not about a band or a musician, it's about their work. I don't think A7 is justifiable here. Thanks Hitro talk 07:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – April 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).
Administrator changes
- TheDJ
- Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott
Guideline and policy news
- 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.