User talk:postdlf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
PLEASE NOTE: If you are here about an AFD that I closed, I do not provide userspace or draft copies of deleted articles. Please make that request of another admin.
CLICK HERE to add a new message.
West Wind (1891), Winslow Homer
Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 13 years and 24 days.
Admin mop.PNG This user is an administrator on the English Wikipedia.
JD This user has a Doctor of Jurisprudence degree.
BFA This user has a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree.
en This user is a native speaker of English.
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg This user is a member of the WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases
Comiclogo.png This user is a member of the Comics Wikiproject.
Okapi2.jpg This user thinks okapis are the coolest animal ever.


Happy New Year, Postdlf![edit]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Category:News television series has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:News television series, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. PanchoS (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks[edit]

Many thanks for your hard work maintaining the tables of SCOTUS opinions. They are truly an incredible resource for both academic researchers and attorneys who are interested in learning more about trends at the Court. I imagine that maintaining these tables takes a fair bit of work, but you should know that these tables are a unique and invaluable resource. In fact, I don't think anything similar exists anywhere on the web. Cheers for the job well done! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I really appreciate it... I've wondered over the decade (!) that I've been maintaining them if it's just been for my own vanity. postdlf (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
And unfortunately, User:Notecardforfree, not everyone apparently agrees... postdlf (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2015 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Samuel Alito, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stun gun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Spider Widow 1.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Spider Widow 1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

your recent copy-and-paste merges[edit]

I unmerged the quality Comics one. I was hasty but I did plan on rewriting the info instead of keeping it copy and paste. But never mind the plans I had. I don't think I could handle any more editing anyway. I feel less useful now and my conscience feels like I am going to mess up another guideline and would be better off blocked.I feel like I would even have been if I wasn't past being a veteran editor. At least this time I I HAVEN'T really read a particular guideline.

The Quality Comics list article may need to be deleted then and since you are an administrator maybe you can delete it per Wp:Speedy's {{WP:G7}}. Jhenderson 777 20:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW thank you for directing #2 and #4 to the guideline. While instead I just reverted myself of all the merges, it's still nice to know that was the main problem. I misunderstood you at first thinking you were against a copy and paste merge or even a bold merge per a guideline. At that point I was not surprised if that was so because I goofed so much yesterday. Jhenderson 777 21:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


This may interest you. Wikicology, who you discussed here in September 2014, has continued his trail of destruction across the project, except this time he was meddling around with articles about poison gas, in a highly dangerous way (see e.g. this cleanup). A site ban is being discussed again. Peter Damian (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

2009 term United States Supreme Court opinions of John Paul Stevens (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Concerted action and Mitigation
2009 term United States Supreme Court opinions of Stephen Breyer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mitigation

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Your deletion of United States of America[edit]

What's going on? The AFD seems to be unrelated to this page. --E8xE8 (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

That's strange; I used an automated closing script on the AFD... Maybe it got confused by the / in the title? I noticed afterward that the nominated page hadn't been deleted, but didn't think I had deleted the wrong page. I'll doublecheck my logs to make sure there weren't any others. postdlf (talk) 14:13, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I was going to ask about this, too, along with the deletion of USA and other U.S. redirects. Liz Read! Talk! 14:14, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Arrgh. I'll see what I can do to undo all that, and then talk to whoever manages the script about this bug. postdlf (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
It looks like I've restored all the redirects that I deleted; please let me know if you find any that I missed. postdlf (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Comments about the AFD closing script bug posted on the author's talk page and and VPT. postdlf (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you restore U.S.? - 2001:558:1400:10:983F:2F07:B5DA:3AC1 (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you please explain[edit]

Could you please explain your reasoning for removing the pages you removed from Category:Tie votes of the United States Supreme Court ?

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

None of them were cases with tie votes; all of them had majority (or plurality) opinions. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, okay, perhaps I'll have to do some more research. Maybe you could find other cases to add to the category? — Cirt (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi, back in 2013 you deleted an article as a result of an AfD [1]. The subject is actually notable and I'm working on sourcing, was wondering if you'd mind userfying the text for me? You can drop it here [2]. Thank you! The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:25, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Please weigh in....[edit]

...there is a discussion of sorts at WP:RFPP concerning an article you protected, Jesse Waugh. Would you be so kind as to weigh in there? Pinging sometimes misfires... Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 07:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Rayyan Ahmad Usman Ki Tahreer Episodes[edit]

I would like to suggest that this AfD be reopened. Although I suggested that the article be merged, I was not the nominator. The nominator, User:Loriendrew, had requested deletion, and they never withdrew their nomination, so Wikipedia:Speedy keep#1 does not apply here. One "delete" recommendation and one "merge" recommendation should not equate to a "speedy keep" result. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

The nominator never said anything about deletion or that the information doesn't belong anywhere. They said "it does not qualify for a WP:STANDALONE episode list" (emphasis added), which necessarily means merge given that there is no episode list in the main article. Just perform the merge and there's nothing left to do. postdlf (talk) 01:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Doesn't the "D" in AfD mean deletion? The article was nothing more than a written–out infobox without an actual episode list.--☾Loriendrew☽ (ring-ring) 01:56, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
And you've now redirected it, which you should have tried before resorting to AFD. Again, there is nothing left to do here, and any time a problem can be fixed so easily by editing, it is inappropriate for AFD. Please read relevant policy at WP:ATD, which I also linked to in my closing statement. postdlf (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan[edit]

The paragraph in question has had a CN for several years....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamJE: Obviously not an indication of its inaccuracy or unverifiability.[3] postdlf (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
It is good somebody found a RS and restored it. RS are important here and sorting out whether a source is reliable is part of the work too. Take for instance, Former SCJ John Paul Stevens who wrote in his book Five Chiefs that Harlan Stone died on the bench while reading an opinion. That particular bit of information was in Stone's wikipedia article predating when Stevens wrote his book by five years[4]. Stone didn't die while reading an opinion on the bench, and I removed that bit of wrong information even though it had a IC. To this date I think Stevens, or his ghost writer, got that information from Wikipedia....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Butterfly effect in popular culture[edit]

AfD does not preclude editing the article. I have only removed original research and unsourced material. All sourced material remains. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing unsourced material is not a bold edit. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 18:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Your version is visible in the edit history for editors to consider. Considering how one of the main points of your disagreement with other editors in the AFD is what constitutes adequate sourcing for individual entries (and that you want the whole article deleted), your blanking of sections to support your interpretation is arguably disruptive and WP:POINTy, not constructive. postdlf (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Can I at least assume that once the AfD is closed with "keep", removing OR will not be considered disruptive? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
If there is still expressed disagreement about whether it is OR, yes, it would be disruptive to remove disputed content rather than discussing it. You keep acting as if "OR" is a thing to be objectively found in the world rather than a characterization or conclusion to be reached through consensus. postdlf (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
How about uncited material? Can that be removed? BrightRoundCircle (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
How about you calm down and wait for the discussion to end, before taking up your issues on the article's talk page with other editors? There's no deadline. postdlf (talk) 16:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
After a bit of digging I found this discussion where there's sweeping consensus that examples are not "self-sourcing" and they are required to be significant. This consensus exists regardless of my AfD proposal, and applies to thousands of other articles. Once the AfD is closed with "keep", and following cleanup according to existing consensus, whatever's left will be very short and adequate for merging into a section in butterfly effect. I had explained all this in my AfD proposal, perhaps not as thoroughly as I should have. Anyway some good has come of this since now I know that there's already established, broad consensus for removing examples without a source that shows their significance. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

2015 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States[edit]

Please update. (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It's nice to feel needed...but can't a fella take a vacation? postdlf (talk) 14:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Closing the AfD[edit]

Can you please close this AfD as well? It is similar to the Arsenal F.C. AfD that you closed. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Leicester City F.C. individual awards. Coderzombie (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It has far fewer participants right now and hasn't even been open a day yet, so I don't think it's yet appropriate for a WP:SNOW close. postdlf (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
What I meant was, the exact same arguments apply here as well, right? Coderzombie (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
AFD doesn't work that way; there's no stare decisis. Participants in different discussions may or may not find the same arguments (or prior AFD results) persuasive, or they may find a way to distinguish them, so we don't automatically close them based on precedent. postdlf (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please reconsider your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arsenal F.C. individual awards[edit]

I would like you to reconsider your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arsenal F.C. individual awards. This seems to have been an important discussion that is already being used as precedent. I have no opinion about the particular article - I never saw it - but in light of the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Leicester City F.C. individual awards, I am sorry I missed out. Normally that would be just too bad, but this was a very early close - it was open less than a day and a half. Such an important discussion should not have been closed so soon. StAnselm (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

It's rare for an AFD to get ten participants, let alone ten !delete voters, which is why I considered it appropriate for a WP:SNOW close. What comment or argument would you have contributed if it had been left open longer? postdlf (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, I did not see the article in question, and I don't know if it was rubbish or not, but given that we have many similar lists here (e.g. List of New York Islanders award winners, a featured list), and that Arsenal (unlike Leicester City, actually) has almost always been a top-level football team, I would expect it to be notable. Now, we have to be careful of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists, but it certainly wouldn't fall into the normal category of WP:LISTCRUFT. Also, in this particular discussion there were a lot of simple votes and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. It seems to fall short of the extraordinary situation required by a snow close. StAnselm (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
I note also that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Leicester City F.C. individual awards is leaning overwhelmingly delete. The deletion closure of the Arsenal F.C. list in no way prevents you from !voting keep in the Leicester AFD. As I explained to another editor above, AFDs are only "precedents" to the extent that editors consider them persuasive resolutions of similar issues/content. There's nothing binding from one to the other. postdlf (talk) 01:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
And the Leicester list on the face of it seems less keep-worthy than the Arsenal list, mainly because it has spent so little (less than half) time in the top league. StAnselm (talk) 01:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing - you have said that it doesn't set a precedent, but the procedural nomination was precisely with that in mind: "whatever decision is made regarding the viability of this list is likely to set a significant precedent for the coverage of other sports teams, so deserves a full discussion." StAnselm (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Looking at this further, another similar featured list is List of Detroit Red Wings award winners. This is not just an "other stuff exists" arguments - it is evidence that the community has accepted the notability of award lists by club. (Other such lists include List of Chicago Bears award winners and St. Louis Cardinals award winners and league leaders, so it covers a range of sports.) StAnselm (talk) 04:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Two points. One, it doesn't matter if the Arsenal article was "rubbish or not", it's really down to whether the subject warrants an article, and the community overwhelmingly said no, it didn't. Two, you have found other examples of such lists which currently "exist", you are quite welcome to nominate them for deletion based on this precedent. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
One, if you only have a discussion open for a day, it's not clear you can say what the community "overwhelmingly said". Two, one of the issues is whether there is such a precedent - that is another reason for having a full discussion. StAnselm (talk) 04:59, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
As noted above, it's rare these days to see a couple of !votes over a week, let alone ten or so in a day, I think the community spoke. If you want to try again, nominate one of the other articles. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Removing backlinks after deletion[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you deleted List_of_OECD_countries_by_road_network_size after an AfD in April, where the consensus did not admit any scope to re-create the page; but you omitted to remove incoming links from other pages (it was linked from Template:Transport country lists). This is best practice, as listed at WP:AFDAI. If you normally do it but overlooked i on this occasion, please forgive my disturbing you. Thanks, and keep up the good work! – Fayenatic London 08:46, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Bringing back the relatives field in comic book character info boxes[edit]

What's your opinion on this topic? Want to weight in on it here? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

File:NY COA seal.jpg listed for discussion[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:NY COA seal.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I'm inquiring as to the chance of reversing your decision to delete the article, "List of fraternities and sororities at University of California, Santa Barbara." I use it on occasion and would be happy to add citations. It is a critical resource because there isn't a comprehensive historical list of when fraternities and sororities existed at UCSB anywhere else online I have been able to find. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lcgpbdp (talkcontribs) 17:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of atheist Americans[edit]

I'm writing to urge you to reconsider your decision to close the AfD on List of atheist Americans. Whilst, of course, I respect your decision, I believe that you misinterpreted the outcome of the discussion; the thread closed with two votes for "keep" and two votes for "delete". I believe, furthermore, that the argument for "delete" was much more logically sound. The fact remains that there are no other lists of atheists arranged by nationality. This is, perhaps, because the topic is fairly obscure; there really is very little press coverage that focuses upon the subject of atheists of American origin -- the most recent coverage from a major source that I can find is this two year old article from the BBC: 'The stigma of being an atheist in the US'. However, the dominance of Christians in American politics, for example, is a subject of much interest. On that basis alone, the article fails WP:LISTN and WP:GNG. It is also because such a list would be very, very difficult to compile; atheism is unlike any other religious affiliation -- the statement "I am a Muslim" can only be interpreted in one way, but the statement "I don't believe in God" does not necessarily point to atheism; you could subscribe to a belief system like Buddhism, for example, that has no god. As such, such a list would rely very heavily of the interpretations of individual editors. It has already become clear that very little progress has been made -- the original author has all but abandoned the article, and nobody else has made any constructive contributions in nearly a month. As such, it simply isn't worth the hassle to keep an article that has little interest in the outside world and virtually no interest from Wikipedians. I would point out, also, that the "keep" voters could not point to any policies to support their claim (WP:LISTBIO was mentioned; this has nothing to do with the validity of lists themselves) and that the "keep" argument boils down to "other stuff like this exists, so this should too" -- which is not an argument on the merits of the article. I thank you very much for your time; I am sorry to be so late -- I was away on holiday. Best wishes, Specto73 (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The nominator and the first deletion voter seemed to be under the misapprehension that there were no [nationality]-[religion] lists, which even if there weren't would not be a deletion argument in and of itself (WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST). The nominator's comment further accepts the idea of classifying people in this way by asking why not categorize instead. Rhetorically asking "why is this relevant" is not a deletion argument, leaving the nomination really lacking in substance in light of all that. Shawn in Montreal addressed the flaws in these deletion arguments in the discussion. John Pack Lambert's argument was more substantive but wasn't targeted to the list, but like your comment above instead raised general problems with verifying who is an atheist, but does not argue or claim that it is always unverifiable such that it should not be listed or categorized. This makes his argument and yours a concern about the inclusion of individual entries rather than an attack on the concept of the list itself. That leaves us with LISTN, which as it states is one way to satisfy notability, not the only way that all lists must satisfy. Only one commenter urged that it should be applied here, and that same commenter also incorrectly believed, as noted above, that there were no [nationality]-[religion] lists when in fact such lists are standard. This leaves the keep arguments as being stronger and more reflective of consensus as demonstrated in longstanding practice and guidelines, such as WP:CLN and WP:LISTBIO (and WP:LISTPURP as an index of notable people, though that guideline was not expressly cited in the discussion). postdlf (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]



Greetings. I picked you, randomly, as an admin who rules on WP:AfDs. The article, Desksite is about a deskop/laptop app that's connected to Leigh Steinberg, formerly a prominent sports agent, now more than a bit down on his luck. The movie Jerry Maguire was based on his life to that point. I've edited his article several times over the years to remove peacock/PR material, with cranky remarks on the Talk page. He's a director, and possibly partner in this software company. The nomination is for lack of notoriety—it's gotten no serious broadcast, online, or print coverage. I'm going to be throrough in notifying major contributors. I expect there may be some vehement negative reaction. Would you call this a controversial edit? I'm asking because I'm using the newly installed Twinkle gadget, and they recommend specific procedures for 'controversial' edits. Regards and thanks Tapered (talk) 03:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tapered: Read through WP:BEFORE to see what you're expected to do prior to a nomination. If you're confident you've done your due diligence and that the article subject fails WP:GNG and/or WP:CORP based on what sources exist, not merely what's in the article at present, then feel free to nominate it for deletion. If it's not a subject area you typically edit in, you might want to ask a question at a relevant Wikiproject first as other editors may be more familiar with the industry and relevant sources. postdlf (talk) 18:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Postd. I believe I've done 'due diligence,' and believe that it qualifies for AfD. It ought to be an interesting discussion. Regards Tapered (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about Administrator powers[edit]

Greetings again. I proposed Celebrity doctor for AfD, without realizing it would stir up a hornet's nest. It will never be deleted, however pernicious, but I've added to my original statement, suggesting that the closing Admin proactively change the title of the article. Is that possible/permissible? I made what I considered a strong argument for my proposition. Here's the discussion.

If it's a COI to answer this, then too bad for me. And of course, I'm not asking you to close. Thanks and regards. Tapered (talk) 06:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Postdlf. 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. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Three years ago ...
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Court case information box
... you were recipient
no. 615 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Results of the Monash Student Association elections, 2016[edit]

Per WP:NOTBURO, can I ask you to reconsider the close with regards to the templates (particularly as some of the commenters specifically stated support for their deletion). Thanks, Number 57 15:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Even if I were inclined to ignore that this was Articles for deletion and not Templates for deletion, none of the templates were tagged with notices of the deletion discussion. postdlf (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Because they were created specifically for and used only on that one page. Number 57 15:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
One thing you could do, talk to the creator if he's the only one who edited any of the templates, see if he'll agree to WP:CSD#G7. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed protection on List of hotels in the Philippines[edit]

You have recently added extended-confirmed protection to List of hotels in the Philippines. Note that the announcement above from September 23rd states that "Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort."

I assume this was a mistake, perhaps a misclick. Would you mind changing the protection level of List of hotels in the Philippines to semiprotected? Mamyles (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Interview invitation from a Wikipedia researcher in University of Minnesota[edit]

Hello Postdlf,

I am Bowen Yu, a Ph.D. student from GroupLens Research at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities. Currently, we are undertaking a study about turnover (editors leaving and joining) in WikiProjects within Wikipedia. We are trying to understand the effects of member turnovers in the WikiProject group, in terms of the group performance and member interaction, with a purpose of learning how to build successful online communities in future. More details about our project can be found on this meta-wiki page.

I would like to invite you for an interview if you are interested in our study and willing to share your experience with us. The interview will be about 30 - 45 minutes via either Skype or Google Hangout. You will receive a $10 gift card as compensation afterwards.

Please reach me at if you are interested or have any questions.

Thank you,


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Postdlf. You have new messages at Bobo.03's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobo.03 (talkcontribs) 19:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC) 

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]


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) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested[edit]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Postdlf.

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) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Kempinski Hotel N'Djamena[edit]

Is the Kempinski Hotel N'Djamena in Chad notable? I have improved it, and it was created in 2009. I don't know if I can save any of the 6 lists, but I am going to try. --Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

No idea. Look to the corresponding categories (e.g., Category:Buildings and structures in Chad) for articles. postdlf (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Postdlf. 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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Postdlf. 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. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)