User talk:Verrai/Archive11

Speedy Deletion of Tadashi Mori (Origami Artist)

Hello there, I noticed that you deleted the article about Tadashi Mori, it'd like to understand why you'd consider him to not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. In the origami subject, he is one of the most well known artist nowadays and contributed a lot for the origami community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Li okura (talk • contribs) 01:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTABILITY. The criterion is not whether a figure is notable, but whether the article asserts their notability. The article only mentioned appearances in YouTube videos and a single television mention, as well as appearances at conferences that are not themselves notable enough to make it onto Wikipedia, which is not enough of an assertion of notability. This does not necessarily mean he is not notable, but the article would need to be re-written to properly express that. —Verrai 16:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Where is the sandbox?

Greetings Verrai, I just noticed that you are the sole Wikipedia administrator without a talk page. Well, at least you were before this edit :) I could not find the Sandbox so just wanting to scribble something somewhere. I hope you resume editing and continue with your solid contributions to Wikipedia! Cordially, jni (talk) 13:19, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hurricane John

Hi Verrai,

Congratulations on getting Hurricane John (1994) up on the main page! I noticed that the statement about the hurricane's formation "during the strong El Niño of 1991 to 1994" is not sourced or mentioned in the body of the article, so I tagged it as such. I do not know where to find a source for this statement, and the statement is currently in the TFA blurb on the main page. Any help you are able to provide in sourcing this statement or determining to remove it would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't contributed to the page in a very long time, but I believe the below link should provide information on El Nino strength in th 1991/2 and 1994/5 seasons. I don't think it is essential to the article if you would prefer to remove. http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ensoyears.shtml —Verrai 15:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Precious

hurricanes
Thank you for entering Wikipedia with impact, for quality articles on hurricanes such as Hurricane John (1994), for fighting vandalism and dealing with deletions, for improving, with an occasional detailed edit summary, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 943rd recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Five years ago, you were recipient no. 943 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Central Ohio Film Critics Association

Why did you delete Central Ohio Film Critics Association when the last version was not identical and was improved from the article that was first deleted? This means it should not have been deleted so speedily per WP:G4. Can you please provide the versions prior to both deletions so we can compare? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The version deleted in the 2010 AfD was in fact significantly more in-depth than the most recent iteration. The version deleted in 2007 was similar but somewhat shorter. An article that has been deleted for non-notability at two separate AfDs, and deleted a total of five previous times, is not worth having yet another AfD discussion on when the new version covers the exact same substantive ground. —Verrai 23:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Please provide the full page history at Draft:Central Ohio Film Critics Association. I was in the middle of researching the topic before you deleted it. I will see how much in-depth coverage can be combined to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 05:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

All edit history has been restored at the Draft page. —Verrai 00:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete of The Betoota Advocate

I would like to request explanation on your deletion of The Betoota Advocate, and also of you totally ignoring my arguments on the talk page? It was plain (I provided a link) that the speedy delete argument was wrong because the page had significantly changed from the version deleted at AfD. If it was worth deleting, it certainly wasn't under that argument. JT_dale^Talk~ 23:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

The reproduced article contained substantively the same content with different text, plus a few listicle-y media mentions (one of which called the publication "obscure"). That is not, in my opinion, enough to evade a speedy deletion for recreation of deleted content, which applies to any recreations with the same content, whether they are identical in text or not. —Verrai 23:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. It was definitely improved, having many more references. I do not believe the unilateral process of speedy delete is at all appropriate for something with that many references and such difference to the original article. JT_dale^Talk~ 04:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Unicorning. We have some rather innocent patrollers!

It was pure filth. Thanks for picking it up and S/D'ing. The other partoller thought it might need PRODDING...Oh dear Irondome (talk) 23:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Speady deletion of Pension sistems

The article that I have in mind is different because it is in the view of the cost of the Pension sistems to the State balance. There are to evidence the public law and the private law that regulate the pension sistems and their inpact in the economy. There are the implicit public debt that the public pension sistems carry to the States and the intergenerational conflict that create. I want continue. See Laurence Kotlikoff --Conigliomannaro (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for original research and presents information only on a neutral point of view. In any case, the topic you describe, to the extent it is not original research and presented neutrally, would be covered (and is extensively covered) by the pension article (see, in particular, the Criticism, History and Current challenges sections). Also, the correct English spelling would be "pension system". —Verrai 23:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please explain

You deleted Category:4th century in Israel despite my objection on the talkpage. In the editsummaries of the deletion of the category and the talkpage I saw no explanation that took my objection into account. Please tell me if you saw my objection and, if you did, why you decided to delete the category anyway. Debresser (talk) 17:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I did see your objection, though I did not understand it. There is no "set" that this category was a part of, as comparable Categories for other surrounding centuries in Israel do not exist. (There is also the more political argument that Israel of course did not exist in the 4th century as a political unit, though not relevant to *speedy* deletion discussion.) In addition, the mere fact that some article may be added to a category in the future is not enough to save an empty category. Rather, the category must by its nature be the sort of category that sometimes becomes empty (typically, categories involving current events). This is clearly not the case for a category dealing with the distant past. I do not think there was any real merit to your objection. —Verrai 00:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The category tree I was referring to is Category:Centuries in Israel. Debresser (talk) 01:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

That is not a reason for an empty category to be preserved. The other pages on that Category tree contain at least one article, as far as I can tell. —Verrai 01:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:AN

Please see this discussion regarding your admin privileges. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Ronald Gonzalez (Sculptor)

Have made attempts to recover Draft:Ronald Gonzalez (Sculptor)using WP:REFUND/G13 without success! Can you please help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpspano (talk • contribs) 22:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. It looks like the page was restored by another administrator before I saw your message. However, the restored page has been deleted as a copyright violation. —Verrai 01:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

AFD

The AFD takes forever to create.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that the process could be streamlined, but that doesn't make articles that don't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria can or should be deleted without discussion. You can always nominate using WP:PROD as well. —Verrai 22:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Quantum thermodynamics

Hi Verrai, I was wondering about the G6 that you declined on quantum thermodynamics. There have been two extensive conversations on WT:PHYS, the latter of which I linked to in the G6 request, which have pointed out how the current draft is acceptable for the Article space. As a member of WP:PHYS myself I feel that I am qualified to review a highly-technical physics article (as opposed to a non-physics reviewer). Is staring yet another talk page conversation going to change the fact that this is a suitable article? Primefac (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks--I've made the deletion. I think I was confused as to the context of this request. —Verrai 19:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries, glad I could clear things up. Thanks! Primefac (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Linford Group

The article Linford Group has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NCORP

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Badgernet  ₪  15:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I to be honest do not recall creating this article way back in 2006 (probably a requested article), but considering that the company in question went bankrupt and shut down in 2011 and most sources I found on a cursory search discuss only the cessation of operations, I fully agree with the deletion of the article. However, this isn't a G7 as Dormskirk is really the primary contributor, not me. —Verrai 17:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:MISSING listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:MISSING. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:MISSING redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Verrai. 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)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

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) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Verrai.

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)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Verrai. 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)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

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.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

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.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

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.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Verrai. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Verrai. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Canadian federal election, 2008

Template:Canadian federal election, 2008 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Steel1943 (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion for List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season

An article that you have been involved in editing—List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Noah^Talk 18:49, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Bridget Wenlock" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bridget Wenlock. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 5#Bridget Wenlock until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC⁶⁷⁸ 18:20, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Index for Hinduism

Respected Verrai (talk), I have seen that you have deleted a page on Index of Hinduism-related articles in the back 2015, many religions had a page (article) so I want you to ask you to create a page on this article.
Yours Repectively
Mealiyta (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Quebec general election, 2007

Template:Quebec general election, 2007 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Butadiene (data page)

Seen the AfD discussion currently going on for Caffeine (data page), I am considering to revert the deletion of Butadiene (data page) and have it go through the same discussion as the Caffeine datapage. As for caffeine, the datapage for butadiene was first merged into the ‘main’ page and then blanked, making it G3 eligible. However, again as for caffeine, I believe that the data that was contained in the datapage is now bloating the article butadiene, and that the former datapage could actually be further expanded with other physical data that can support the many articles (many of general interest, e.g. synthetic rubber), but which is excessive datacreep inside the main article. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Understood, no objection to restoring subject to the ongoing discussions. —Verrai 21:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)