User talk:Dmehus/Archives/2020/February

Pings and emails

Please do not {{ping}} me in every edit or edit summary in which you mention me. It clogs my notification list, and is annoying. If I post in a discussion, that is my considered word. I will usually return only if an editor asks for clarification or for an answer strictly in reply to an argument of theirs.

Pinging can also offend against WP:CANVASS.

I keep my email open, but disapprove of WP emails outside exceptional circumstances. I think I've been involved in WP emails 5 times:

1. It turned out that another editor and I had grown up within a mile of each other. We had an off-wiki natter.
2. I got hit with a hard rangeblock by a steward who I will not be voting for if I see them come up for re-election. It took 3 emails from me, 2 back, and efforts by at least 3 other editors, 2 of them very experienced admins, to sort that out.
3. I was invited to do some WP:PAID editing. I had to ask around to find where to forward that email.
4. An editor was repeatedly posting the cellphone number of a 13yo Indian actress in her biography. I found where to report that by my own efforts.
5. Your request that I contribute to an AFD.

IMO, WP email should only be used for trivialities or emergencies. Everything in between is for Talk Pages.

BTW, your WP activity is looking somewhat unbalanced. Most editors have over 90% in mainspace edits (the red segment). Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert, Noted. I'll had you to my mental list of editors who have selected opted out of pings and thanks. Know that if I don't thank you, I do "thank" for your contributions and fixes to disambiguation pages, clarification of policies, and the like. Doug Mehus T·C 01:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Senator Cotter

I am curious how you could read a news article titled ""Saskatchewan, New Brunswick get new senators" and conclude that a Senator has been appointed to represent British Columbia? 45.72.245.7 (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

The PMO's press release said British Columbia, as I recall. Doug Mehus T·C 01:49, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

"The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today announced that the Governor General appointed Judith Keating and W. Brent Cotter as independent Senators to fill vacancies for New Brunswick and Saskatchewan."[1] And why did you think he's a former judge? That's not written in any of the source material. He's an ex-law dean and deputy minister. No mention of his ever being a judge. 45.72.245.7 (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It was an oversight on my part. I read incorrectly. Thanks for bringing it to my attention, and for correcting. Doug Mehus T·C 01:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

My bad. It was Saskatchewan. Feel free to reverse or undo my edit. Oopsies. Doug Mehus T·C 01:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

TfD thought

I was going through closing some TfDs when I came across your comments here; they give the impression that you are commenting on a discussion purely to comment on a discussion. If you don't know what a template does, or why it would be useful, there is really no need to comment saying that; simply wait until someone else has done so and/or leave well enough alone. Your comments (both the initial one and the subsequent replies to the other participants) add almost nothing and (if anything) make it more tedious to read through the actual discussion. Primefac (talk) 03:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, That's a fair point. I agree that my comment adds nothing there. Should I remove it entirely, or would it be more helpful if I struck out and unbolded the "support"? Doug Mehus T·C 03:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry about that particular discussion (since there's a whole lot of "meh" there anyway), just please keep it in mind for the future. Primefac (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Snow close of Articles for deletion/Horizons Gorwelion

Hi there. I have no problem with the Snow close of this article, but I am a touch confused by your summary here.[2] You state that only SmokeyJoe notionally !voted "keep," and there is a summary to that effect, but clicking the history here[3] shows three other keep votes and nothing from SmokeyJoe. Was there a parallel discussion? I am a little confused. In any case, you could update the summary and say there was alread a clear consensus for a Snow keep. It was not just SmokeyJoe. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, At the AfD you noted, there was a definite WP:SNOW "keep," but that was the MfD, which was discussing to delete the AfD page for Horizons Gorwelion, only SmokeyJoe had expressed a "keep." The two are separate discussions; the AfD, which was a WP:SNOW keep, arguably, was to keep the Horizons Gorwelion article. The other was a request by Llemiles to suppress, or delete, the out-of-process AfD nomination page. When SmokeyJoe explained the benefits to keeping the AfD pages, Llemiles seemed to concur with that argument. Let me know if that clarifies; I'm happy to modify the close, but there, technically, wasn't a WP:SNOW agreement at the MfD. Doug Mehus T·C 16:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I should say for the record I am happy with the decision to keep the AfD page and reject the miscellaneous deletion proposal. Llemiles (talk) 17:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Llemiles, Thank you for clarifying that, on the record. That's helpful for knowing the MfD close was absolutely correct. Doug Mehus T·C 18:06, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Llemiles, FWIW, aside from GDX420's bad-faith AfD nominations and PRODs of your articles, looking at it on the bright side, those articles which he or she nominated or tagged in bad-faith can never again be PROD'ed or CSD'ed as A7/G7; any future potential deletion requests must go through AfD, as I understand it. Doug Mehus T·C 18:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. No need to change the summary, I was just confused what had happened!-- Sirfurboy (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Sirfurboy, No worries at all, and thanks for your question. I'm glad the explanation was helpful—that is, there were two bad-faith AfD nominations (have a look at MfD). Llemiles took the editor, appropriately, to ANI following the editor's casting unfounded aspersions about Llemiles and being disruptive, then sought to delete the AfD discussion pages at MfD. I appreciate you asking me because I am never opposed to altering, or even re-opening/undoing, my closes, as evidenced by the discussion with BrownHairedGirl above. Doug Mehus T·C 22:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

JOO

In JOO: (1) good redirect to Jew (disambiguation), near homonym. I've added the reverse redirect from Jew (disambiguation). (2) Don't pipe links on DAB pages per WP:DABPIPE; which specifies some rare exceptions. Narky Blert (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert, Thank you. I wondered about the reverse redirect, so thanks for confirming and adding that. Doug Mehus T·C 21:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert, Regarding the alphabetic sorting, don't we file characters with diacritics before the letter a, or do we interfile them with the alphabetic equivalents? Do you know where this sort order is described, by chance? Doug Mehus T·C 21:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

By default, in ASCII (and other coding systems) Latin letters with diacritics sort after the rest of the alphabet, more or less in alphabetical order. I've seen a WP: statement somewhere to the effect that the WP engine sorts words with diacritics into the Latin alphabet in the expected order. I'm not sure I believe it, so I always add DEFAULTSORT where appropriate. It costs little, and eliminates the possibility of confusion. In some languages, diacritics are ignored for sorting purposes, so that e.g. e and é are treated as the same and interleaved. In others, accented letters appear in dictionaries right after the unaccented letter. In yet others, the accented letters are in a different place in the alphabet altogether. Open edit mode in this (or any other page), and click "Special characters" at the top. Do all of those sort among the unaccented characters?

I adopt the simple-minded idea that alphabetised lists in English WP should ignore diacritics. Put the entries where a monolingual English speaker would expect to find them (and ignore case also). (Many English-speaking editors seem to be under the impression that diacritical marks are some sort of affectation (see metal umlaut), rather than marking different letters with different sounds. There's also the problem that some languages, e.g. Russian and especially Greek, commonly use diacritics (usually an acute accent) as stress markers within words. (English does something similar too, but rarely, as a pronunciation guide; e.g. Boötes).)

One of my minor bugbears is sortkeys which don't correspond with the article title; e.g. a sortkey "Mueller" for someone called "Müller". In German, "ue" is exactly the same as "ü"; but we have to follow the sources, and use what they say. "Göte" is pronounced the same as "Goethe", but it would be horribly wrong, anywhere. Narky Blert (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Notoriously, the IBM ASCII set included the non-existent letter 'ÿ' (0x00FF). It was there almost certainly because of a misunderstanding of the Dutch digraph ij. Narky Blert (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

2020 Caribbean earthquake

Thanks for your well-reasoned closure of the AfD as "no consensus". You're entirely right to point out WP:RAPID, I've learnt from past experience that sending an article to AfD too soon after the event is generally not a good idea (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Ionian Sea earthquake). Mikenorton (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

GNG/SNGs

I was literally in the process of typing out three paragraphs on this when Sandstein closed the discussion, but the headlines are: (1) I hate almost all SNGs and I think Wikipedia would be better off without them; (2) I think WP:PROF is an exception; and (3) the reason why I think so is because I feel that we shouldn't need reliable sources to discuss things that are reliable sources.

What I mean is that when university professors publish their findings in scholarly journals, those are impeccable sources. Indispensable, if we want to write a reliable encyclopaedia. But we often can't find sources for articles about the professors or the scholarly journals themselves. More than ten years ago, Drmies and I collaborated on an essay about this.—S Marshall T/C 14:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

S Marshall, Thanks for your reply! I see it was a "no consensus" close, which is reasonable considering the three "keeps" and two "deletes". I see Sandstein opted not to process deletion per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE because identity cannot be ascertained. Nevertheless, do you think Oversight should still be engaged to at least reach out to the requesting user to verify their identity?

To your responses, I agree with you, strongly, on #1 because I think WP:GNG should be our notability guideline for everyone; the SNGs, if kept, should be converted to interpretative essays not policies or guidelines. I also agree with you on #3 because, yes, the scholarly journals in which they publish are (almost entirely, barring a few from some predatory vanity publishers) impeccable sources. That said, the WP:NPROF seems to ignore the fact that we still can't reliably write more than a perpetual stub-class article. So, why should we give an encyclopedia article that is often little more than dictionary definition stating one merely exists or existed to every Tom, Dick, or Harry/Harriet that is or was a professor? Not every professor gets an article or a mention in, say, the Dictionary of National Biography, I'm sure. So why here? Doug Mehus T·C 15:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

It is not the OS team's job to ask people if they are who they claim they are. If there is a concern about username impersonation, the account should be blocked with instructions on how to contact someone via OTRS. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Primefac, Thanks for clarifying that. That's fair. I don't have concerns of impersonation, but if that user makes a supplementary request for a BLP deletion, is the best outcome to direct them to Oversight for follow-up? Doug Mehus T·C 15:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Direct them to OTRS. Don't send anything to Oversight unless it's really urgent. In my ten years on Wikipedia I've emailed Oversight once.—S Marshall T/C 19:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, yeah I wasn't going to e-mail Oversight myself. I'll see if Espresso Addict has left a note on their talk page and, if not, I'll put a courtesy note there on how to follow up should they wish. Doug Mehus T·C 19:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@S Marshall and Primefac: & Doug -- I'm just online now -- I was going to look up policy to see what next recourse they have. Can someone point me at the relevant page that says to contact OTRS? I'd assumed that they would need to appeal to the Foundation. Ah, I see OTRS is an appeal to the Foundation. Personally I very much doubt this is a case of impersonation, but I don't deal in user conduct issues and this has never happened to me before. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, I found this, which doesn't seem to rule out a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE even when an AfD has been conducted. Though it had a couple "keeps," it's worth noting that no editor opposed a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE, if that's helpful. It sounds like any administrator can process the request, assuming they have no reason to doubt the subject's identity, as an expired PROD and delete it on that basis. However, if wanting to have Oversight involved, I'm not sure if you can request an action on the subject's behalf or if you'd have to just notify the subject via their talkpage. Wikipedia:Requests for oversight is all I found. But I'm going to ping SMcCandlish as well because I recall him saying that he assisted a subject have their article deleted. Maybe he has either (a) more detail on the process or (b) other potential options besides WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Doug Mehus T·C 21:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure I want to unilaterally delete the article, given that several long-standing and experienced editors wished to retain it despite the request. I have responded on Dyling123's talk page with the OTRS e-mail. If anyone has any better course of action, do ping me to let me know. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

As much as I hate to say it, the wishes of the article subject are largely immaterial. If they want the page deleted, we can nominate it for deletion, but that's about it. If they want Fact X removed from the Personal Life, then unless it's completely unsourced generally it will take a discussion and/or consensus to remove it. BLPREQUESTDELETE is really nothing more than saying "if it's close, take the subject's wishes into account." Primefac (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

• @S Marshall:, Primefac, and Doug: completely off the topic, but highly releavent to SNGs, is my very brief opinion here: special:diff/939167437. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  Usernamekiran, How did you find this user talk page discussion? I'm impressed. Nonetheless, it sounds like you're in agreement re: the SNGs. Now that it's been clarified, sort of, they seem like a back-door way to notability, and without doing away or clarifying the SNGs, we will continue to drown in spam at AfD! Doug Mehus T·C 20:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  Just aimless wandering, and pure luck —usernamekiran (talk) 21:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Seven Isles

The three entries in Seven Isles look fine to me, even if the Heptanese are more often known as the Seven Islands. A model DAB page...

...which doesn't look in any way necessary or useful. The distinction between isle and island is trifling, and they're sometimes interchangeable (Isles of Scilly and Scilly Islands). If you propose a WP:MERGE to Seven Islands, you might just have a support !vote. Narky Blert (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert, Thanks for the feedback. I didn't propose to merge Seven Isles into Seven Islands, but that's a good option as well. I have instead proposed to move, uncontroversially, Seven Isles (Fort Lauderdale), over unnecessary Seven Isles dab page, with a hatnote to the Narnia archipelago and/or Seven Islands (disambiguation), if necessary. Doug Mehus T·C 19:13, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Last Sea

I've taken off your {{db-g14}} tag. There is no requirement that a DAB page should contain any bluelinks by its name, only that each entry should have a bluelink pointing somewhere useful. I've seen {{geodis}} pages which were all or largely redlinks, and {{hndis}} pages which contained only a couple of characters in TV series. Narky Blert (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert, Oh, weird. Don't get me wrong, I love dab pages, but it does seem inconsistent with our guidelines. What about nominating for AfD? Better to have hatnotes, or no? I'm not really strongly for or against this dab page. Doug Mehus T·C 20:05, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, consistent with the guidelines. See the example at MOS:DABMENTION. Narky Blert (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Message from 5patrickgilles5 to Dmehus

Hello Dmehus, I submit that you may not be abiding fully to the five pilars. You seem to be making unilateral decisions on pages and making changes without concensus, fact-checking, or research. I ask that you please use concensus before you delete, redirect, remove others from the wikipedia platform. In regard to your changes to "America is still the place" - book written by Charlie Walker, you redirected to an actor's page. This does not appear to be relevant to the degree of "redirecting" and deleting an entire page. Consequently, Mr. Walker's work as a writer has been summarily deleted from wikipedia history.

Please show, state the research you conducted and the consensus you sought prior to making these changes. Greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5patrickgilles5 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

@5patrickgilles5: Please assume good-faith as I did for you. To answer your reply, which you'll note I kindly requested you reply on your talk page with a {{ping}} to me. I challenged your good-faith removal of the redirect consistent with Bold, Revert, Discuss. The proper protocol is for you to seek consensus on the linked talk page at Talk:America is still the place to remove the redirect. Thanks. Doug Mehus T·C 21:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. I admit I'm slightly confused by your additional requests of me. By the date stamps and time it appears you are asking me to build the very consensus you had not participating in prior to making fundemental edits to a wiki page. BRD is not mandated and might not be weilded as "rule" before consensus for edits takes place. Please cite the good faith rule you are following with your redirect. I was the originator of the America is still the place page. I believe consensus is your burden, responsibility, due diligence. It appears you are making unilateral edits. Please state your research, consenus and conclusion for the redirect. Greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5patrickgilles5 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

5patrickgilles5, I have been assuming assuming good-faith, and I appreciate your willingness now to do the same. Please be advised I am not opposed to converting this to an article, but let the discussion play out at RfD, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion, bearing in mind it's not a vote but you must cite relevant policies, essays, guidance, and common sense. The correct place for you to begin this article is at Draft:America is still the place. After which, you can submit it to our AfC volunteer team for peer review. That is an acceptable article incubation process. If you have any questions about the AfC process, I can refer you to Robert McClenon, who is a long-time AfC volunteer editor, and is more familiar than I on the process. Doug Mehus T·C 22:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Dmehus, User:5patrickgilles5 - I don't really understand this dispute. I am inferring, possibly incorrectly, that the intention of one of the parties is to spin out an article about either a book or a film, when there is currently a redirect for the title. Is that what the issue is? I have found that such requests can be contentious, and I haven't found a one-size-fits-all way to deal with such requests. One way to deal with any redirect is Redirects for Discussion, which appears to have been started. Once any XFD deletion discussion is started, it should be allowed to run for 7 days to completion, and is a way to establish consensus. It often isn't the ideal way to establish consensus, but it is the closest to one-size-that-is-equally-not-quite-right-for-everyone. Now, will someone explain to me what the issue is, or will we just allow the RFD to run? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, Thanks, Robert. I included you in the discussion if the editor had any questions with AfC. I've suggested draftification, if the editor wants to incubate the article ahead of time, but as written, the editor cannot have a simple bibliographic entry in Main: namespace per WP:NOTBIBLIOGRAPHY, correct? Doug Mehus T·C 22:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

A single bibliographic entry in mainspace would be the sort of sub-stub that is deprecated, and would probably be proposed for deletion. So I agree that Articles for Creation is a reasonable approach, possibly the most reasonable approach, and the existence of the draft can be mentioned in the RFD, and the existence of the RFD can be mentioned in a comment or on the talk page of the draft. I am one of the reviewers who tries to work off cases where a draft has the same title as an existing redirect, so please let me know if there is a draft that I can review. Okay? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I see someone, perhaps the editor, has now created a draft at Draft:America is still the place. I'll double-check and make sure it is and has an AfC template added. Doug Mehus T·C 23:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I've enabled the AFCH helper script gadget, but because I haven't officially joined the team, I guess I can't apply the tags. Could you kindly do that for me, and do you think I could be added as a participant? Near-term, my involvement will be limited to moving under-sourced articles to Draft: namespace and applying the AFCH tags. I may also comment on submissions from time to time, but would neither approve or reject them without going through your formal training program. Doug Mehus T·C 23:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I manually substituted {{AFC submission}}. Was that the correct one? Doug Mehus T·C 23:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, User:Dmehus and User:5patrickgilles5, that was the correct template to request review. I see that reviewer User:KylieTastic has declined the draft as not satisfying notability. I would have declined it as not having any references and so failing verification, but those are just two different ways of saying that it doesn't have enough information, because it is a sub-stub. It was declined and not rejected, so that the author is encouraged to expand it and provide enough information to satisfy book notability if it is about the book or film notability if it is about the film. If adequate stubs are written for both the book and the film, a disambiguation page will be in order. User:5patrickgilles5 - Please expand it if you want it included in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Robert and KylieTastic. Doug Mehus T·C 00:37, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Novel coronavirus

Hi, the discussion has been closed already, but just to answer your point that you made at the RM, I would have thought common sense could also apply from a process point of view too. If we've just spent a month discussing something, and the consensus emerged for a new title (and I don't think everyone who !voted in the prior RM had completely ignored the question of whether it might be Novel or novel), it is reasonable to expect the subject to be done and dusted at least for a little while. For what it's worth I also don't the arguments made by the nominator don't stand up to scrutiny IMHO either, and maybe you're right that I should have pointed this out to the nominator too, so that they can learn from it. The issues I see are:

1. The nom doesn't address the requirements of MOS:CAPS, which is not just that a handful of sources capitalising the name can be found, but that a substantial majority do so. Evidence is required for that.
2. There were three sources presented: CDC [4], ASM [5], Medscape [6]. All three call it a "Novel Coronavirus" in the title, but then go on to call it "novel coronavirus" in the body of the text. This is very typical of a lot of media sources, where titles are routinely written in (unsurprisingly) title case. That's not our policy here though, we write in sentence case unless sources routinely use title case everywhere, including in the body. Thanks for the comment, anyway, and I've been pleased to see you around the place in the last few months - you seem generally to have a good sound grasp of what's going on here, and a welcome addition to the ranks!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

   Amakuru, Thanks for your reply. It's somewhat confusing, since we use "novel" in the lede, when we normally title according to common name and use the official name in the lede. Shouldn't we title with "novel" (as it is), and update the lede to Novel coronavirus? Doug Mehus T·C 20:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

   Maybe disease titling in the lede is different from that of companies with respect to official/common names, though, but yeah, I can potentially see this 2019 novel coronavirus per WP:COMMONNAME. Just wondering if it shouldn't maybe be NCoV and Novel coronavirus in the infobox and lede, respectively. I don't really edit the disease areas much, if at all, really, so there could be some differences stylistically from companies and people. Doug Mehus T·C 20:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

   But what makes you think that Novel coronavirus is the "official name"? Like you I am not an expert in this field, and I haven't even checked which organisation came up with that name, but whoever it was, are you sure that they explicitly intended to title it with a capital letter, and do so consistently in all their literature? The sources above suggest that even official organisations are quite haphazard with respect to this question, and we should therefore simply use our own manual of style to address the question.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

   I'm not an expert either and was just going by the opinions expressed by the editors in the discussion on its "official name." The CDC's disease page has it as 2019 Novel coronavirus and abbreviated, interestingly, as nCoV. Health Canada uses both capitalizations, whilst the WHO uses 2019 novel coronavirus nCoV from this disease page. Not sure how we handle this situation where even the official sources have no consensus in terms of the stylization of the official disease name. Personally, I'm fine with leaving it is, with the view that if the official sources later change their webpages and documentations, we update it. I wonder if this was a case of different bureaucrats rushing to get out their documents and not adhering to a specific style guide? Doug Mehus T·C 21:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Megathread

✗ Fail. See also WP:SOFTREDIRECT#Deletion.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Megathread requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Less Unless (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Soft redirects

Hi, I just noticed Googlewhore and I just work here in the new pages feed. Looking at the guidance from WP:SOFTSISP (Please keep in mind that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects), I'm kind of doubtful those meet the intent. Just something to keep in mind before creating many more like this, and I could be wrong about these two, other editors might disagree. Schazjmd (talk) 23:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, Thanks for clarifying; that's my understanding as well. Did you approve those two? Regarding megathread, I'm doubtful that is encyclopedia content as well. WP:SOFTREDIRECT essentially allows us to enforce WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Doug Mehus T·C 23:31, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't have new page reviewer rights, I just keep an eye on the feed because there are lots of easy improvements that can be made there, and I noticed those two because soft redirects are uncommon. I think the issue would be the implication that these two are repeatedly recreated articles or commonly wikified words/phrases. But just because I find it dubious doesn't mean anyone else would. Just wanted to bring it up for consideration. Schazjmd (talk) 23:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Schazjmd, thanks for the insight. I didn't check the log to see if they had been repeatedly created; when I checked the Special:NewPagesFeed, it says, "no issues," and predicted classification "stub-class". Its only issues were that it was an orphan and that it was uncited. I actually think there's a benefit to soft redirects, too, in that they're added to Category:Monitored short pages, which implies increased monitoring by bots for vandalism, perhaps? Doug Mehus T·C 23:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of I just work here

✗ Fail. See also WP:SOFTREDIRECT#Deletion.

Hello, Dmehus I wanted to let you know that I just tagged I just work here for deletion, because it seems to be vandalism or a hoax. If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks! (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.) Meatsgains(talk) 02:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

"Megathread" listed at Redirects for discussion

✓ as noted. RfD was actually the correct deletion venue per WP:SOFTREDIRECT#Deletion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Megathread. Since you had some involvement with the Megathread redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Guy (help!) 16:44, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Megathread

N as noted. RfD is actually the correct deletion venue per WP:SOFTREDIRECT#Deletion

Megathread, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Megathread and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Megathread during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (help!) 16:45, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Googlewhore

N as noted. RfD is actually the correct deletion venue per WP:SOFTREDIRECT#Deletion

Googlewhore, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Googlewhore and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Googlewhore during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (help!) 16:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

MfD nomination of I just work here

N as noted. RfD is actually the correct deletion venue per WP:SOFTREDIRECT#Deletion

I just work here, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/I just work here and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of I just work here during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Guy (help!) 16:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

A word of encouragement

I see that you've got the I-wanna-be-an-admin box on your User Page. I haven't the slightest wish to be an admin, but here are some tips. I think you're WP:NOTYET, but that you're getting there. You're working in near-adminny areas like WP:XFD, which is good. You only have 5,939 edits, but they're spread around. You've never been on the wrong end of a block. (How do I know that? from this.)

If you keep working in XFD, you'll get better at it and be noticed by admins. Follow WP:RFA to see what makes for a successful candidature. Follow WP:ANI, WP:RFPP, and so on to see what other admins handle. Look for some more of those interesting report tools (you can't have too many of them, or know too many WP:SHORTCUTs). Also see WP:ARBCOM for what to avoid! One thing I've seen from rootling around in the backwaters of WP is, that many admins, and also non-admin WikiGnomes and other WikiFauna, have specialities. The only reason for going for adminship (other than WP:HATCOLLECTing) is to be more efficient in your speciality areas.

An RFA-type supplementary question. An editor is repeatedly posting the mobile number of a 13-yo Indian actress in her WP biography. What action do you take? (It took me some time to find the answer when I fell across that problem, but it was obviously a case of drop everything.)

Another RFA-type supplementary question, also from real life. An editor emails you, asking you to edit an article for pay. The edit history unsurprisingly shows signs of WP:COI editing, including by that editor. What action(s) do you take? Narky Blert (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert, Funny you should mention that, as I'm inclined to favour not really ever running for an administrator position. S Marshall, whom I thought was an administrator, said it best when describing RfA as a "ritual hazing" and that, really, the only need to be an administrator is to (a) close XfDs as delete and (b) block users. I have little to no interest in the latter (other than in cases of necessity; what I mean is, I wouldn't patrol ANI so regularly as some admins tend to do), and actually wish that the "delete" privilege could be unbundled as a user right. That way, experienced editors such as yourself, who would likely qualify instantly, and me, who is "getting there" would likely soon qualify could assist in these sort of janitorial duties.

In answer to your hypothetical questions, my first instinct would be delete the revision, and, actually, that's probably a case of blocking the offending user immediately. It's problematic enough if it's the private cell phone number of an adult celebrity; the fact it's a minor is even more of a problem. As an editor, I'd be inclined to report it to Oversight, but feel that might even be too slow. As an editor, would I use the WP:AN noticeboard, for faster response, or still raise it with WP:ANI?

To your second question, obviously, I would decline the editor's request. In terms of how I'd handle that editor's account, I probably would warn the editor (not necessarily with the most gentle warning) and concurrently bring the editor to WP:ANI to see if there was consensus to blocking the editor. If the editor was clearly just editing with a conflict of interest, and made no other legitimate edits, I might be inclined to block editor right away. It would really depend, I think, on whether the editor was still editing recently. If the editor hadn't edited in a couple years, the necessity of a block would be less (since blocks are supposed to be about prevention, not punishment). Doug Mehus T·C 20:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know about ANI when I got hit with those problems, but it would have been a good place to post.

Both needed emails. In the first, an email to Oversight got very fast action: the edits needed to be WP:REVDELed to get them out of the history ASAP. In the second, I didn't even bother to respond. I asked an admin I knew for advice, and got given an email addy to which to forward that email. It was beyond the pale, needing eyes by someone who might have seen that identical problem before and possibly WP:CheckUser. I never followed up; I felt I'd done my duty by reporting, and could add nothing more.

You are absolutely right to say that blocks are for prevention not punishment. Narky Blert (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert, Yes, sometimes I feel as though some administrators forget that final point. I actually wished there was less indefinite blocking going on and more, 3, 6, or 12 month blocks. I also think sometimes we're too hard on sockpuppet blocking, as was the case with Dreerwin who, as the chairperson of Pinehouse Photography Club, was involved in inappropriately creating the article and had a COI. Subsequent SPI investigation confirmed her as having two accounts, so the editor was, appropriately, blocked. I think it was some degree of failing to assume assume good faith here...maybe she legitimately didn't know it was prohibited to edit with two accounts, or that she should've submitted her edits to the club article for peer review? So, bottom line, yes, sockpuppets should be blocked and COI editing is highly problematic (though, in that case, she was probably an unpaid, volunteer board member), but I just would prefer to see us be more forgiving and willing to unblock the main account (not the sockpuppet account) if the editor commits to "abandoning" the sockpuppet account and never to edit an article which have they have a direct "stake" in.

Speaking of blocks, you are right to note I've never been blocked, but I have had one ANI report lodged against me, at here. It ultimately closed with no action and the deleted article, which I had nominated as failing WP:GNG was draftified. I took the issue under advisement, but do you think having an ANI report, even if ultimately no action was taken, would be a disqualifier, say, in a couple years from now? Doug Mehus T·C 21:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

It certainly shouldn't be. Openness is all. "I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now" is a convincing argument: it shows that you've taken criticism onboard and learnt from it.

(I've been a victim of three blocks because there was an idiot vandal on my IP. One was a hard rangeblock by a steward with email closed, which meant that I could not post anywhere in WP; except perhaps somewhere in meta. It took a couple of emails to a senior admin I know to get the block lifted; his first efforts were unsuccessful. But still, it can't have taken much more than 8 or 10 manhours between the two of us and the expert who was watching an obscure page I found after eventually being let back in. If you get the impression that two or three years later I'm still pissed off, you're not wrong.)

If you put yourself up for adminship in a year or so saying, "I just want to be able to close XFDs as delete", you are likely to be judged primarily on your actions in XFDs. That's a much more convincing submission than, "I want a banhammer". Narky Blert (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Narky Blert, Exactly. Some editors, like Chetsford or Bilby, don't ever block an editor (or so exceedingly rarely). They are two administrators I would model myself after (among others). In the meantime, I think I'm fairly familiar with our general notability guideline, do you think I can make a solid case for New Page Reviewer privileges? I really don't need rollback privileges (Twinkle offers some rollback-like functionality that works well for me), so am thinking I could really gain a lot more experience reviewing new pages in the curation log, reviewing pending changes (I rarely use the "rollback vandal" link; when used, I almost always "rollback AGF"), draftifying non-notable people or corporations, etc. That and maybe joining The Teahouse as a host would likely go a long way to earning positive "street cred" with administrators and experienced editors that would more than offset any feathers of several admins I may have ruffled (I can think of really only three). Doug Mehus T·C 22:12, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:NPP are always crying out for new warm bodies with good judgment. TEAHOUSE (which I visit rarely) will always welcome editors who give good well-informed constructive advice. Many more new editors are well-meaning but don't know our ways than are hopeless clowns or malevolent, and just need feedback and tutoring. WP:AFC is another area.

I don't have rollback; I can't see the advantage over Twinkle when reverting to a good version of a page. The only non-standard tool I have is WP:PAGEMOVER, which allows be me to do technical swaps per WP:MALPLACED and WP:PRECISE.

Ptooey to ruffled feathers! Behind its public face, WP is a community. Narky Blert (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in. I trust you understand that indefinite is not the same as infinite and that a block is not the same as a ban. Any block can be lifted as soon as the underlying issue has been resolved or acceptable commitments have been made by the blocked editor [Checkuser etc blocks excluded]; "indefinite" just means we don't know if or when that will happen. It's not at all uncommon for indef blocked users to be unblocked within hours or days; it's also not uncommon for users with a fixed term block to be told to "come back when the block has expired". In that context, doesn't the fixed term block sound more like a punishment than the indef? :)

Also there are some types of block which simply have to be indefinite. The one which springs to mind (as I've been working WP:UAA a fair bit) is the Username block: if the username isn't acceptable now, it won't be acceptable in 3 months. Change the username and (if e.g. promotional editing was involved) convince us you will edit responsibly, and you can be back editing on the same day you were indef blocked.

You might also be interested to know that when blocking using Twinkle, one selects the 'offence' and Twinkle loads defaults including a suggested block duration and the templates which will be used. You can probably imagine how useful and helpful that is! --kingboyk (talk) 00:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Kingboyk, Thanks for the reply to Narky. Do you mean that Narky's block log entry can be suppressed (since it occurred because of a problematic IP editor who shared the same IP range as Narky? Doug Mehus T·C 00:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

I was replying to you, Doug, and specifically your comment "I actually wished there was less indefinite blocking going on and more, 3, 6, or 12 month blocks". I didn't want to plonk my intervention in the middle of your chat so placed it at the bottom. If the indentation or placement is wrong please do fix it. --kingboyk (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Kingboyk, Oh gotcha. So, essentially, even sockpuppet accounts could be unblocked, if the sockpuppeteer admitted they inappropriately used two accounts concurrently and pledges to disclose their doppelganger accounts on their user page? I was just thinking of Dreerwin who had had a declared COI with respect to Pinehouse Photography Club and was blocked because they used an alias account in the same AfD. Just speaking hypothetically, but if the editor were to submit, after a reasonable length of time, a request to unblock, apologize for the infraction, state how they've interpreted our policies with respect to multiple accounts (including editing while logged out), and pledged not to contravene that policy again, the editor could, potentially, be unblocked? Doug Mehus T·C 01:04, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Potentially, yes, assuming that the infraction wasn't so severe that community trust could never be earnt back. So, a definite maybe. --kingboyk (talk) 01:15, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Yeah, depends on the circumstances, of course, and serial sockpuppeteers with multiple sockpuppet accounts, or even those who have impersonated other editors or administrators, it's probably fairer to say, in those cases, it's more likely a "no." Although, that raises an interesting question, in such cases of serially problematic users, should we not be converting what are, effectively, permanent blocks into bans? Doug Mehus T·C 01:19, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Already happens: Wikipedia:Banning policy --kingboyk (talk) 12:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletions

 04:42, 29 January 2020 Kingboyk talk contribs block deleted page User talk:Dmehus/Archive 1 (G6: Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup) (view/restore)
 20:52, 25 January 2020 Kingboyk talk contribs block deleted page User talk:Dmehus/Archive 1 (U1: User request to delete page in own userspace – to retrieve it, see WP:REFUND) (view/restore)

See you again in a few days? :) --kingboyk (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Kingboyk, Thank you for deleting that, but note that Trialpears accidentally clicked 'archive' when trying to expand one of my collapsed boxes. I'm avoiding using OneClickArchiver until I can figure out how to get to follow my MiszaBot directory structure. ;) Doug Mehus T·C 13:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

A likely story! ;) Only joking of course, happy to be of service. --kingboyk (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Kingboyk, Haha, yeah, totally, I figured you were joking. Though, I must admit, when I first saw, "[s]ee you again in a few days? ;)" before I realized the context of the post, I thought maybe I'd been blocked for a few days. Administrators seem to do a lot of userspace deletions (I would wager it's the bulk of the deletions); I wonder if there's been any thought to permitting extendedconfirmed users the ability to delete pages in their own userspace (exclusive of their primary User talk: space). There'd still be lots of mopping for the admins to do, but it would take a chunk of their workload away from them... Doug Mehus T·C 14:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry if I scared you!

I don't have stats but I doubt deleting unwanted userspace pages makes up the bulk of speedy deletions, and as far I'm concerned it's really no bother doing it. Nonetheless you make an interesting point. Perhaps there should be a trust level (extended confirmed, or a new user right) allowing trusted users to delete non-talk pages in their own userspace. I honestly have no idea whether it's been proposed before (I have no recollection of such); additionally, it may be the case that it would require software changes and then the question would be do the devs think it's worth their time implementing?

I can only suggest that you give the idea some further thought and if you think it's worth pursuing, make enquiries somewhere as to whether it's been proposed before and, if not, make a proposal. --kingboyk (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Since it happened again perhaps creation protecting User talk:Dmehus/Archive 1 would be an option to prevent it from happening again? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Trialpears, I thought about that, but I don't think that would work as OneClickArchiver would just use User talk:Dmehus/Archive 2. I think I'll probably try asking at The Teahouse and see if anyone knows how to customize OneClickArchiver to archive to one's automated archiving folder, based on the last timestamp of the post being archived. Doug Mehus T·C 14:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The Origin Story of Me Watchlisting a Useless Redirect.

I dont know if i'm supposed to write things like this on rfd, so I decided to detail why I watchlisted it. So I myself randomly type things up on my keyboard looking for what pops up. So one day I typed up qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm and got Qwertyuiopasdfghjkl;'zxcvbnm,./ listed in the drop-down menu underneath qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm in all caps. (I believe that is what it is called) I have a habit of watchlisting any article I visit, so I obviously stuck the article on my watchlist. So that means it was only today that I decided to participate in the Rfd. Quite an odd story, but boredom in study hall does things to you. If reply to this I may not reply. MegaGoat (Talk) (Contribs) 19:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

MegaGoat, Ah, that makes sense! Thanks for clarifying! Doug Mehus T·C 19:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinging

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey, while I'm happy to answer questions on my talk page or yours, I'm honestly a little uncomfortable with how frequently you've been calling me into various discussions elsewhere. I'm not a special authority when it comes to policy, and would appreciate it if you didn't bring me up in quite so many RfDs/MfDs. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Okay, no problem. Sorry about that. I just respect your wise counsel and experience. In future, if I have similar questions, I'll raise them on your talk page and link to the RfD. That way, you can answer my question outside of the RfD.  Self-trout Doug Mehus T·C 21:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding and for the compliment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem. One more ping, to thank you for your reply. Doug Mehus T·C 21:36, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:REDACT

Hi Dmehus. You can refine, tweak, change, revise any comment you make at RfD or anywhere else on Wikipedia, but you should try and follow WP:REDACT so that it's clear the the post others have already responded to has been changed in some way since they posted their response. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Thanks for your message, but which thread were you referring to? Doug Mehus T·C 02:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Click on "refine" in my above post. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Hrm, I didn't really change anything, though, other than hyphenating and bolding my !votes, and then adding the option that I would support deletion. So there was nothing I should've redacted, no? Doug Mehus T·C 03:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, there's an <ins></ins> tag, is that what you mean? As for the superscript "corrected" in a wikilink, that's a fair bit of work, so not sure I can try and remember to do that—in fact, I can't say as I recall seeing anyone, really, do that. But I'll try and remember to use the insertion tag. Doug Mehus T·C 03:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much every post which came after your nomination statement was based upon how you originally worded it. If you think the additional option you added is not something that would've affected what someone else might've posted or won't lead to any confusion by making it seem as if the "addition" was actually part of your original post, then I guess no further clarification is needed. It's generally not considered good practice, in principle, to revise posts in such a way, but maybe in this case it's not a big deal. — Marchjuly (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly, Now that I've thought about it, it is kind of confusing, and I'm not really in favour of deleting. That RfD discussion has been a mostly a clusterf*ck due to the COI-conflicted editor apparently commenting while logged in and logged out, using both an IPv4 and IPv6 IP address. So, having had time to reflect on your suggestion, I'm actually going to take you up on it, and I actually what might be better is to request speedy deletion of the redirect on G7 grounds and have a neutral editor (such as yourself or me) recreate it and target it to Mike Colter (where it's existed for years). What do you think? Doug Mehus T·C 14:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Marchjuly  Done the WP:REDACT. I tried to tag you in the edit summary, but I guess your username is Marchjuly and not MarchJuly so you probably didn't get the ping. As well, G7 isn't applicable on America is still the place, as 5patrickgilles5 didn't recreate that redirect. Probably best to let it play out. Doug Mehus T·C 14:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Split proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Could you sign your proposed list of items that would go in a new article, please, so I can comment? --Red King (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Red King, Oh, I purposely didn't sign it but, you're right, I probably should. Doug Mehus T·C 17:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Doug Mehus T·C 17:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Clarification?

Apologies for my confusion, but this sentence: Such terms could only be amended by the a consensus majority representing two-thirds in support of both Member states of the European Union and Member states of the European Union.

Am I reading something wrong, or did you perhaps mistakenly repeat the one article name twice? Or am I misunderstanding something?

--Pinchme123 (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinchme123, Nope that's an error. Thank you. If I make an obvious mistake like that ever again, you have my permission to be bold and fix the error, pinging me in an edit summary. I will thank you if I concur and revert if not. Doug Mehus T·C 17:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Doug Mehus T·C 17:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Your support at the redirect whitelist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello Dmehus, and thank you for your comments at WP:RAUTO. In case you missed this in the introduction to the redirect whitelist, I wanted to mention this bit from the introduction: For a request to be considered successful it must have been open for at least 24 hours with the consensus of at least 3 editors who possess the new page reviewer permission (which includes all administrators). Now, while you have been leaving comments of support, it doesn't appear that you are in the New Page Patrol. Your comments may be helpful, but it can be misleading if you are voting in support of users being added to the whitelist when you are not in the New Page Patrol yourself. If you would like to continue leaving comments of support or opposition, I would advise that you become part of the New Page Patrol by requesting to do so at WP:PERM so that you may be granted the right. Thank you for understanding. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Utopes, No problem. Thank you for clarifying that! I plan to join the New Pages Patrol in the spring. Doug Mehus T·C 01:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No worries. I think I should have clarified though: if you receive the "new page reviewer" permission, then you can leave comments. You don't need to be one of the most active members of New Page Patrol to do so. I'd recommend that you request the permission so that I don't have to strikethrough your votes of support at the redirect whitelist. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think you have to strikethrough the comments. I'll just unbold my "support" !votes. How's that? Doug Mehus T·C 01:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Redirects from Draft Space

Why do you dislike redirects from draft space?

Are you familiar with how drafts are accepted in Articles for Creation? The acceptance script moves the draft page from draft space into article space, and the redirect is left from draft space to article space. Do you think either that this is wrong, or that this is a special case that should be the only time that a redirect from draft space is allowed? What is wrong with redirects from draft space? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, yes, I get that the redirect is left behind when accepted at AfC, but since all of the edit history moves with the now accepted article, I just don't see the purpose of leaving behind an implausible search term from draft: namespace. As well, should the article ever need to be redraftified, potentially, and this is less so of AfC-accepted drafts, non-page moving editors can only move the article back to draft space if there have been no other edits (including changes to rcats) to the redirect. Doug Mehus T·C 13:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Ideally, my preference would be for the AfC script to allow the accepting editor to decide whether to leave behind a redirect, just as I'm sure it probably does when an editor is draftifying an article from main namespace. I guess, in short, the only cross-namespace redirects I really like are those to/from the User: and Wikipedia: namespaces. Doug Mehus T·C 13:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a script that draftifies an article from mainspace. If I did, I don't think that it should give me an option to leave a redirect. Redirects from mainspace to draftspace, or from mainspace to most other namespaces, are R2 speedy deletions. They are usually the result of a reviewer who does not have the File Mover privilege draftifying an article, which leaves a coprolite behind. It shouldn't even provide that option. If a Page Mover moves a page from draft space to article space, other than using the AFC script, there is the option of leaving or not leaving the redirect. My thinking is that if the page has been properly in draft space, then it might be a search term, and it is a harmless search term, and we all know that redirects are cheap. The issue is stupid redirects, and redirects from draft space to article space are not stupid unless they are stupid. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Good description of the redirect left behind when draftifying an article. When you say you do not have a script that draftifies an article, I'm guessing you don't have Draftify enabled? I think it might be a Gadget actually, but may still just be a script at WP:USL. I guess they're not completely stupid redirects, but my thinking is that, who is going to inadvertently search from Draft: namespace for a given article? Doug Mehus T·C 15:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) here...I think you're thinking of the User:Evad37/MoveToDraft script. It moves a mainspace article to draftspace, notifies the creator, and automatically tags the mainspace redirect for R2 CSD. Very handy script. Schazjmd (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that you mention that leaving the redirect in draft space prevents the page from draftified again by non-page-movers. That is, in my view, actually an advantage. There is too much contentious draftifying of pages that should be sent to AFD instead. Inexperienced reviewers should use great caution in draftifying, and even greater caution in draftifying when there is a complex history. I think that too much draftifying is actually a form of move-warring, and move-warring is worse than regular edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

True; I agree with you that move warring is worse than edit warring, but was actually thinking that a lot of AfD discussions could be skipped by draftifying the article, but then, like you say, the creator (presumably) would just move it back to main namespace. So, I take your point. Doug Mehus T·C 16:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Dmehus. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for !voting??

You've just thanked me for taking part in an RfA (not your own). I don't understand why you would do that: my vote was certainly not influenced by you and there's no need for you to react to it. Doubtless you meant well, but I'm afraid I don't feel that it's appropriate. Ingratis (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Ingratis, okay, fair enough. I do tend to over-use the "thanks" button, but note that I have "thanked" those who have either opposed or supported the candidate, as a means of expressing my thoughts that I appreciated the thought they put into their rationale. Doug Mehus T·C 16:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Understood - thanks for the explanation. I usually quite like getting thanks but was taken aback in the context. No problem. Ingratis (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

No worries; I can appreciate why it would otherwise not be appropriate to thank someone simply for the act of voting, particularly so for voting in a certain way. Doug Mehus T·C 22:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Faith Goldy education - M.P.P.

This should be marked as needs citation.

I currently attend the Master of Public Policy program at the University of Toronto and I'm being told that Faith Goldy never graduated from this program. Savbers (talk) 00:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Savbers,  Done. Note that I just edited that page to update a wikilink or two; I've never edited that page before. Doug Mehus T·C 00:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

RFD close

Good work closing this one. Just a quick note, the page as created (by Narky Blert) is a set index, not a dab. Wikiacc (¶) 04:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikiacc, Thank you. I've heard that term mentioning "set index" instead of a disambiguation page. Do you know where the policy or guideline is on "set indexes" is, so I can read up on them more? Doug Mehus T·C 14:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The policy is WP:SETINDEX, though the distinction is subtle. In practice, I just look at the footer template (e.g., {{Given name}}) and see what category it's in. Wikiacc (¶) 03:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you reviewed

Hello, Dmehus

Thank you for creating White-supremacists.

User:Dmehus, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

I have reviewed your redirect, and added rcats {{R from common noun}}, {{R from alternative spelling}} (for the variant punctuation), and {{R to related topic}}. You may be interested in Archer, a script for automatically categorizing created redirects.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dmehus}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Doug Mehus T·C 00:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to New Page Patrol!

Welcome, Dmehus to the New Page Patrol team. Congratulations on receiving the New Page Patrol user permission and on becoming a part of the patroller community. Our mission is to accurately, rather than quickly, handle the new articles which are created. As you begin to patrol it's natural to have lots of questions. Feel free to ask on my talk page or ask for thoughts in the New Page Patroller IRC channel #wikimedia-npp connect or on our Discord server (invite link). We also regularly discuss issues and topics surrounding New Page Patrolling at the NPP discussion page and I would invite you to join us there. One note I observed at a recent AfD - SNG stands for Subject Notability Guidline not Supposed Notability Guideline.. I hope you find NPP as rewarding as I do and, again, welcome to the community. User:Barkeep49 (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Mont Conard

I think that normally, it would be better not to R3 it. However, I think that the initial editor's history of frankly bizarre and unconstructive edits is further evidence of being "implausible" per R3, and I don't think the whole RfD bureaucracy is necessary for this case. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Rosguill, Oh, you're familiar with the editor's redirects? Thanks for clarifying. Had the mountain actually been named Mount Conard, would then Mont Conard have been an appropriate redirect? Doug Mehus T·C 19:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Eh, I would probably still take that to RfD. That having been said, there is a low possibility that a mountain in California could have been named by a French colonist, so it's not unthinkable that it could have a relevant RLOTE case for keeping. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:19, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

10,000th edit

I've just received an automated system notification following this edit, thanking me for my 10,000th edit, which stated, You just made your ten thousandth edit; thank you so very much!. Does anyone know if these sort of system notifications are reported in a public log file that I can link to, similar to the "thanks log"?

Cheers,
Doug Mehus T·C 14:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

hello

Hi Dmehus, Thanks for reviewing my user page. I am just reaching out looking for some general support or maybe to find an advisor or mentor. I've been having a lot of trouble since Feb 19 starting with numerous edits from an IP editor. Things got very lengthy and convoluted.

• Talk:Chris_Noth, Chris Noth revision history
• User_talk:Khawue
• Incidents#OWN-y_editor_at_Chris_Noth
• Noticeboard#Chris_Noth

I feel I am being steamrolled by two editors with longer edit history primarily not willing to deal with one issue at a time instead it creates a lot of confusion. They posted to the notice boards, not me. Not acknowledging my points, or I thought something was resolved like the MOS:SAMESURNAME, since there was no objection after I replied on the talk page with sources, but then today it was back and forth until finally I think there was acceptance on this. I have said I am open to discussion on specifics but they were unwilling, just making mostly hostile blanket comments instead of addressing details. I feel there were a lot of false statements made against me. I really just want to cooperate and deal with things logically and precisely, with the general hostility it creates a lot of confusion and distraction, lack of acknowledgement of things I say. I was disturbed by the insulting comments and now the user who denied that they were personal attacks wants to ban me even though I remained civil. I can see the user who just said he wants to ban me tried to get others involved [[7]] Hoping to get a truce where we can deal with issues one at a time logically and precisely without insults and getting personal. -Khawue (talk) 23:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Help.

How could i create pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey123890 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Joey123890, It really depends on what you're looking to write about. Our most important policy, though, arguably, is notability. That is, the subject has to have received significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources, and the coverage has to be in-depth and at length, generally speaking, to qualify. The best thing is to begin an article in Draft namespace by putting in Draft:Title of your article into the address bar, and then {{draft}} at the top of the article. When you're ready to submit it for review, you can get secondary reviewers to review your article and give you pointers on what it's missing. Doug Mehus T·C 02:09, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Joey123890, Sorry if the previous answer was very broad and a bit vague, but that question is quite difficult to answer. It's multi-faceted, so what I might recommend is to focus your question(s) and engage at the The Teahouse. Be sure to see also Wikipedia:GettingStarted. Doug Mehus T·C 02:27, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

"Blue-ribbon"

I moved "Blue-ribbon panel" back to "Blue-ribbon committee", which is the clear common name. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:37, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Thank you. Yeah, I wouldn't quibble over blue-ribbon committee or blue-ribbon commission. Doug Mehus T·C 15:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Racing, Green Peace and electric cars

I'm liking this "@Kingboyk: You're right" stuff :)

I'll leave this here rather than clutter up the RfD. A little bit of background info you may or may not find interesting...

As I understand it, most of Formula 1's carbon footprint comes not from a few racing cars going round a track, but from the air travel getting the cars, equipment, personnel and overseas fans there, and other fans driving to the event. The Tour de France is probably an even worse polluter if you think about it - and they race bicycles! :)

Current F1 engines are a technological marvel; they are 1.6 litre turbos - the same capacity you might find in a shopping car - but hybrid, and produce some 1000hp!

There is a "green" version of single-seater motorsport, where the cars are all electric: Formula E. Of course, it's debateable quite how green that is too, because as with the other international sporting events it's getting people and equipment to the race circuits which cause the pollution. I doubt we'll see a Greenpeace sponsorship any time soon but, who knows; there is I suppose some promotional value in Formula E as a way of presenting to people a possible petrol-free future.

Me, I'm holding on to my 1989 hot hatch until either it or I die :) --kingboyk (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

A tip about iVoting

Hi, Doug - just wanted to share a bit of advice that is based on my personal experiences: I know you mean well and that your comments are made in good faith but it is always better/safer to not respond to each oppose or opposition comment in an RfC, MfD, AfD, etc. because there is a chance it can/will be used against you as being disruptive - see WP:BLUDGEON. Have fun - be safe and happy editing! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, That's fair. Hence why you didn't respond to MrX' potential insinuation following both your response and DGG subsequently joining the conversation. As much as you may have wanted to, it just wasn't needed. I've said my bit now, so I think I'll leave that discussion alone. Thank you for the reminder! Doug Mehus T·C 18:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to second that. I have seen your name pop up in dozens of comments across a very small number of RFX's in the last week. I know everyone has an opinion, but you don't need to voice yours against everyone. Primefac (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Primefac, I assume, like Atsme, you are meaning my not needing to reply to everyone (as in the case of the talk page of the crat chat) and not specifically to !voting in an RfA? If so, yes, point well taken and acknowledged. Doug Mehus T·C 22:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

CSD

Since you're on the talk page anyway, and evidently enjoy meta discussions, could you please give an 'aye' or 'nay' to my proposal at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#T3_discrepancy? I am not suggesting how you should respond nor do I have any vested interest other than wishing to see the discussion gain some traction and the discrepancy between policy and template ironed out in one way or another. --kingboyk (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Kingboyk, Sure, I will have a look. You're just neutrally notifying me of a related topic I may have an interest in. Doug Mehus T·C 22:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for confirming me. In just 4 hours, I can edit semi-protected pages, the first time in literally months. Gale5050 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gale5050:, thank you for the barnstar, although I have to admit, my counter-vandalism isn't something I do a lot of relative to what I do, so I'm not certain I'm entirely deserving of it, at least not yet. I'm a little confused, though, because I'm not seeing your account as autoconfirmed or confirmed due to your only making two edits prior to today. Your account seems to be old enough for that status, but all I did was review your userpage in the Page Curation Tool because it met our requirements in terms of not being overly autobiographical and not being used as a personal web hosting tool. kingboyk, while I appreciate the gratitude, can you clarify what, if anything, is permitting Gale5050 to edit semi-protected pages? I don't think marking their user page in the Page Curation Tool as reviewed would change anything in the way of their status? Doug Mehus T·C 16:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, which page are you talking about? --kingboyk (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Gale5050 I looked through it further, and your edits all seem fine to me, though I'm by no means an expert on U.S. interstates and state highways, but none of the pages you edited are semi-protected. So, I don't see as there was anything preventing you from editing those pages. I think most Wikipedia pages are actually unprotected, so anyone can edit them, including anonymously with one's IP address. Speaking of which, make sure you do your editing only using one account and try to avoid editing while logged out. What I do is look for my username at the top of the page and, if I see it, I know I'm logged in. Also, editing while logged in means you can disable the WMF "cup in hand" pleas for money. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 16:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Kingboyk, Yeah, sorry, I looked Gale5050's edits, but I'm not seeing any semi-protected pages. Maybe he thought he had to have his userpage reviewed to be able to edit? Or he thought those pages were semi-protected? Doug Mehus T·C 16:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh right, I see what you mean. The honest answer is I have no idea. --kingboyk (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Dmehus, you did not confirm me, but I can edit and did edit 2 semi protected pages. I just wanted to thank you because you could have blocked me. Also thanks for the advice, I will make sure to log in on ALL my devices — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gale5050 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Gale5050, No, I couldn't have blocked you as (a) only administrators have that user right and I am not an administrator but, more importantly, (b) there was no need to block you. Blocks are a tool within an administrator's toolkit which help to compel compliance with community guidelines; they are not used as a means of punishment nor are they used without a reason. Doug Mehus T·C 02:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Help (Continued)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Draft:3-G_Home_Video

Ok, this is my best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey123890 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Joey123890, Wow, that was quick. I will add the {{draft}} tag for you. If you want, you can use the companion talk page tag and get feedback on the article using the {{help me}} template on the talk page, as an alternative to the Teahouse. Its chief deficiencies are: (1) no inline footnotes/references and (2) no evidence of notability for corporations, which includes significant coverage. So, that won't pass. Fortunately, we have no deadlines, so that can stay in Draft: namespace as long as you like, provided you edit it a little bit every 6 months. Doug Mehus T·C 02:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend that Joey learn how to edit here and get some experience before trying to write articles. Even experienced editors usually have their first article deleted. It demands quite a bit of knowledge about how this place works. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

BullRangifer, thanks for the insight. I concur with that as well. Beyond the policies and help articles I've mentioned, which ones should Joey start with reading? Doug Mehus T·C 03:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few:

• Wikipedia:Principles
• Wikipedia:Five pillars
• Wikipedia:Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Eight simple rules for editing our encyclopedia
• Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset
• Wikipedia:Reliable sources (RS)
• Some of my essays
  • Wikipedia:The essence of Wikipedia
  • Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content
  • Reliable sources, Trump, and his editors here

The foundation of all content is RS. All but the most basic of facts (the sky is blue) require at least one RS. Opinions often need to be attributed to the author. We document pretty much everything here, as long as its notable enough to be mentioned in multiple RS. We document facts, opinions, truth, lies, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, etc.

Our job here is defined by Jimbo Wales as documenting "the sum total of human knowledge," and editors must not leave or create holes in our coverage.

Wikipedia is not a free webhosting service for anyone to just add their own articles or ideas. Use a blog or website for that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for including those links in a useful bulleted list, and for including the essays which you wrote/co-wrote. I'm particularly interested in reading the second essay, as that's particularly important for editors to understand that distinction. Doug Mehus T·C 15:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Another helpful essay: WP:AVDUCK. Quack, quack 16:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Another fictional mountain range

Apart from the Misty variety, there is also White Mountains (Middle-earth) with probably even less raison d'etre. I'd have thought they'd be fine just redirected to Gondor#Ered Nimrais which basically says all one might wish to say about them, though folks might want to merge a couple of sentences from the 'Inspiration' section if deeply into detail. As for their significance and critical evaluation, I'm almost certain there just isn't any, i.e. the article's state reflects about all the RS possible. Guess you may wish to wait until the Misty merge is completed, or maybe they're better together, I have no idea. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, Thanks for the note! I have absolutely zero knowledge of Middle-earth as I've never even read the books. I got about halfway through film version of The Hobbit before I fell asleep. So, I really have to defer to you, Hog Farm, SMcCandlish, et al. From what I've seen, though, the topics are all independently notable, so it really becomes, how much of it is fan cruft better suited for fan wikis? Your merger target seems reasonable, but I noted there's one oppose !vote that has proposed merging Moria (Middle-earth) into Misty Mountains. I'm not sure that'll work seeing as we have White Mountains (Middle-earth). So then I thought, what about a comprehensive article titled Geography of Middle-earth with about 1-5 paragraphs for each fictional location in sections. This could then become the main article for Middle-earth#Geography, linked to via a section hatnote and, in turn, that section could be reduced to only a few sentences. Alternatively, we could have a broad concept article titled Geography of Middle-earth that would then have all the fictional location articles linked to from there. And finally, Geography of Middle-earth was always a redirect, as far as I can tell, so there's no history that needs preserving; we could simply retitle an existing article over that redirect and merge there. Doug Mehus T·C 14:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think all that needs to be done is a simple merge to Gondor, but you're right, there is the constant risk of random opposition. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, Yeah, I think this would be beautiful actually; we can still have separate extended geographic articles like Gondor, with only a brief summary of Gondor in Geography of Middle-earth, but this would provide a unified location at which to target all of those extraneous Middle-earth redirects, should we decide to skip the RfD bureaucracy. ;-) Doug Mehus T·C 16:38, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I wonder. It could become a cruft-magnet. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap, That's one way of thinking of it, but think of it as a potential way to control the length for the CRUFTy stuff, sort of like how we create soft redirects for unencyclopedic terms that draw vandalism and schoolboy-esque jokes. If it becomes too lengthy, we can cut and say, "obtain consensus on this talk page for splitting as a separate article". Doug Mehus T·C 16:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Support Merge. The Misty Mountains you can at least make an argument for, the White Mountains have way less notability, even in-universe. Honestly, not much needs to make the move from here. I'd been considering taking the White Mountains to AfD for awhile. And yes, the White Mountains were part of Gondor, so it works. Hog Farm (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Feel like proposing it then? Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap and Hog Farm, sounds good, if Hog Farm wants to propose a merge of White Mountains into Gondor; I still like the idea of a Geography of Middle-earth article down the road, though. :-P Doug Mehus T·C 20:32, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I think this kind of stuff should move into a WP:SAL at Geography of Middle-earth. It's really weird this page doesn't exist yet and isntead redirects to a section that his about changes to (not locations in) M-E geography in different fictional ages. If anything, that's almost "continental geophysics of M-E" or something.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)