User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 51
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jo-Jo Eumerus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 45 | ← | Archive 49 | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | → | Archive 55 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:29, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Would you reconsider this closure? In a week, it only received two comments. I was expecting at least one re-list. Early !votes can sometimes be from editors with some connection/affinity to the article. Relisting often elicits more neutral !votes. Thanks. MB 14:28, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- Hrm. Not really sure about this. Only three arguments but pointing somewhat in the same direction. I see no edits by any participant to the page in question, one argument soon after the AFD opened one quite a bit later. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't follow. My position was DELETE. There was one KEEP, who said my position was nonsense - this is someone I suspect has some affinity for this subject. The article is basically just 150 images; I have seen other ones like it deleted with the argument that such things belong on commons.
- The third position was "very thorough trim" and MERGE to St John Ambulance Australia. After trimming all the images there just isn't much left. Note that these insignias apply to St John Ambulance Australia New South Wales as well. They were repeated there (I cut those out myself recently and no one has challenged that).
- In summary, I don't see that Delete/Keep/Merge is any consensus. MB 01:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've reopened that discussion. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
- For the record (given the user didn't bother asking me about it), I don't have any affinity with the subject. The claim it is trivia is not correct - St John Ambulance has a long history (and a history associated with the military). The page is no different to armed forces and other service insignia (like police) which have been kept on Wikipedia. Bookscale (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
- Likewise, I have no affinity with the subject - I came across the AFD while scanning through active discussions as I often do, and just found it an interesting topic. I think the merest glance at my AFD record would make it fair obvious that that is how I operate, and I don't appreciate the suggestion that because I voted early my vote should count any less than anyone else's. For what it's worth, I agree with Bookscale that characterizing this page as either 'trivia' or 'unencyclopedic' is nonsense, and I would lean 'keep' as a second-choice to the Merge that I !voted for. Hugsyrup 12:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- It's kind of moot as I've reopened the discussion, but I don't care about whether someone has a COI when assessing their statement in an AFD. Yes, on average a person affiliated with a topic is more likely to argue to keep it but they are also more likely to know where to find sources; if their argument is clearly invalid one can tell from the argument. Besides - as we can see here - there is often no or little evidence of a COI presented. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've reopened that discussion. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
The API sandbox and help pages now show more clearly when API modules are marked as internal. API modules marked as internal were probably internal before. It was easier to miss. You should look for non-internal alternatives. [1]
Problems
- There is a translation tool we use on wikis with more than one language. For a few days it did not create pages for new languages when someone translated a page. The languages did not show in the language bar. This has been fixed. [2]
- The history and diffs can show wrong content. This is because of a cache problem. It will soon be fixed. [3]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 October. It will be on all wikis from 24 October (calendar).- Reference Previews will be a beta feature on all Wikipedias and some Wikivoyages. It shows you a preview of the footnote when you hover over or click on the number. It has been a beta feature on German and Arabic Wikipedia since April.
Meetings
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 23 October. See how to join.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
14:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Ranjini (singer) wiki page
Why did you delete the Ranjini (singer) page? Ranjinisinger (talk) 08:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Ranjinisinger:Because of the discussion here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Orlando Summer of Love DRV closure Comment
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.
Jo-Jo_Eumerus See also: Wikipedia:Closing discussions Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
I believe you've made a mistake in determining consensus at DRV and I am questioning your consensus determination judgement at:
(Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_October_11#Orlando's_Summer_of_Love):
Pretty clear here that the sources haven't convinced anyone to modify the AFD close, mostly due to e.g concerns that there is not enough substance in the mentioned sources.
Allow me to remind you that rejecting apparent Reliable Sources are criteria for WP:TE.
Which source(s) is being rejected?
Which DRV argument is being given merit? What was the policy being relied upon to make the merit determination? Sorry for my language here (no disrespect to you) but the assertion that there is not enough substance mentioned in the sources is literally horseshit and on top of that pile, the assertion has zero basis in WP policy. The observation was discussed with with the editor that made the claim right here, and was completely debunked. I also asked him not to Lie. That conversation was linked at DRV.
Now, which of these sources did you determine had local consensus that none had enough substantive content on the subject? *User:Johnvr4/sandbox52#Temporary_citation_LONGQUOTES
Last, not one single editor claimed that another draft could not be written with these very sources however a bogus community determination that these sources don't have enough content would preclude any new draft that uses them.
Please clarify your reasoning and the policy basis for the specific argument(s) that you determined had merit. Johnvr4 (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Greetings. Actually, we do have "substantiality" requirements in our guidelines - WP:N says "and in detail" and excludes "trivial mentions". That page is in most cases the rule that decides on whether we have an article on something or not, the line on WP:TE applies to regular editing. People in the discussion considered that the sources in general did not satisfy that and there was no rebuttal offered other than a bunch of sidetracks that did not actually address the concern. Besides I did actually say that one can write a new draft.
- Also, another thing, but you are testing the boundaries of our copyright policy with these lengthy quotes. Cut them way back, please. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for the response but it does not clarify answers to my direct questions in any way.
- That you say, I can write a new draft in the same breath as the sources have no substantial coverage fails all logic.
- How does one write a new draft if reliable sources don't offer non-trival, indepth coverage??
- In response to no rebuttal offered claims, there were new sources offered. In fact, Four of them made that comparison to counter an entirely bogus JustMadeup claim and delete votes at AfD.
- Which source does not have enough substantive content on the subject??
- We editors are welcome to offer opinion and policy based argument in discussion but baseless opinion votes carry zero weight in determining consensus.
- The very temporary (only while I scratch out the new article draft) lengthy quotes as you have viewed them are there for any editor to verify that the "substantiality" requirements in our guidelines - WP:N are met and exceeded by these sources. I've offered a plethora of Policy-based arguments at RdU and DRV and you should note, there was no policy-founded rebuttal offered to any of them.
- Good-faith opinions are required of us but any policy assertion that the subject is covered only as a "trivial mention" or not "in detail" in the face of the quotes I've offered is obviously devoid of any factual basis.
- Repeated assertions that the reliable sources offered are not substantial coverage--per the quotes is obvious TE and borders on a purposeful lie.
- Johnvr4 (talk) 18:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sometimes we allow people to write drafts on the chance that there are new sources, since that deletion discussion was over a year ago. And contrary to what you say, most participants in the review did review your new sources as well and found them similarly wanting. Lengthy quotes are not evidence of notability if the subject is only mentioned in passing.
- Also, since you are harping so much on people supposedly violating policy I am going to point you to the part of the WP:Civility policy that says
ill-considered accusations of impropriety
, since you are being very keen on making thinly grounded accusations, here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Factually, all but two of participants commented after the addition of one new source. Following most of the votes, there were more sources added to reach Four (my edit of 15:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)). Of the remaining two participants after the four sources were added, one of them did not even !vote.
- Factually, despite the no rebuttal offered claims, I made the policy assertion that that there were four sources over 24 years that have made the Summer of Love comparison and there was not a snowballs chance this topic would ever legitimately fail WP:GNG. No legitimate policy-based rebuttal nor actual evidence was offered by anyone to dispute it and no amount of votes endorsing the AfD can overcome that fact. TE2.5 I say factually only because no editor can legitimately point to any one source, the policy, and their concern in order to take to dispute resolution. Not one. If they tried, it would likely go to ANI for TE2.6.
- You found otherwise. I am not accusing you of malfeasance. I am asking whether an error was made in how WP policy was applied to your well-meaning DRV closure decision. I feel that I have asked legitimate questions about the interpretation of the WP discussion closing policy in relation to the recent DRV closure you made.
- Civility while required, and differences of opinion notwithstanding, TE2.5 does excuse not thinly grounded excuses for DE or TE2.6, nor the factual evidence presented in policy-based argumentsTE2.5. The existence of RS is the evidence of and sole determining factor of a subjects notability WP:CONTN,WP:NRV, WP:NEXIST/ WP:N, WP:FAILN, WP:GNG,WP:SUSTAINED... The lengthy quotes I've provided, are evidence of the subject being covered "in detail" and not a just a "trivial mention" for WP:GNG. After all the policy arguments I made, I even pointed admins to the WP:SNOWFLAKE essay to help figure it out!
- Per the essay, WP:PROFCRITIC, The major criterion to distinguish "snowflake" unique content from run-of-the-mill content is the "critical commentary" test: Has the item merited comments that suppose a value judgment or elaborate critique (i.e. information other than a routine description of its properties) by independent critics? If several reliable sources have done so, that's enough basis for the presumption of notability given per notability guidelines (WP:GNG).
- Factually, The sources presented at DRV state:
- By the time Rolling Stone discovered the scene, late-night culture had become a shadow of its former self. (also note the fact that the Rolling Stone coverage was one of the original sources).
- Factually, The sources presented at DRV state:
- The Florida rave scene was chronicled by Rolling Stone contributing editor Simon Reynolds in his seminal, rave anthology Generation Ecstasy as “infamous for taking excessive hedonism to the point of near-death experiences and sometimes taking it all the way.”
- One cannot have it both ways here:
- That you say, "a new draft could be written on the subject (with these sources)..." in the same breath that, ..."these sources have no substantial coverage of the subject", fails all logic. Johnvr4 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- The two new sources sound more like passing mentions, plus it's not entirely clear that they are talking about the same subject (WP:FRANKIE and WP:OR). In general, you need to spend less time throwing links to guidelines and essays and more into explaining why the sources constitute substantial coverage. As for drafts, just because the sources you proposed were deemed inadequate does not exclude that there may be others which work, but these should be proposed at draftification stage as you didn't offer any that were considered adequate. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Johnvr4: With apologies to Jo-Jo Eumerus (for some reason your talk page is on my watchlist) - if the subject is indeed notable, your remedy right now is to create a new, quality draft which solves the problems of the old article. You have yet to convince anyone at AfD or DRV the current article, as it stands, should be kept, especially given the nature of the article's format (with the notes bordering on copyright violations.) The way to get what you want isn't by continuing to argue policy, but to create a draft article that easily demonstrates the notability of the subject. (I know you will disagree, but the previous one-sentence article did not do this.) If you need any help with setting up a draft, please let me know. SportingFlyer T·C 05:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- SportingFlyer, Thank you for jumping in. I would very much like assistance writing as all articles on the subject and related topics should not be written entirely by one editor. The other related subject articles show that an absurd Frankenstein building policy concern by the closer is simply ridiculous on it's face. I have to question the competence and wisdom of an editor bringing OR concerns up against these reliable sources! As stated, the rough draft is here:User:Johnvr4/sandbox52. All the substantive content offered by each source is in the #Temporary_citation_LONGQUOTES section that shows the substantive coverage of the era that each source offers.
- @Johnvr4: With apologies to Jo-Jo Eumerus (for some reason your talk page is on my watchlist) - if the subject is indeed notable, your remedy right now is to create a new, quality draft which solves the problems of the old article. You have yet to convince anyone at AfD or DRV the current article, as it stands, should be kept, especially given the nature of the article's format (with the notes bordering on copyright violations.) The way to get what you want isn't by continuing to argue policy, but to create a draft article that easily demonstrates the notability of the subject. (I know you will disagree, but the previous one-sentence article did not do this.) If you need any help with setting up a draft, please let me know. SportingFlyer T·C 05:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I would appreciate direct answers to my questions from the DRV closer--who I think needs to spend a lot more time reading our WP policy prior to attempting to enforce them.
- I believe the the issue here is that no editors (including the closer) will acknowledge that sources determine WP notability and not article content per WP:CONTN,WP:NRV, WP:NEXIST/ WP:N, WP:FAILN, WP:GNG,WP:SUSTAINED. It is clear that they are demanding subject notability to be demonstrated it the text in utter violation of WP polices mentioned above! The stub needs expansion but I refuse to be forced to do it against policy as the result of Status Quo Stonewalling.
- Despite WP:V policy, editors refuse to admit that the sources presented are "adequate"--which would solve the problem of the old article. What we had at DRV is similar to Status Quo Stonewalling where the stub restoration was the proposed change. Disruptive behavior in opposition to a proposed change when substantive argument based in policy, guidelines and conventions are inadequate to legitimately oppose the change.
- The Policy solution to SQS is exactly as I argued in DRV: To toss the opinion votes with no policy foundation out of the consensus count! § How to avoid status quo stonewalling. This is WP Policy which the closer Cannot simply ignore. Nor, should they ignore my direct questions-- Now asked twice.
- Since the subject is the early Orlando rave scene in the 90's...Jo-Jo Eumerus should elaborate on another absurd statement: The two new sources sound more like passing mentions, "not entirely clear that they are talking about the same subject."
- There are FOUR reliable sources from FOUR authors that make the comparison AND describe the scene! You should note that I only need two sources to overcome the initial argument that the term was not coined by one author.
- "The last determination for Deletion Review is the question of whether an article about the notable Orlando era should be titled "Orlando's Summer of Love" as reported- now in four sources separated by 24 years."
- The new 2011 and 2017 source:
- Moyer, Matthew (November 21, 2017). "Wizard of AAHZ: Orlando lord of the dance Kimball Collins is serious about throwing a party". orlandoweekly.com. The Orlando Weekly. Retrieved October 3, 2017. The last thing on DJ and Orlando dance music linchpin Kimball Collins' mind back during the fabled Orlando Summer of Love in the early 1990s was that he would someday be responsible for preserving the legacy of Florida Breaks
- Guida, Humberto (April 27, 2011). "I Was A Florida Raver Chapter 1 The Edge". www.clubplanet.com. Retrieved 2019-10-16. It was matched only by what hippies did at acid-parties in places like Haight-Ashbury, parties also referred to as “all night raves.” ...from Miami to Orlando... The Florida rave scene was chronicled by Rolling Stone contributing editor Simon Reynolds in his seminal, rave anthology Generation Ecstasy as “infamous for taking excessive hedonism to the point of near-death experiences and sometimes taking it all the way.”
- Reliable Sources used prior to deletion from 1993 and 1998:
- Kelemen, Matt (September 2, 1998). "Wizards of Aahz: The Florida winter had ju..." orlandoweekly.com. The Orlando Weekly. Retrieved November 30, 2015. Collins could not be aware of it at the time, but those Saturday nights -- eventually known as "Aahz"-- would kick-start an underground culture and spawn countless DJ careers. Orlando would never be the same...By 1991-1992, Orlando experienced its own "summer of love" through the culture that sprang up around the weekend acid-house nights at the Beacham Theatre...only New York, San Francisco and L.A. had similar scenes, and they were characterized by warehouse parties. Orlando had a headquarters in the heart of its downtown district...By the time Rolling Stone discovered the scene, late-night culture had become a shadow of its former self.
- Guinto, Liesl (August 1, 1993). "All The Rave". orlandosentinel.com. The Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved August 16, 2016. [Orlando "Raves" in 1993 (also ATL)] A re-invented Haight-Ashbury of the 90s.}}
- DRV Closer Requested an explanation of why the sources constitute substantial coverage.
- Answer: Because these sources meet RS, GNG, and other N policy guidelines. Because these sources meet those guidelines, editors don't get to present absurd arguments that there isn't substantive coverage in them or that an article stub doesn't demonstrate N. That is to say, WP policy prevents editors from bringing those veiled content disputes to DRV to have them ultimately decided by your closure. DRV is for policy issues--not content disputes.
- Reliable Sources used prior to deletion from 1993 and 1998:
- Johnvr4 (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've to question the compliance of these huge quotes in User:Johnvr4/sandbox52 with the copyright policies; Diannaa, can you take a look?
- As for the rest of the argument, I am going to summon opinions on WP:AN (the normal place to review admin actions when discussion on the user talk page does not do the job) on this. As far as I am concerned though none of the links to policies, guidelines and essays here - which you are often confusing with each other, but that's neither here nor there - invalidate the key concerns in the deletion review that the sources proffered do not establish notability due to failing various tenets of WP:SIGCOV so I am not going to change my close. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I appreciate the opening of the AN discussion since we aren't making any headway with this discussion. Please realize that it seems apparent that you are making arguments against WP:N(E) and have not yet attempted to answer the questions asked to move forward. Thank you Johnvr4 (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Jo-Jo Eumerus: The extensive quotations in the sandbox you asked me to look at are definitely too much, and will have to be removed. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Diannaa:Thanks. I don't think I'll be able to do anything about them, at least not today, due to lingering sleep deprivation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Johnvr4 (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: (and other participants in previous discussion) and myself were stuck in a content/policy dilemma that were were trying to solve. Jo-Jo Eumerus asked for a self-review at AN. The AN was opened for approx 1.5 hours. The AN was closed between the time I thanked Jo-Jo Eumerus for opening the AN above and the posting of my message. Other involved editors commented. As I posted my reply in the AN, there was a message about an edit conflict. I backed up and found the AN closed so I was unable to post the response. I left a message on the talk page but he would simply not allow my comment under any circumstance User_talk:Ymblanter#Premature_AN_closure. The AN has not alleviated the concern and there is still an impasse re: closure policy.
I dispute your assessment at AN that my "arguments mostly rely on throwing links to various policies/guidelines/essays that mostly don't apply at all to the situation or at least don't refute the concerns about the sourcing raised in the deletion review." Therefore, My comment is here.
I felt the Jo-Jo Eumerus' comment did not remotely capture my side of the dispute and the premature closure only prevented us from resolving our policy vs content issue. My intended message at AN was (or would have been if it had not been repeatedly deleted) was simply to clarify the actual issue being reviewed at AN and to urge policy adherence. The intended edit at AN:
I am the involved editor and am hereby requesting that all follow established WP guidelines and polices. Wikipedia:Closing discussions DRV closure concerns, WP:Notability (events) for GNG concerns, and WP:CONTN, WP:NRV, WP:NEXIST for Content concerns.
It appears Hut 8.5's vote was given undue weight at DRV. I'm not sure why he is making a claim about carrying on arguing given it is his (and others) inability or utter refusal to answer direct questions. The ambiguity of such absurd complaints requires further discussion--ad nauseum because my very simple questions are never answered! The refusal to answer direct questions, from user:Bearcat (the AfD Nom at Rdu), to user:Hut 8.5 to user:Jo-Jo Eumerus: is the thing preventing me (or any other editor) from moving forward with a new draft. As shown here:
- Requests_for_undeletion#Orlando's_Summer_of_Love
- User_talk:Johnvr4#Orlando's_Summer_of_Love
- user:Hut_8.5#"I_suggest_you_contribute_to_it..."_Comment
- User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Orlando Summer of Love DRV closure Comment (here)
I feel that I have asked legitimate questions about the interpretation of the WP discussion closing policy in relation to the recent DRV closure made. No answers have been provided to my questions that do not violate other policies. It pretty clear that no one is even reading the reason we are here at User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Orlando Summer of Love DRV closure Comment. Adherence to WP policy is hopeless with WP:SQS How does one write a new draft if it is alleged that reliable sources don't offer non-trival, indepth coverage?? One cannot have it both ways here: That someone says, "a new draft could be written on the subject (with these sources)..." in the same breath that, ..."these sources have no substantial coverage of the subject", fails all logic.
In response to no rebuttal offered claims at DRV, there were new sources offered. In fact, Four of them made that comparison to counter an entirely bogus JustMadeup claim and associated delete votes at AfD.--end intended comment at AN
I would greatly appreciate answers to my previously asked questions--and those of my attempted comment at AN. If these issues had been resolved in any of the previously mentioned forums or discussions, then these questions would be unnecessary.
Please keep in mind my intent for this article was a completely hands off approach for several years as shown on my talk page and in this diff Assertions to the contrary are devoid of fact and untrue. Every single accusation about my intent and this article was a hopeless misstatement of facts at AFD, RDU, DRV, talk pages, AN, etc. etc and in some cases, apparently purposeful. I still need you to please direct me to the WP policy that requires GNG for WP:N(E) to be proven in content prose rather than sources. In addition, kindly direct me to the WP policy that a WP:N(E) GNG test must be determined by only WP:THREE sources. That is what I need to move on. Johnvr4 (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Help at AfD
Not sure what happened, but when I sent Counter-Measures (audio drama) to AfD, it appeared to create 2 discussions simultaneously, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Measures (audio drama) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Measures (audio drama) (2nd nomination). If you look the time stamps, they were both created simultaneously. In all the years I've been on WP, I've never seen this happen before. I went through today's list in case there was some glitch and it was happening to every new entry, but it only appears to have happened with my entry. I would have simply closed the first, and added the one comment there to the 2nd nom, but did't know if that would be violating some procedural matter. Thanks in advance. Onel5969 TT me 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think there is an established procedure for this. I've copied the sole !vote over to the non-numeric-titled AFD page, notified the editor and deleted the duplicated page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:34, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. I didn't want to make it worse by following an incorrect procedure. Onel5969 TT me 17:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Merge
Hi there. You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivegam (soundtrack) as merge. Are you planning to merge this yourself? Thanks, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:29, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Greetings. No, that's why it's currently listed in Category:Articles to be merged after an Articles for deletion discussion which is the place where such requests are processed. Unlike deletion or redirect, I don't think there is an expectation that the admin carries out the merge themselves. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Prevent recreation of Casey Mongillo article
As you are the closing admin of the deletion discussion, I would like to request for the Casey Mongillo article to be salted, as some SPAs are hellbent on recreating the article without following our policies and guidelines. They are also canvassed by VAs on Twitter to do it. Please also indef the the recreator, as they are obviously an SPA that does not seem to be interested in the rest of the project other than to "defend" VAs. Their list of contributions are also highly disruptive, and they are likely to repeat the same behavior again. --Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've asked for a second opinion on WP:RFPP, I am not entirely certain about that account; perhaps ask on WP:ANI? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Saw your report on WP:RPP. As long as the article is salted, I don't think we'll have to worry about the article being recreated by canvassed trolling IPs and SPAs. Sk8erPrince (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- You can post proposals for the Community Wishlist Survey. The survey decides what the Community Tech team will work on. You can post proposals until 11 November. You can vote on proposals from 20 November to 2 December. This year the wishlist will focus on Wikibooks, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikiversity, Wikispecies, Wikivoyage and Wikinews. You can read more about the format for this year.
- Mobile users now have a specific design for their Watchlist. [4][5]
- You can share feedback and ideas on the Desktop Improvements project. The goal is to make the interface easier to use for readers and editors without removing any functionality. The Foundation's Readers Web team will work on this over the next two years.
- OOUI now allows using
px(pixels) instead ofem(em) for some specific cases. [6][7]
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 29 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 30 October. It will be on all wikis from 31 October (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 30 October at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Future changes
- There will be no software changes from 19 December to 2 January. The first MediaWiki version next year will come the week of 6 January. [8]
- Gadgets and user scripts can access variables about the current page in JavaScript. In 2015, this information was moved from global variables named
wg*tomw.config. The old global variables will be removed later this year. You can know more about it and tell the developers if you want to try this out on your wiki first.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
"blank keep arguments are not really helpful"
ouch! maybe I won't do that again. soibangla (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The Signpost: 31 October 2019
- In the media: How to use or abuse Wikipedia for fun or profit
- Special report: “Catch and Kill” on Wikipedia: Paid editing and the suppression of material on alleged sexual abuse
- Interview: Carl Miller on Wikipedia Wars
- Community view: Observations from the mainland
- Arbitration report: October actions
- Gallery: Wiki Loves Broadcast
- Recent research: Research at Wikimania 2019: More communication doesn't make editors more productive; Tor users doing good work; harmful content rare on English Wikipedia
- News from the WMF: Welcome to Wikipedia! Here's what we're doing to help you stick around
- On the bright side: What's making you happy this month?
Disambiguation link notification for November 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Paleotempestology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Coast (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Hey Jo-Jo! Hope you're doing well. I wanted to quickly swing by with a question on the AfD closure for the Casey Mongillo article. I was looking at the NGE page earlier this evening and was surprised to find that the article had existed, but ended up deleted. Taking a look at the discussion, there appeared to be a rather fractious debate about the reliability of the sources and whether there was enough there to justify an article. There did appear to be consensus, however, that the actress performed key roles in the dubs of several notable anime titles. Looking at other articles in this space, while the sourcing can certainly be improved, there is a precedent for dub actor notability to be based on the volume and high-profile status of their dubs. As an example, it'd be good to take a look at Bryce Papenbrook or Erik Scott Kimerer. Nearly all sources are Twitter posts or press releases announcing his involvement in a dub, but it'd be rather silly to say he's not a notable actor in this space. Taking that into consideration, the roles Casey Mongillo has played seem fairly easy to fit in the WP:GNG criteria. At worst, my instincts are to say this was closer to "No Consensus," with a recommendation to clean the article up of the non-independent sources.
Let me know what you think! I'd rather not open a Deletion Review since it seemed like a bit of a mess the first round, but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Lord Roem:Greetings. That said, my impression from reading the discussion is that it was one (debatably) noteworthy role in Neon Genesis Evangelion and another little discussed (in the deletion discussion) role in Mob Psycho 100, with the most detailed arguments being that they are not that important and which were only weakly rebutted. Regarding Erik Scott Kimerer and Bryce Papenbrook haven't been tested at AFD as far as I can see, and they go into a little more detail on the noteworthy roles rather than just discussing one and presenting largely context-less lists of other roles.
- I definitively do not see how the topic meets WP:GNG though, the objections to that in the deletion discussion were pretty substantial. Perhaps you could present some of these sources that you think satisfy WP:SIGCOV criteria? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the quick response. I saw this Vice article from the discussion, which all seemed to agree was reliable, non trivial coverage (including the nom). The article's all about her performance in the "Neon Genesis Evangelion" project. There's also this article from TV Guide, which was briefly linked in the discussion, but never assessed in detail by those participating. These reviews of her performance "addresses the topic directly and in detail." As significant coverage isn't a counting of the raw number of articles, but rather the quality of the coverage (the example of a book on the subject being the gold standard), I think there's an at-least arguable case, if not an outright strong one, that WP:SIGCOV is satisfied. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, raw counting does still matter as it has to be at least two sources. To me it sounds like a case of marginal notability; perhaps you can restore it and see if someone else re-AFD's it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's fair, and I appreciate your openness to talk through this (I didn't feel it appropriate to undelete without talking with you first). I'll go ahead and restore and try to clean up the article's sourcing. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Well, raw counting does still matter as it has to be at least two sources. To me it sounds like a case of marginal notability; perhaps you can restore it and see if someone else re-AFD's it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the quick response. I saw this Vice article from the discussion, which all seemed to agree was reliable, non trivial coverage (including the nom). The article's all about her performance in the "Neon Genesis Evangelion" project. There's also this article from TV Guide, which was briefly linked in the discussion, but never assessed in detail by those participating. These reviews of her performance "addresses the topic directly and in detail." As significant coverage isn't a counting of the raw number of articles, but rather the quality of the coverage (the example of a book on the subject being the gold standard), I think there's an at-least arguable case, if not an outright strong one, that WP:SIGCOV is satisfied. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
1257 Samalas eruption scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that 1257 Samalas eruption has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 25 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 25, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Um, @Ealdgyth:, at the risk of sounding like an entitled article WP:OWNer, but I don't see why this would be a good FAC for the 25th November 2019 - from what I can tell we don't know the exact day where the eruption took place yet and 25 November has otherwise no significance that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Articles don't only run on dates with connections to the subject... they run on dates not connected either. If we only ran them on date connections, we'd have no way to run a lot of FAs on the main page, because a good number have no date connection at all. Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page/No date connection lists some that are totally lacking in date connections, although its not complete by any means. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth:Well, in that case I'll ask that the article be pulled from TFA queue because a) I do not have time to make any pre-TFA double checks before it runs (exam preparation and Laguna del Maule (volcano)) and b) if you run it anyway and if in this year - or perhaps the next one - someone publishes a paper identifying a proper eruption date, we couldn't run it on that day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- @TFA coordinators thoughts from the rest of you? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- There was a bit of earlier discussion on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/1257 Samalas eruption/archive1 for what it's worth. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Also FWIW, I notice you pulled Black Prince, Ealdgyth, but Gog said he's fine with running it, if you're looking for something to run. - Dank (push to talk) 17:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- I'm still good with what I said in May.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- @TFA coordinators thoughts from the rest of you? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Ealdgyth:Well, in that case I'll ask that the article be pulled from TFA queue because a) I do not have time to make any pre-TFA double checks before it runs (exam preparation and Laguna del Maule (volcano)) and b) if you run it anyway and if in this year - or perhaps the next one - someone publishes a paper identifying a proper eruption date, we couldn't run it on that day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- Articles don't only run on dates with connections to the subject... they run on dates not connected either. If we only ran them on date connections, we'd have no way to run a lot of FAs on the main page, because a good number have no date connection at all. Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page/No date connection lists some that are totally lacking in date connections, although its not complete by any means. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
- If it were up to me I'd only run as date connections for anniversaries of births and major events, but that's not how it works in practice, so happy to accept this won't be listed for the foreseeable future Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
@TFA coordinators What is the conclusion? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
- @TFA coordinators Continued this at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article so that it is in a more public venue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- At Special:Contributions you could see up to 5000 edits at the same time if you edited the URL. This has been lowered to 500. This is to stop requests which break the sites. [9]
Changes later this week
MediaWiki:ipb-default-expirycan set the default length to block a user for your wiki. You will be able to useMediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ipto set a different default block length for IP editors. [10]- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 November. It will be on all wikis from 7 November (calendar).
Meetings
- You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 6 November at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Blue-ice area
The article Blue-ice area you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Blue-ice area for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Reaper Eternal -- Reaper Eternal (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Request for a permission
| Certainly not when it's requested by a sockpuppet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Since my brother Oon835 is still currently blocked. The good news is he allowed me to take over all his draft pages and sandboxes. Can you remove all the semi-protect from his pages so I can take good care of it.
|
Global watchlist - Update 2
Updates associated with DannyS712's Global watchlist script:
- General notes
- To report a bug or request a feature, please create a new task on Phabricator with the script's tag
- Recent additions
- Site validation has been tightened. Previously, only the language code and project name had to be valid - now, they must be a valid combination (i.e.
en.wikiversityexists, and so is valid, butsco.wikiversityis not valid, because no such wiki exists). - When the global watchlist feed is loading, an OOUI widget will be shown, rather than an animated gif.
- An option has been added to no longer group edits to the same page. For now, this isn't very useful, since metadata for the edits (editor, summary, tags, etc.) are not yet shown, but they will be soon. Until then, ungrouped edits are treated the same as pages with only 1 edit - the minor and bot flags are displayed if applicable. If edits are grouped, the minor and bot flags are only shown if they apply to all of the edits.
- Upcoming changes
- Starting with version 5.0, there will be an option at the settings page to switch to and from a "stable" version of the script. When activated, the script import in your global.js should be replaced, and then the page refreshed with the new script loaded. The stable script will live at m:User:DannyS712/Global watchlist/stable.js, and will be updated with each full release. Otherwise, it shouldn't be edited, providing a version that is less prone to bugs as the script is developed.
- Announcements
- WARNING: Starting with version 5.1, the option to mark the pages of a site as seen be implemented using the
entirewatchlistAPI option, rather than manually listing the titles. This is being done to simplify the implementation code. This will result in the same functionality as marking all pages as seen via Special:Watchlist (i.e. even if the page isn't visible due to your filter choices, it will still be marked as seen). If you would like to keep using the current method for a while, please switch to the stable branch.
- Next release
Version 5.0 has just gone live. It includes the new features mentioned above.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from future updates, see the distribution list.
Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Deletion review for Technical Psychotronics
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Technical Psychotronics. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Archibald751 (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andagua volcanic field, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Puna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll get to that later this week. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)