User talk:Premeditated Chaos/Archive 13

DYK for Cirque de la Symphonie

On 2 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cirque de la Symphonie, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that contemporary circus troupe Cirque de la Symphonie deliberately maintains a minimalist aesthetic to give equal prominence to the symphony orchestras that accompany their performances? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cirque de la Symphonie. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cirque de la Symphonie), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zzz369/sandbox

Hello. I am writing to you regarding the deletion of my sandbox page. First, I am not clear why my harmless sandbox is deleted, I think it was a valid page listing all currently transmitted telenovelas, similar pages exist in wikipedia, this one is just more detailed and in the end it is only a sandbox. Second, I honestly do not understand what user User:Philip J Fry has against me, instead of contributing for the good of wikipedia he is constantly chasing me. Now he has gone against my harmless sandbox, and previously if you take a look at the history he has reverted many of my edits of en.wikipedia, those edits that I made were usually corrections of the erroneous data, and he has on various occasions insisted that his or previous edits are somehow right, providing no or no valid reason. Therefore, please help me retrieve my sandbox and warn the user Philip J Fry to stop chasing me. I know that lately I did not contribute much on en.wikipedia, but on es.wikipedia I have good references where I have introduced many new things and they have been now accepted by other users. All the best, --Zzz369 (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is hosting massive amounts of content and editing it but not editing mainspace. We're not a webhost, and historically, it's been frowned on for people to focus on editing large chunks of content in userspace when they aren't editing mainspace. If you're more active on es.wiki, why not stash it on es.wiki? I don't mind to email you a copy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Oriental Bird Club page

Kindly let me know why this page was deleted. I had created this page at the request of the club. I'm sorry but I do not regularly check on things I have uploaded. In case that page needed any correction/modification, please let me know. I can work on it. Did not understand 'not notable'. This club is important record-keeper of birds of the oriental region through articles and photographs. It has a huge database of images of birds of the area.

Details: 00:50, 12 February 2017 Premeditated Chaos (talk | contribs) deleted page Oriental Bird Club (Expired PROD, concern was: Not notable.)

Savithri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savi.odl (talk • contribs) 07:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, Wikipedia uses notability as a criterion for what articles should be kept or deleted. Most often, notability is determined through the general notability guideline (GNG). The GNG looks for a topic to have significant coverage in independent reliable sources. There's more details on the actual page, but basically we want to see that outside sources to have written about the organization.

The other thing you should be aware of is our conflict of interest policy. You need to declare any conflict of interest when editing related articles. If the club asked you to add content to that article, that's something you should have declared at the time, particularly if they made the request in exchange for payment (see also our policy on paid editing and the Wikimedia Foundation's undisclosed editing policy). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was requested since I am one of the contributors of images (among over 2000) to the database. At some point I had tried to discuss with them the possibility of open licensing. No payment was involved. Here is the [1] to their site and you can study it for yourself. It a huge database of useful content and I just felt it should be assessable to more people. It is database created through donation of images - no money involved at all. The club is useful for us in this region to help identify the birds of the oriental region. There is a lot of rigour in selecting images and maintaining quality. Sorry for not signing last time. I haven't done any editing for a long time. Savi.odl (talk) 15:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but the problem is even if you're not getting paid, you have a conflict of interest by virtue of being involved with the club. It affects your ability to edit neutrally even if you think it doesn't. I just felt it should be assessable to more people: that, right there, that's indicative of a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest are strongly discouraged from editing on those topics in order to preserve Wikipedia's neutrality.

The other thing is, it doesn't matter how great the club is or how useful its database is. Our criteria is notability, which I linked above. We need to see that outside sources are writing about the club in order to determine if it meets out criteria for inclusion. Good examples of outside sources would be magazines, books, and newspapers. If you can find external sources like that, please link them here so I can have a look. Examples of sources to ignore are anything the club produces itself like its own website, blogs, content aggregators, storefronts like iTunes and Amazon, and any books created by assembling Wikipedia content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hallak

Dear administrator, with all due respect, I find it unfair to delete my page about Al Hallak, I agree with many of the judges thoughts but I find some are unfair such as "He's a young up-and-comer in - from what I understand - an industry full of young up-and-comers." "his resume, which is probably best described as thin" " being "filmmaker of the month" doesn't strike me as an overly major claim to notability - I was "employee of the month" a couple of times in my old job, but it doesn't earn me an article. " one judge was threatening of sanction "please don't "write about him in the near future until he meets the criteria we've talked about above. That's a sure-fire way to attract administrative sanction" you can find more at https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Al_Hallak_(2nd_nomination)

I made a search about many film directors who have done much less, some only one movie and still have pages, to me I believe having a coverage on the Huff Post and being interviewed at the D.C. Film Office as filmmaker of the month alone make him notable. He was addressed directly and in detail in several articles and media. Found in several forms and media sites and featured in other language. Found in Multiple sources, IMDb, Huff Post, MovieMaker, media coverage that not affiliated with him. He was a panelist, a judge, a teacher and made an impact with his work that he received a recognition from Burbank, CA Mayor. I wonder how Wikipedia doesn't recognize a talent like him, who made an impact. A judge said his movie "The Paradigm" was a student film, although that's true, but the trailer he made years later based on his thesis made an impact online and featured on many sites, he motivated many young filmmakers to make Sci-Fi movies with low budget, since he made it only with $400. I can bring examples of wikipedia pages about film directors who have "Thiner Resumes" and have pages, here is one with all respect to Max Albert https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Max_Albert. I would suggest editing his page instead of deleting it, at least indicating that he is in fact a notable filmmaker and more achievements will be added to his page in the future. I might need to bring up the article at Deletion Review to discus it, what do you think. Thanks for your time and understanding. JackSwan (talk) 23:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the consensus of the discussion was that Mr. Hallak does not meet our criteria at this time. I will not be undeleting the article. You need to read and understand our policies and both of the AfD discussions, and try to understand why the article was deleted at this time. BigHaz was correct in stating that if you re-create the article without improved sources that show that he meets our criteria you may wind up subject to administrative sanctions, up to and including a block. That is not a threat and is not intended as punishment. Any sanction or block exists as a means of preventing disruption, and in this case, a third re-creation of an article that has been deleted by consensus twice at AfD would be disruption. If you believe there was a procedural error in my closure you are welcome to raise it at deletion review, where the closure of the discussion can be scrutinized by other parties. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, I respect the decision, I feel disappointed and sad for artists who work so hard and do so much and not getting noticed by Wikipedia, Al Hallak is only one of so many, I hope that Wikipedia would include talents based on their quality of work and qualifications and their contributions to their communities, most of those talents stay in the dark because they don't get the support they deserve. All the best. JackSwan (talk) 03:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The point of Wikipedia isn't to support or notice up-and-coming artists. It's an encyclopedia, a tertiary source. We summarize and describe topics that secondary sources have already supported and noticed. If no secondary sources have written about the quality of someone's work, we have nothing to summarize and therefore shouldn't have an article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, with all respect, I still don't think that he is up-and-coming artist. How many secondary independent and reliable sources are required, I found 5 and a TV interview, he is also featured on other languages. His movie "Impervious" on Dread Central http://www.dreadcentral.com/news/126557/ghostly-new-impervious-trailer/ and on Horror Movies CA http://www.horror-movies.ca/2015/09/an-impervious-teaser-trailer-creeps-its-way-inside/ The Huff Post featured him at https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/award-winning-filmmaker-al-hallak-to-judge-washington_us_57e1508ce4b053b1ccf2a5e0 he is a recognized filmmaker in Washington D.C. https://film.dc.gov/release/octfme-announces-october-2016-filmmaker-month-al-hallak and was interviewed on DCN TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5HVHQdWpoI&index=5&list=PL5Gt1jbf5xMyWUhhXZGDQZK57_mrrTYJm and titled on MovieMaker as a director https://www.moviemaker.com/archives/best_of/best-places-to-live-and-work-as-a-moviemaker-2017/17/ I really think he deserves a review at the deletion review, I guess the issue is that I wrote an article in a way that didn't describe him well and maybe listed the wrong sources not some of the links above. JackSwan (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Dreadcentral & Horror-Movies.ca articles are about trailers for his movie, not about him personally. The DC Filmmaker thing is a monthly award so it really doesn't confer much notability (and this was discussed with you at the AfD). The Moviemaker.com article mentions him literally in the caption of a photo and doesn't discuss him further at all, so it counts for nothing. The HuffPo article is decent but not enough on its own. Feel free to take this to deletion review but I am confident my close was correct and will be upheld. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment and time, I understand now if I write about someone, I need to find independent reliable sources discussing them in details, correct. Is he now blocked, so I can't write about him anymore, what if this changes in a year or two and he has like 5 independent sources discussing him in details. thanks JackSwan (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page title is indefinitely protected so only administrators can create it, as a result of being repeatedly recreated. If at some point you find enough sources to support an article, please feel free to create it at Draft:Al Hallak and then submit it through the articles for creation process so the sources can be checked. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:38, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Jack, I finally noticed that you posted a similar query on my talk page, but did so at the top of the page so I did not notice it until you removed it. May I reply by chiming in here? No, Al Hallak is not blocked from ever getting an article here. You can use Draft:Al Hallak or your userspace, e.g. User:JackSwan/Al Hallak, to draft an article when a more compelling set of reliable sources become available. The article could then be approved for creation through the Draft process, and would be moved over to main article space. I would not like to leave you with the impression that this will be easy. In my observation, the Draft reviewer will review your article with the same or greater rigour as AfD would (or did, in this case). Therefore, you should be prepared to write a fairly high quality article on the basis of high quality sources - the sources in particular may take time to become available, if ever (the latter caveat is just me being realistic, not mean).

PMC I think has said pretty much everything else that needs to be said about this, including the need for those sources to focus quite specifically on the subject of the article rather than being any sort of brief appearance that could be seen as incidental or generic. I fully endorse her decision on the AfD motion, and would say that the explanation she has given you is excellent and to the point. I hope our advice has been helpful to you. Happy editing! Samsara 02:44, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Samsara and thanks Premeditated for your time and the info, I have a better understanding of the process now, I am sure he will at some point have more compelling set of reliable sources that are focused specifically on him and his work. I might write about him or someone else and edit other pages in the future, I am more aware of the requirements now, all the best JackSwan (talk) 20:08, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa vs Purdue

What was this? There was no case for a delete here, as there was another article on the same topic to serve as a redirect target. Funny how that redirect target is magicly a red link. Can I guess that you deleted it out of process, so that you could justify a delete result? You ought to turn in your tools, as you can't be trusted with them. Unscintillating (talk) 03:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review is open if you see an issue with my close. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Rouge admin

FYI. Wakari07 (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I help you in some manner? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned pages

PMC, (if you'll allow me to call you by your shortened name.)

Can you then explain to me what links Mccapra (talk · contribs) added in this diff when the "att" was added? And then what links were added before this diff when the orphan tag was removed? I submit to you that no such changes were made because mccabra is operating outside the scope of your project. MOS is not being observed, from my perspective. Please look at the history of Bakhuwala again. Cheers, --SVTCobra (talk) 04:29, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel as though you may have some serious misconceptions about the de-orphaning process that are causing you to think poorly of Mccapra. An orphaned article is one which has no incoming links - no other articles link to it. One removes the orphan tag when an outside link has been added - whether it is linked in a list, an index, a template, a "see also" section, or directly in the prose of another article. (For example, Australian Book of Memories is not an orphan because Index of Australia-related articles links to it).

The "attempted" tag is used when you've searched for possible places to link the article from, but have failed to find any. Obviously, as a result, this means that someone who adds the "attempted" tag will not have added any links - because they believe there aren't any plausible places to link. For example, here is a diff of me placing the "attempted" tag on Buccal index because I'm completely stumped about where to link it from.

At the time of your first diff, Mccapra clearly felt they could not figure out where to link to Bakhuwala in order to de-orphan it, so they added the "attempted" tag. Later, in this diff, they added a link to Bakhuwala in the Muzaffargarh District article in order to de-orphan Bakhuwala. Although their edit to Muzaffargarh District was later reverted by someone who disagreed with their change, their addition of the link and their subsequent removal of the orphan tag from Bakhuwala was a perfectly good faith action.

Although Mccapra and I disagree on the frequency with which one should use the "attempted" tag, I am 100% confident that Mccapra is operating in good faith and fully within the purpose of WP:ORPHANAGE. Again I urge you to retract your accusations at the Orphanage talk page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Professional performances

Hey. Instead of deleting it under G12, I just revdel'd all the copyrighted content. Hope that suffices. Cheers, Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of "Aysun Aliyeva"

My article "Aysun Aliyeva" was deleted, and its recreation was speedy deleted. I'd like to recreate it once again with similar content, however adding the info that she is a member of Azerbaijan national team with reference. Is there any objection? Please let me know. CeeGee 04:39, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would check in at WikiProject Football to confirm that she meets notability requirements by being on that team. I don't know enough about football to feel comfortable giving it the go-ahead. But if they think that's enough for a pass then by all means re-create it. If you do, I'd put a link to the WikiProject discussion (and maybe this one as well) in the edit summary so people can see it's not G4-able. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any definitive proposal for me now? CeeGee 06:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologize the typo. My question is did you check WikiProject Football to give me an answer. What do you suggest ı should do? CeeGee 17:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. I recommended that you check there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it so that you speedy delete an article without having any knowledge of the matter? CeeGee 19:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy deleted it as a G4 because it was a re-creation of an article deleted at AfD. The reason I'm recommending you check with WP:FOOTBALL is that the notability guidelines at WP:NFOOTY aren't explicit about whether or not being on a national team for someplace like Azerbaijan grants presumed notability, and I don't know enough about football as a whole to make a judgment call on re-creating the article. Checking with knowledgeable people is just good sense. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot indeed for the satisfactory explanations. I'll be re-creating the article as soon as possible. CeeGee 14:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding deletion of archived draft in personal userspace

Hi Premeditated Chaos, regarding User:A_Fellow Editor/Archive/Drmies talk, December 2017, why was I not given time to respond before deletion? Did you perhaps miss the notes at the head of the page and at the head of the final subsection which elaborated upon the page's purpose/function?

I fail to see how the page was in any way such a threat-to-the-wiki that a 'speedy' was justified. The page contained original additions not available in history elsewhere and its page history is currently linked (well, now—after your deletion—broken linked) in an open discussion on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Please restore the page and its full history. ––A Fellow Editor– 08:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy closed it because there was never going to be a consensus to keep it. Per WP:POLEMIC, users should not maintain such material except when it is going to be imminently used in a filing (such as at ANI or ArbCom). Particularly when the material in question is still available (if hatted) at Drmies' talk page, there is no reason to have a separate page to have a persistent personal record readily at hand. If you want to maintain something like that, with personal annotations, do it off-wiki. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding: "If you want to maintain something like that, with personal annotations, do it off-wiki." — If the MfD had been allowed to proceed with due process instead of getting cut short before I'd been offered time to respond I would have.

The compilation of factual evidence in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. The deleted page and its history is currently linked in an open thread on Jimbo's talkpage wherein I've asked for help addressing concerns I've raised – through personal mentorship (rather than seeking any sort of formal consequences be enacted). So, as far as 'timely manner goes' the material was still actively in use (and would still be so now if it hadn't been deleted.

I would prefer to save us both the hassle of going through formal deletion review over this. If the page is restored and the original MfD is allowed to proceed—even if it is then deleted after 7 days as is being presumed—I'll at least have had fair warning to arrange archiving on my own local hardware and presumably the Jimbo talkpage thread will have had time to run its course by then as well. ––A Fellow Editor– 01:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) A Fellow Editor: you can find the entirity of the thread at this historical revision and copy it off-wiki. Your annotations were pretty simple, so I think it is reasonable to expect that you remember the gist of them. Also, despite the common misconception, User talk:Jimbo Wales is not a dispute resolution venue. Try AN or ANI or even ArbCom if you feel it was significant enough admin abuse. Even then, people much prefer to see diffs as compared to archives with annotations. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TonyBallioni, if one actually reads what I posted there (on Jimbo's page) I state my aims pretty clearly. And I can't think of anywhere other than Jimbo's talkpage to have placed a personal appeal to him. And if I still had access to records I'd already carefully tucked away in userspace under .../Archive/... I wouldn't have to attempt to reconstruct them, now would I? And their unique edit history existed nowhere else. ––A Fellow Editor– 01:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are no edits to carefully reconstruct, just use diffs. Jimmy Wales has less authority than the Queen has here, so anything you are doing on his talk page is a waste of your time. If you actually have concerns about Drmies actions, take them to ANI or ArbCom. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In which case the centralized cohesive record I'd made and the edit history of such—showing Drmies blundering into my userspace and leaving snark in my archive not long after asking me to refrain from posting further in his—might be useful (and qualify for existence per WP:P&G , ie "The compilation of factual evidence in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner"). ––A Fellow Editor– 10:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn’t be. They’d expect diffs as archives like that aren’t accepted anywhere on Wikipedia as a standard form of evidence. The section you quoted refers to collecting diffs and drafting a statement. Nothing more. I’d also advise you as everyone else has done here that if you continue with this you are likely to be the one facing sanctions, not Drmies. Just drop it. Anyway, PMC can answer the restoration question on her own, I was just dropping in as a talk page watcher to give my 2¢. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the fact that I cannot present diffs of a page which has been deleted has somehow gone over your head ... Good day sir, ––A Fellow Editor– 16:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One may wonder at this point whether hiding the blunders of a prominent admin editing ... in whatever state of mind he found himself in in the wee hours one weekend ... might in fact be the real motivation for cutting short due process with a 'speedy' deletion before I'd been allowed reasonable time to respond. As, as others have noted, the bulk of the material I'd compiled there is still available in fragments elsewhere. Argument might even be made that the page's edit history revealing Drmies' errors was the most exclusively unique aspect of it. ––A Fellow Editor– 16:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I speedy closed the discussion because it was clear that there was never going to be a consensus to keep the page, and because it is the kind of page specifically disallowed by WP:POLEMIC. I would have done the same if someone had curated such a page about you, or any other editor. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"there was never going to be a consensus to keep the page" – How can such a thing be determined in less than nine hours! MfD guidelines call for seven days of discussion and rebuttal!!! This is starting to feel like a cover-up to hide embarrassing page history. It certainly doesn't feel like due process. What entitles you to presume the outcome of a seven day process in just nine hours! While I was bloody asleep! How can you argue that the page's content was in any way imminently disruptive without also bringing the same accusation against the overlapping material on User:Drmies talkpage and User:Jimbo Wales's talkpage (archived now; if a simple record of a talkpage thread constitutes an "attack" in my userspace archives why don't quotes from the same—and more—constitute "an attack page" in the archives of User:Jimbo Wales? I feel some sort of "double standards" game is being applied here ... Perhaps a source of some unintentional irony as concerns about those in power not being held to the same standards to which they hold others is central to the concerns I was trying to address in the first place). ––A Fellow Editor– 07:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you planning to use the page to make a report at ANI or to file an ArbCom case? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pfui, that offers no direct response to my preceding comment/inquiry. If you wish me to offer you the courtesy of a direct response to your inquiry please extend the same courtesy to me. What justification, if any, do you have for aborting a seven day process in under nine hours other than your claim to prescience as to its outcome?

A largely straightforward record of discussion has repeatedly been disparaged as some sort of dedicated attack page ... "CITATION NEEDED" ... What about the page specifically may be seen as elevating a record of discussion with some minimal marginalia to a level of "imminently disruptive attack page" to be summarily removed without without input from the page's originator? You yourself have commented that most of the material the page contained also exists elsewhere (in fragmentary form). Neither User:Drmies nor the community-at-large has suggested any part elsewhere be summarily removed from public record, how did the act of compiling it in an archive in User:A Fellow Editor userspace magically elevate it to the status of a pressing threat requiring immediate action? ––A Fellow Editor–

p.s.—{{minnow}} (... err, pardon, in light of your breadth of experience, make that a {{trout}}. Silly.) : } ––A Fellow Editor–

p.p.s.—<sigh> … At this point the fact that an MfD discussion was initiated over such at all has come to feel like a personalized attack-by-proxy on me; political fallout for having dared to publicly question the actions of an editor with high rank and social status. ––A Fellow Editor– 08:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To quote WP:POLEMIC, on the topic of what is considered content unrelated to building the encyclopedia: Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Hanging on to such material indefinitely to make annotations and "invite commentary-on-the-commentary" is not within the scope of what is typically permitted in userspace.

I'll be frank: I have no idea who you are. I don't care enough about you to have any interest in "attacking" you. I speedy closed the MfD because I am the kind of person who hangs out at MfD habitually and closes things. I'll be even more frank: I don't know drmies from Adam. I could give a fuck if you want to question their actions all day and all night in an appropriate venue like a public talk page, ANI posting, or ArbCom filing. Fill your boots. Plenty of people question so-called "high-ranking" editors every day. But pages like your "archive" clearly fall outside the boundaries of what is acceptable, per WP:POLEMIC. I'm not restoring it, so you can either take it to DRV or stop asking. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Premeditated Chaos, I think you misunderstood my "p.p.s.", my sighing comment was not meant to suggest you personally might have been operating under such influence but rather that those involved in the nomination and initial characterization of an archived compilation of talkpage discussion as an "attack page" ... that such has come to feel politically tainted. At this point the fact that an MfD discussion was initiated over such at all – I'm aware that it was not you who nominated the page for MfD, neither were you one of the talkpage stalkers who had commented on the original thread and then proceeded to question my edits elsewhere soon after.

PMC, thank you for expressing in clear terms, I'm not restoring it, so you can either take it to DRV or stop asking. I think it may now fairly be said that I've offered the closing admin ample opportunity to personally reconsider (days given to one who'd only allowed me hours; clearly we differ greatly in our application of the phrase "timely manner"). I still perceive closing the MfD without allowing the page's creator reasonable opportunity to respond as quite problematic (FWIW, note that it took you ~13 hours to respond to my first comment here; over 4 hours longer than I was given to respond to an ostensibly 7 day MfD procedure); I'll likely be seeking community review of such in the relatively near future.

Thanks for your time and attention, PMC. May grace and wisdom illuminate your edits past, present, and future, ––A Fellow Editor– 14:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've been knocked down for a few days by some health issues. Am gradually recovering. Likely won't be in a position to readdress things until after US holiday season wraps up. ––A Fellow Editor– 12:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, here's hoping that clears up soon for you. Happy holidays. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wenonah Hauter

Hello Premeditated Chaos,

I am seeking to make a page for Wenonah Hauter, who is featured in the Requested articles page here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/By_profession#Activists

Previously the page was deleted for copyright infringement for being too similar to the website about her. I have worked hard to put a biography of her in my own words but wanted to see if I could run it by you first to get your approval. The copy I had in mind is below, please let me know!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hapknof (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've gone ahead and uploaded the article anyway, which isn't a huge deal, but why stop by to ask for my "approval" if you're just going to do that? Anyway: your sourcing isn't great. Wikipedia notability criteria requires multiple, in-depth sources which are intellectually independent of the subject. In this case, your sources are two interviews (not great for notability since it's just the subject talking about themselves), citations to her own website (not independent so does not indicate notability), two listicles (the Veggie Times one is somewhat more in-depth than most but mostly talks about her org, not her; the other one is a scant paragraph), and a book review in PR Watch (not bad). So basically the best sourcing you have at this point is a book review and a portion of a listicle.

Do you have any other sources that discuss Hauter in some depth? I did a quick Google/Google Books/Google News search but didn't come up with anything worth adding. If there's nothing else available I may bring the article to articles for deletion (AfD) so the community can review and see if they believe Hauter meets our criteria. Please note that this is not a threat or a punishment and means nothing negative toward you or Hauter personally. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for jumping the gun on that, I asked you and the person who nominated the page for speedy deletion and when she approved I published it, before hearing back from you. Anyway, I have taken your above commentary into account and have worked to find more credible sources for the material, including reducing the use of Hauter's personal website as a source to one sentence and finding book reviews for all her book content (which included text edits as well). Please let me know if there are other changes that can be made to the web page to avoid being nominated to Afd. Link here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wenonah_Hauter 21:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I still don't think the sourcing is great. In a perfect world, you'd have fewer narrow-focus publications and more broad coverage mainstream ones - those tend to hold up better as reliable sources. But it's enough that I don't think it'd be a clear consensus to delete at AfD. (For what it's worth, I've formatted your refs into proper citations). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IP you gave a short block still trolling after block expired

2600:8800:3981:7A80:194E:E87A:2510:F53C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) -- Softlavender (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's hoping a week's vacation helps. Feel free to ping again if he gets back to it after. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user, closing discussion

Greetings. I've closed a talk page discussion that was begun by Lx 121, whom you recently blocked. Since I was personally involved in the discussion, feel free to undo this, but it would be useful if somebody closed the discussion due to the rambling, uncivil, and badly-formatted comments and extensive quoting of article text (essentially all the article text). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I think you're good on that one. If anyone gives you guff about it, you can refer them here. Happy editing :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elected

Congratulations for being elected to arbcom, and good listening when cases come, - always better when they don't have to come ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Congrats from me, see you shortly on the mailing list. Doug Weller talk 11:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comgarulations. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Congrats PMC! TonyBallioni (talk) 14:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well done PMC! 🎅Patient Crimbo🎅 ^grotto ^presents 14:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add my congratulations, and hopes that you don't regret it! Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. Nice to see another Vancouverite and Canadian on the Committee. Mkdw ^talk 19:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was getting worried that my departure would reduce the Canadian Content of ArbCom below CRTC guidelines. Cheers, --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Mz7 (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for your kind words and support! I appreciate it and am looking forward to getting started :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It May Be My Paranoia, Butttttttttttt...

(also @Edgar181:) I'm not saying that this IP is Deltasaurus/Atesfae, but, I think we should keep a close eye on it as its behavior is, in my opinion, uncomfortably similar to the vandal's behavior/MO, but, differs only in the fact that it provided a source that says what it's saying.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that's faiiiiirly sketchy. There doesn't look to be any creature actually named that, even the wordpress blog that he cites says it's unnamed. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the 2018 Arbitration Committee

Congratulations on your success in the election and welcome to the 2018 Arbitration Committee! We will now induct you and the other new arbitrators. Please email arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org indicating which, if any, of the checkuser and oversight permissions you wish to be assigned for your term. If you already hold both these permissions, please still send this email, because we will subscribe the email you contact us from to the various committee mailing lists. The email address will also be used to register you on the various private wikis.

Over the coming days, you will receive a small number of emails. Please carefully read them. If they are registration emails, please follow any instructions in them to finalise registration. You can contact me or any other arbitrator directly if you have difficulty with the induction process. Lastly, you must sign the Wikimedia Foundation's confidentiality agreement prior to being subscribed to any mailing lists or assigned checkuser or oversight permissions. Please promptly go to the Access to nonpublic information noticeboard and follow the instructions there if you are not already signed the confidentiality agreement.

Thank you for volunteering to serve on the committee. We very much look forward to introducing ourselves to you on the mailing list and to working with you this term.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

	Triscuits!
	Merry Christmas to you in Vancouver! Take these triscuits as a Christmas gift and an apology for peer pressuring you into ArbCom. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays PMC! Wishing I was back at home now, then I could deliver Tony's triscuits in person :-) Alex Shih (talk) 08:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please ...

Special:Contributions/2600:8800:3981:7A80:194E:E87A:2510:F53C is at it again. Can you please just indef softblock him? He obviously has no intention of stopping, and it's exhausting cleaning up after him. Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dinged him for a year. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!

Hello, Premeditated Chaos! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pearl and Hermes Atoll, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Angelfish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Premeditated Chaos. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page.
Message added 07:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Ocarina of Time Userfication Request. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread about 92.113.205.84

Hi, PMC. Some of your assumptions, although understandable, about my CU block of the IP were incorrect. Now that you're a CU, I can share private information with you. So, if you're interested, please e-mail me. Congrats on your appointment to ArbCom.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure. I apologize if I said anything grossly untoward; I can strike my comments if you need me to. I'll email you in a sec although I'm at work and won't be able to check it or respond for awhile. And thank you for the congrats :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:15, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

iow vs purdue

just wondering why you thought iowa vs. purdue was a page that needed to be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Budde85 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa vs Purdue, which showed a consensus to delete. In my capacity as an admin, I neutrally closed the discussion and enacted the consensus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you do understand that for fans of both teams that this is a rivalry in the big ten and it would be nice to have a collection of records and scores to go to for reference when writing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Budde85 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please see the discussion I referred to above, where no reliable sources were provided that would show the rivalry passes our notability criteria. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017).

Administrator changes

Muboshgu

Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned

None

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news

The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration

Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Alex Shih, BU Rob13, Callanecc, KrakatoaKatie, Opabinia regalis, Premeditated Chaos, RickinBaltimore, Worm That Turned.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Dali (goddess)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dali (goddess) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Katolophyromai -- Katolophyromai (talk) 03:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent AfD close

Hi PMC, thanks for taking the time to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lambert-W step-potential. There were two articles nominated, but it seems like only one was actually deleted. I would guess that it had something to do with XfDcloser getting confused by the way I formatted the second article within the nomination. I used Twinkle for the main article, but had to do the second one by hand, since unfortunately, TW doesn't seem to help with bundling AfDs. I thought I followed the instructions at WP:MULTIAFD reasonably well, but apparently not well enough. In the future, is there some better way I should have done this? Thanks! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After looking again, it seems like it might be because I put the second article on a line with a * rather than a :. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I went ahead and deleted it as per G12 and that AfD since it was a copyvio. Don't think PMC will mind, but she can restore if I misread her mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony, yup, that was XfDcloser. I did mean to get the other one. Thanks for covering my butt :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Close of Mohammad Asaduzzaman Chowdhury

Should User:CAsaduzzaman/sandbox also be deleted as it is the same article? Edward321 (talk) 04:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can be taken to WP:MFD, it can't just be speedied since it's a sandbox. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Dali (goddess)

The article Dali (goddess) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dali (goddess) 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 Katolophyromai -- Katolophyromai (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:ROBLOX Ads

You previously deleted Draft:ROBLOX Ads back in December per WP:G3, but an IP just recreated it (well sort of recreated it). Not sure which CSD criterion it falls under, so I figured I let you know instead. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a test page to me. I've G2'd it. Thanks for the heads up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Draft:Ejembi John Onah

User:Ejembi12 has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Ejembi John Onah. 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. —Cryptic 13:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration: Share via email a deleted page

Dear Premeditated Chaos,

I’m contacting you for your consideration of a request – which is an email copy of a deleted page. I have been working with a volunteer editor, to understand the deletion of my non-profit organization’s Wikipedia page. He advised that I select from a group that has previous experience sending emails of deleted pages someone. Based on your name and then profile, I'm emailing you with this request. None of the editors who worked on our page were among the list. I hope this is OK.

Background: We were first warned I believe and then removed following two offenses – one in 2015 when our then marketing manager updated the page with promotional material identical to our website. In 2016 an intern, without our permission, made further updates.

Page: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Student_Exchange_Programs

My organization, International Student Exchange Programs (ISEP), or ISEP Study Abroad as we were re-branded in 2015 - does not intend to repost this material. Instead as Communications Director, I’d like to post a history of our organization with information that prioritizes facts based on dates and data.

We would like to see what was once on the page to ensure that we are hitting the historical points that were on the page pre-2015 edits. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely, Mary Catherine Chase — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarCatCha (talk • contribs) 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have reliable sources that discuss your organization that would show it meets our criteria for business entities? Keep in mind that our sourcing criteria for businesses is more stringent than for other things. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Space Gallery refund please?

I'm working with a group of editors at an edit-a-thon (Wikipedia:Meetup/Toronto/Artist-Run_Centres_(January_10,_2018)) on Artist-run centres where one of our topics is A Space Gallery. I noticed it had previously been PROD'ed as no "No assertion of notability". I'm confident that we can establish its significance as one of the first Artist-run centres, founded in 1971. Would it be possible to receive a copy of the deleted article? I'm most interested in the sources that Kimboslice212 used. If it could be restored to my user space, for example at User:Mduvekot/A Space Gallery that would be fantastic. Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No shit, the entirety of the deleted article was "A Space Gallery is a canadian art gallery located in Toronto, Ontario and established in 1971," and some maintenance tags. It was sourced to a business listing. Your version is already miles better, lol. I can still put it in your userspace if you think it's worth it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you looking into that. I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss a source. I see no point in restoring the deleted content. Thanks, Mduvekot (talk) 13:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! I just thought it was kind of amusing :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Jay Obernolte/GA1

Premeditated Chaos, did you mean to fail this review back on January 3, or were you leaving it open hoping for a response from the nominator? Another editor has come along and changed the "GA nominee" template to a "FailedGA" template (which fails it) thinking that's what you meant to do. If it isn't, I'll be happy to reopen the review; further, if you want to put the nomination on hold, I'm happy to set that up for you as well. (I did want to note that the nominator, Meatsgains, has been faced with several nominations over ten months old all having reviews started on them in the past month, and hasn't been around much.) Please let me know your preference. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I intentionally left it open and was hoping for a response. I apologize if I did it wrong; I didn't realize there was another step I had to take for putting it on hold. It does look like Meatsgains has been fiddling with the article this past week, even if he hasn't made any comments on the review. I'll leave a note on his talk page and see what his plans are. If it could be set to "on hold" in the mean time I'd appreciate that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should have not taken Zackscisum down

Zackscisum is a real religion in my school and it has 63 members also technically you are offending me. Please add it back https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Draft:Zackscisum&action=edit&redlink=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zackscisum (talk • contribs) 14:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Wikipedia is not for hosting things you made up with your friends at school. We are happy to have you if you want to make real contributions in line with our policies, but information about a fake religion invented at your school one day is not something we are going to host. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Pearl and Hermes Atoll

On 15 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pearl and Hermes Atoll, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that approximately 160,000 birds across twenty-two different species nest and breed on the Pearl and Hermes Atoll of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pearl and Hermes Atoll. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Pearl and Hermes Atoll), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser inquiry

Hello Premeditated Chaos, excuse me for disturbing you. I'm writing to you because I see that you're a checkuser, currently active, and so I thought that perhaps you may be able to help me. I opened last week a checkuser request on meta.wikimedia because it's about a cross-wiki vandal using proxies (proven) and socks (99,9999%). Nobody has done anything yet, after almost 10 days... This is the request: [2]. Have you got any kind of advice to give me? Maybe I've done something wrong in the request, I don't know. May you suggest me somebody to call on? Let me know, please, everything you can tell me would be precious. Thank you! 151.64.171.106 (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't have much help to offer you. I'm not a Steward so I have no ability to do CU on other wikis. I'm also not a regular on meta, so I don't know their culture, processes or usual wait times. If there is current en.wiki disruption, you could open an SPI here and we could deal with the local problems. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dali (goddess)

On 21 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dali (goddess), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Georgian goddess Dali appeared as both a nude golden-haired woman with glowing skin, and as a white ibex with golden horns? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dali (goddess). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dali (goddess)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Premeditated Chaos,

Thank you for taking the time to review my submission. This is my first time contributing to Wikipedia and it's all a little daunting. I'm getting in touch regarding the page I wrote on Sebastien Lagree. Here is the page for your reference. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Sebastien_Lagree

I would like to continue to improve the article as I learn more about Wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc. The page has been rejected/deleted, but it looks like all of my work has been deleted as well. I can't imagine a writer deleting another writer's work, so I must not be clicking the correct tab. Do you know where I can find my latest draft? I assumed that when my page was submitted for deletion, all of my writing would not be deleted along with it. The formatting rules I learned are in that page and I would like to be able to build off of that foundation for future submissions. Any direction to finding my most recent draft would be greatly appreciated. Thank you again for your time. Please reply to storm.adam@gmail.com

With Gratitude, Adam Storm Adamstorm (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, I hope you don't mind me responding here rather than email. I prefer to keep exchanges public so others can chime in if they wish and I don't see any pressing need for this to be private currently.

So...basically, your draft was deleted, which means it's been removed from public view. It's gone to most editors, except administrators (like myself for example) who can view the content. The major problem with the page is that it's really advertorially-toned, bordering on qualifying for speedy deletion under our criteria for unambiguous advertising or promotion.

Constant references to "patented" this and "patented" that, the glowing quote from a doctor that turns out to be from a gym website, the exhaustive list of patents... it reads like a CV, not an encyclopedia article. I have to ask you: do you have a conflict of interest with regards to this person? As in, are you affiliated with Lagree or his company, or are otherwise being paid to write this content? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the quick response. I'm glad to hear the draft still exists somewhere and am happy to adjust the tone of the piece so it's more in keeping with Wikipedia's voice. One of the earlier comments I received when I first submitted the page for review sited the subject as being non-notable and requiring more references, so I tried to boost these areas. Using Elon Musk's Wikipedia as reference, which lists his patents, I incorporated the list of patents Mr. Lagree has as I found that to be impressive and noteworthy, but can certainly remove it. I've always been interested in inventors and self-made business leaders. I found Lagree's story fascinating, and am trying to mirror the tone and content of other pages I've read to document his accomplishments. Please advise how best to proceed. Thank you again for your time.

Best Regards,

Adam

Adamstorm (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded via email. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint

Hello, I want to complaint about admin after his sarcastic tone against me, which I believe breaches Wiki rules. Do you know what I can do? The admin is from Azerbaijani Wikipedia--Azerifactory (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the behavior happened on Az.wiki, there's nothing that people on En.wiki can do about it. We have no authority over there. You could try posting at the requests for comment page on Meta, which is the overall community coordination site for all Wikimedia projects. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is XfD Topic ban proposal. Hasteur (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the subject of the proposal, but I quoted your commentary in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tensor product of representations (2nd nomination) as an example of the subject's disruption. Hasteur (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoo! Scared me for a second there ;) Thanks for the heads up. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arb mail

Would you mind checking the arb list moderation whenever you get a chance (since I see you are on). Sent something over that I'd rather not wait a few weeks on :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a list mod, but I know the ones we have are fairly active at letting stuff through, so it shouldn't wait long. I'll try to double check but I'm at work and don't have free access to my personal email. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry: Callanecc seems to have dealt with it. Thanks for the reply. Have fun at work! TonyBallioni (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Failed substitution

this didn't work. I will try to fix it, but it may be difficult since the parent page was deleted. Frietjes (talk) 13:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah crap. Hold on I'll go fix it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I probably fixed it, but I am not 100 percent sure since you only restored the last revision (which has these citations commented out or moved to other deleted templates). however, it's probably close enough at this point. Frietjes (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh aaagh I didn't realize you were working on it at the same time. I didn't mean to revert over you, I was working from the deleted version - I only undeleted the one revision out of nearly 500 so I could test something. I think between us we made it make sense. Lord god, this is why we just cite in-text, not invent complicated systems of template calling from other pages >_< ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And why my nomination was a good idea. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Zahava Burack

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Zahava Burack you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 03:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Zahava Burack

The article Zahava Burack you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Zahava Burack for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zahava Burack

I just saw the Russian sock block at ANI and clicked to your profile out of curiosity. I saw the Zahava Burack article that is nominated for GA. I have a suggestion for the lede. Perhaps there's a way to make the first sentence a greater celebration of her life, while keeping the important details. Otherwise her life's narrative is reduced to hiding in a house. How about this?

Zahava Burack (née Radza, 1933—September 28, 2001) was a Jewish Holocaust survivor from Poland who went on to become a well-known philanthropist, community leader and political activist in the United States.  During her childhood, she hid with her family for two and a half years in a crawlspace beneath the home of a sympathetic Polish Catholic family. After the liberation of occupied Poland in 1945, she was smuggled to Israel, where she lived for twelve years, two of which she spent serving with the Haganah paramilitary organization. In 1958, Burack moved to the United States, where she worked with both American and Israeli politicians for Jewish causes.

TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sure, go for it. Looks good to me :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:07, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twighburg (web series)

Please transfer to my personal space. DENAMAX (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now located at User:DENAMAX/Twighburg (web series), sorry for the delay! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Zahava Burack

The article Zahava Burack you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zahava Burack 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 02:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Blurpeace • Dana boomer • Deltabeignet • Denelson83 • Grandiose • Salvidrim! • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.

Technical news

A tag will now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardized editnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mirraw

I request to please reinstall the Mirraw page. It is not advertising and I have nothing to gain by advertising them or any other company. It just so happens that Mirraw is one the fastest growing ecommerce companies in THE fastest growing ecommerce market (India) in the world. I fail to see how your perception of companies stature and status based on newspaper articles holds any water. Companies are judged by their revenue, by their year on year grown, by the uniqueness of their offering (Mirraw has not only cornered the Indian ethnic wear market, it is also a bootstrapped company- another unique feature about them). As a person with an MBA degree and a startup which is in the making, I can tell you, that these metrics and KPI's are a far better indicators of performance and potential than newspaper articles.

You may have been cross with me because most of the answer I added to the Mirraw AFD discussion page was copy pasted from the answer given on anther page - well the reason is because much of the ground realities are common to both companies. Mirraw is also part of the fastest growing economy, Mirraw is also very well known in India (a company which may not be known outside India, could still be very big - often bigger than many European companies, just because India is such a big economy compared to a Holland or a Ireland). Same holds for the media sources - Ananda Bazaar Patrika or Hindu or Dainik Jagran may not be well known to the outside world but actually they have bigger viewership than La Figaro or the Guardian.

Just as an example - Pls see all https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Online_retailers_of_India listed on wikipedia.

They have several many little-known names. Eg, this https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Red_Polka And see the reference, only one ET link rest three are not from so popular media. Still the page is there.

Koovs - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Koovs they are almost out of the business now, still they have page there. only two links from Hindu Business lines

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mebelkart - not so popular company

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Reelmonk - a small Kochi based company

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Trendin - a very small company

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wooden_Street - again a small company and check their reference

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dial_medico - check this. it exists without any reference i believe

Mirraw is way better and bigger than any of these companies - please tell me why it got deleted. Then please also delete these other pages as well. user:Subho2017

The page was deleted by consensus at the AfD. Arguing that other stuff exists is not relevant - pages are judged on the quality of the sources against the notability criteria, not against other pages. If you think those other pages should be deleted, I recommend you start AfDs about them. I am not going to reinstate or unprotect the page unless you can demonstrate via strong reliable sources that the company meets our notability criteria for companies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore God a Solved Mystery

Restore God a Solved Mystery which you deleted on september Amit Kumar 14:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meetuonline (talk • contribs)

Do you have any sources to indicate that it would have a chance of passing WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG? As a single-line article without any sources it will almost certainly be deleted at AfD if restored. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the links https://www.amazon.com/God-Solved-Mystery-Want-Reality/dp/9352882075/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1518096570&sr=1-3 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/37803831-god-a-solved-mystery https://books.google.co.in/books?id=cVtHDwAAQBAJ&printsec This book is also availabe on the lulu book store Moreover the hundreds of copies hard and soft are already sold Amit Kumar 13:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs reliable sources to support an article. Amazon is a store, not a source. Google books shows the existence of the book but merely existing is not enough. Goodreads is all user-generated reviews, which are not reliable indicators of notability. In the case of books, we typically look for book reviews from reliable publications that review books. Do you have any links to reviews from reliable sources? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Restore Draft:Sam Davis (producer)

You have deleted Draft:Sam Davis (producer). However, KatharinaRB said on my user talk page that the page should not have been deleted because there is an article on the German Wikipedia and claimed that there are sources showing notability. So can you please restore the draft? If not, then I'll next send the draft to deletion review. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll restore, mainspace it, and take it to AfD. IMO the sourcing isn't sufficient to meet WP:GNG, and if we discuss it at AfD that's both more visible and more final. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GeoffreyT2000, KatharinaRB: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Davis (producer). Sorry it took so long, I was busy. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TimTheTiraffe/KimTheGiraffe

Hi, you may remember blocking User:TimTheTiraffe. The associated IP, 69.246.122.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was for some reason not blocked, and is still editing the same pages as before. Shouldn't it be blocked too? DuncanHill (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh heck. Yes, I should've blocked that. I've rectified the issue, thanks for the heads up. Feel free to drop me a line if you see any other socks of the same. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - not sure why I didn't notice either! DuncanHill (talk) 02:17, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page Deepa Saitharam

Hi Premeditated chaos,

Hope this was not premeditated!!!

why was this page deleted ? Could you elaborate on the reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhivakar aridoss (talk • contribs) 16:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Deepa Sathiaram, it was determined that the article resembled a CV or resume more than it did an encyclopedia article, so I closed the discussion and deleted it per the consensus. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Mashinky (video game)

As I pointed out on the talk page, I re-created the page because its deletion criterion no longer applied. Why did you delete it? --Callid13 (talk) 09:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because the sources were insufficient to overcome the reason it was deleted in the first place, and I couldn't find any others on the WikiProject Video Games custom Google search for gaming sources. Can I recommend working on it as a draft instead? I can restore and move it to Draft:Mashinky (video game). You can work on it there with much less concern that it will be speedy deleted, and when there are enough in-depth sources about it, it can be returned to main. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you mistyped the name, but I found 35.900 results via your link (though I used the one in the older discussion when I created the artice). I simply didn't add more sources because I figured two sources is ample for the little I wrote, especially cause I can literally cite lines in the articles linked for pretty much everything I wrote (except for the dates of publishing on Steam and start of development, which I took from the primary sources linked). How many sources would be needed, exactly? If you restore it someplace, I can keep adding sources from that search, though it does seem rather pointless to require more sources if the entire article is already sourced reliably. --Callid13 (talk) 23:26, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I copy and pasted the name to be sure. The number of GHits is irrelevant, because GHits only measure the times that the words appear on a page, not the quality of the actual sources. Source quality needs to be assessed by an actual human in line with our reliable sources criteria. The WP Video Games reliable source list will be of some use here. At a glance, the only in-depth independent reliable sources available for the game are the Rock Paper Scissors and PC Gamer articles, and frankly I don't think those two alone are enough to pass WP:GNG at this point. I imagine if development continues and the game gains more attention, more reviews in reliable publications will emerge, and it will be a solid GNG pass. But until then it should be worked on in draftspace, out of main. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Airbourne Colours

Hi premeditated, this article I created https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Airbourne_Colours was deleted on 29th September last year. I was hoping to recreate it with more sources and links establishing the notability of this significant UK company. Wikipedia advises to check with you first. I've checked with the Wikipedia COI pages - I am not associated with this company. Can you suggest next steps for me to take? I have been editing pages on Wikipedia for 13 years, and years ago managed to get some new pages created successfully. I want to do this correctly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giddylake (talk • contribs) 10:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not particularly experienced with creating new articles, you could go through draftspace, by clicking on Draft:Airbourne Colours and creating the article from there. You can submit it via AfC so experienced reviewers can check it over and give advice. The advantage of that is that you run a much smaller chance of it being speedy deleted while you're working on it.

Draftspace isn't not mandatory if you don't want to go that route; by all means recreate the page in main with sources. However it does run the risk of being speedy deleted if it comes off as promotional or lacking a legitimate claim to significance. When creating an article on a company, please review our reliable sources and notability guidelines, especially those which specifically apply to notability of companies and sources discussing companies. As long as your sources meet those guidelines, you should be fine. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of 1947-48 French West Africa Railway Strike

I was the professor in the class where a student created this article. I was my first time teaching such a class, and I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor. I was also not aware that this article had remained a draft only. I was sad to see such an important topic deleted, especially when Wikipedia has a dearth of articles about Africa, and we were trying to do our small part to solve that problem. I was also surprised that, even though I have a watch this page set up, I was not given a heads up that such a strong step would be taken, that the page would be deleted without requests to improve it. Perhaps I'm missing something? Is here anything to be done at this point to restore and improve the page? --WLBelcher (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A message was left on your talk page specifically directing you to the deletion discussion and inviting you to participate. Additionally, if you have the page on your watchlist, any changes to it should have appeared there.

The page was created in mainspace, but shortly after was moved to draftspace because it was incomplete and lacking in context. The page was deleted because it was considered a stale draft - largely untouched in draftspace since 2016 - and no one argued for it to be kept at the MfD. I can restore it in draftspace for you, but unless it is worked on and improved, it will become eligible for speedy deletion as a stale draft in another six months, as is now the standard practice for drafts. In its present state I will not return it to mainspace, because it is only a sentence long and not useful to our readers in that state. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

backing up Sia article

Hello, you recently deleted an article I started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sia (technology) and I want to sandbox it so that I can fix the sourcing issues mentioned in the deletion discussion. I can't find the article anywhere, though-- can you point me in the right direction? Richard☺Decal (talk) 16:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted, so naturally it won't be anywhere. I have restored it to your userspace at User:Richard.decal/Sia. Please take into account the comments at the AfD discussion, and look for sources that are secondary, in-depth, and reliable. If you are unable to add such sources, the article should remain deleted and should not be returned to mainspace. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletions of Stockmann articles

You recently proposed Stockmann, Tampere, Stockmann, Tapiola and Stockmann, Turku for deletion. Why not Stockmann, Oulu? It's also an article about an individual location, and the article is even smaller than those of the other three locations. JIP | Talk 17:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it. For some reason it wasn't linked under Locations on the main Stockmann article. I'm going to go tag it now - I'll try to disable the auto-notification so your talk page doesn't get flooded. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for the auto-notification disable - it's the only Stockmann location article I didn't write. I was just mentioning it out of consistency. JIP | Talk 21:25, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of the individual locations, the only one I think is really notable is Stockmann, Helsinki centre - it's Stockmann's biggest, and oldest surviving, location (the only one that predates it was Stockmann's first store in Helsinki near the Senate Square, which was abandoned when the new, bigger Helsinki store was built), and it's what people generally think of when they say "Stockmann". Having a separate article for one single location would seem a bit silly, so perhaps it could be merged to the main article Stockmann. JIP | Talk 22:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that that one is notable by way of historic interest, that's why I left it be :) You can merge it if you like, I personally think it's long enough to leave as a separate article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User sandbox to delete

Hi PMC. You recently closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:David B Miguel as "delete", but I see that the other page included in that nomination, User:41.218.213.226/sandbox (which is identical with the deleted page) is still alive & well. Could you delete it please?: Noyster (talk), 23:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018).

Administrator changes

Lourdes†

AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V

† Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news

The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news

CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has a new feature contains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards: -revi, Green Giant, Rxy, There'sNoTime, علاء.

Obituaries

Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]