User talk:SoWhy/Archive 26

This is an archive of past discussions with User:SoWhy. 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 20

←

Archive 24

→

Tropical Forest

Many thanks for the removal of AfD here - I can't think why it was proposed. Roy Bateman (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably a misunderstand what AFD is and is not for since the rationale mentions problems with the content that can be fixed by editing. But hey, even some clearly notable subjects were subject to AFD once. Regards So Why 09:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I've seen worse. Deleting Ed Sheeran via CSD A7 - twice! - looks rather amusing in hindsight. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that because people are notable now, they always were. When Ed Sheeran was deleted in Nov 2006, he would have been 15 years old. The text of the article was:

“

Ed Sheeran was born in 1991 and lives in Suffolk, UK. He first picked up a guitar in 2002 and soon after wrote his first song, Typical Average. He has written over 30 songs since then.

In March 2005, Ed recorded his first professional CD The Orange Room EP, which features five songs. In April 2005, he played his first solo gig and in June his music was played on the radio for the first time.

Ed has been inspired by great teachers, including the American guitarist Preston Reed, the jazz guitarist Keith Krykant, the singer-songwriter Charity Quin, the opera singer Claire Weston and the singing tutor Richard Charlton.

In October 2005, Ed started recording his debut album at Din Studios in London. The album is now available. It has been produced by Julian Simmons, who has recently worked with the Guillemots. The album features 12 new songs and a bonus track. Various outstanding musicians have helped Ed on the album including Jack Pollitt (drums), Jonny Bridgwood (bass) Fiona Brice (violin), Helen Rathbone (cello) and Martin Hay (synthesiser). The rap artist Alonestar sings on one track and Ed's cousin, the talented young Irish singer-songwriter Laura Sheeran, sings on various tracks. Another of Ed's cousins, Hannah Sheeran, plays the clarinet and sings.

Ed is managed by his parents' company Sheeran Lock Ltd

Ed has made a video for his song Open Your Ears with Bruizer Productions. The set featured the spray-painting work of two of the UK's leading street artists, Graham Dews and Gwen Liby. The video has been put on Ed's My Space and You Tube as well as the home page of his website.

www.edsheeran.com - the www.myspace.com/edsheeran

”

It was a correct A7 deletion IMO. Indeed the current article (created in Jan 11) only has two sentences in the section "Music Career" that pre-date 2008... WJBscribe (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That said, it does seem sub-optimal that despite the article being tagged twice by different editors and deleted twice by different admins (i.e. 4 experienced editors in total), the obviously well-meaning author was not welcomed nor did they have the reasons for the deletion explained to them on their talkpage... Perhaps unsurprisingly they never edited again :(. WJBscribe (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out at my current RfB, one can argue that it was indeed a correct A7 deletion, but then again, how many typical 15 year olds have records produced by a notable TV personality (Julian Simmons)? I fully agree with the second part of your comment. Regards So Why 12:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I think this has blown out of proportion a bit. I simply found it amusing because of the juxtaposition that somebody who had reasonable grounds to meet the A7 criteria in 2006 is now so well-known, anyone putting {{db-person}} today might well find themselves being blocked for vandalism. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

If it's just intended to be an amusing example of how notability changes over time so be it, but I understand that SoWhy is going further and saying that he would not have deleted the article in Nov 2006. I doubt that there are many admins (if any) other than SoWhy who would have declined the tag. The issue that I - and likely others - are struggling with at the moment is the relevance of SoWhy's strong views as to how admins ought to apply the CSD (which are not just held personally, but are a regular feature of his opposition to the RfAs of others) to his current RfB. WJBscribe (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The Julian Simmons who produced Ed Sheeran in 2006 is not the same person we have an article on, so there was no way to write a reliably sourced article or redirect to another one, so A7 was correct. As far as I can tell, SoWhy said he'd bounce it to AfD, probably because he got his Julian Simmonses mixed up on a Google search, which isn't really the same thing as refusing to delete it. (He'd be wrong and the AfD would almost certainly be closed as SNOW delete, and today would be deleted per BLPPROD regardless, but it's easy to see these things in hindsight). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I apologize for the confusion. Yes, I would probably have deleted it as well if I had known that (and I hadn't found any other sources). Ritchie is correct though, I certainly found the previous versions of the article deletable. I merely opined that they might not be speedy deletable based on that indicator for significance (which I now know is incorrect). Regards So Why 13:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit Conflict just as the AfD was closed

SoWhy, I am wondering what the process is supposed to be here. I was just about to comment on the AfD for Syed Ali Raza Usama, and while I was searching for sources I edit-conflicted with you closing the AfD as delete. Given my comment below that I intended to post, would you have considered relisting instead? Sorry, I've never had this happen before. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I'm seeing plenty of mentions in the news [1] and reporters often refer to him as "well known" or some such, and he directed Pakistan's second highest grossing film of 2013 Main_Hoon_Shahid_Afridi [2]. None of this solidly says "Keep", but it makes me wonder that there must be sources that cover this guy in Urdu or Punjabi. I'm reluctant to endorse a delete until somebody searches sources in these languages. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Usually, if someone presented new arguments but was edit-conflicted, I would reopen the AfD and relist, however, I am not sure others will consider "there must be sources" as a valid enough argument. If you want, I'll reverse my close and the associated actions, no problem, but maybe you could ask someone who is a native speaker to check whether those sources actually exist before I do that? That might save us some work. Regards So Why 11:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thats Ok. I wanted you to be aware of it, and was also curious as to what the procedure was in cases like this. To clarify, Urdu and Punjabi do not use Latin characters, so any sources that exist on the subject in those languages won't be found google searching for the director's name in latin characters. I've tried searching myself using what I think is the Urdu of the director's name (سید علی رضا اسامہ), but haven't had much success using google translate. I think I'll just let this lie for now, and try to track down somebody at some point. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 12:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you are gonna have to bring the article back. See User_talk:Mar4d#Urdu_Sources_for_Syed_Ali_Raza_Usama. Mar4d really outdid himself. I'd suggest reopening the AfD, then I'll comment and invite Mar4d to do so as well. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 18:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Happy to.

Done. It might not be the correct way to do it but taking it to DRV just to restart the discussion seemed unnecessary. Regards So Why 19:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess you are not as much of a stickler for inflexible rules as some people are claiming over at RfB. Cheers mate. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Heh

Well, I'm all for skipping process when the outcome is already clear from the beginning. That's just not the case as often as some people think it is. Anyway, have a nice evening (or something, not sure where you are from) and feel free to come here again if you need anything else

Regards So Why 20:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Austin Found

Hello,

I noticed you deleted the article mentioned above due to its lack of notability. That being said, I have worked on a draft of this article on my sandbox and have provided sources with it. May I have your permission to please recreate the article? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hitcher vs. Candyman

Done. I moved the article to the article space for you. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

RfB?

How do you feel about Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/SoWhy 2? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this really the right climate now?

Seriously though, I'd give the same answer I gave you in April: you know me: I'm happy to serve the community in any way I can and if you are willing to risk your good name nominating me, I'm willing to offer my services.

Regards So Why 13:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd seriously consider it. You often stand out for being calm and sensible. And if I've asked you the same thing twice (senility is fast approaching), I must have been on the right track twice. So here are some questions to suss this out:

Been in any horrid disputes recently? (As a disputant)
Can you point me to some recent involvement in consensus assessing, like a couple of tricky AfDs you've closed or similar?
Do you think you're boring enough to be a Crat?

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's see:

I don't think so. I have been pinged a couple of times (most recently because of some interaction with Light2021 (see also above) at WP:ANI#Please_review_Light2021.27s_behaviour_at_AfD) but usually I tend to stay away from such discussions. I have been named as an involved editor at WP:ARCA earlier that year because of a protection decision I made, does that count? (permalink from before it was removed)
Phew...I handled literally hundreds of AfDs in the last few weeks because I noticed the backlog there. Maybe [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. Check also the comments in the above sections and in my talk archives for the last month.
Well, I am taking a five minute break from looking at some 100+ page bank statements to answer you, so you tell me. Also, people keep on telling me that I am a stickler for rules like it's somehow a bad thing. As a child, my parents tell me, I didn't want to play any games before first reading the instructions very carefully

Regards So Why 15:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That's reassuring stuff. Anyone you got in mind you'd like to co-nom (or maybe nom instead of me?)? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Certainly no one instead of you. As for co-nom, my mind's drawing a blank, but any interested talk page stalkers can of course offer to risk their reputation alongside you

If you know someone who you think might want to, feel free to ask them as well.

As I said before, there is certainly no hurry. Regards So Why 15:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll leave this here for a day or so and then dive in. If I wait too long, I'll find myself posting at this page in October asking if you'd consider running at RfB. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't they say "third time's a charm"?

No worries, whenever you are ready, I'll be here. And who knows, maybe someone will be brave enough to co-nom by then. Regards So Why 07:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The link at the top of this section has gone blue. Your turn to start answering questions and then transclude. Feel free to take your time, there's no rush. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: Thank you so very much for your kind words. I have added my answers but if you don't mind, I'd like to sleep on it another night and transclude it tomorrow (if I am still crazy enough to face "teh dramaz" tomorrow as I am today

). Regards So Why 18:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The personal life issues I allude to on my user talk may be about to explode. When they do, I'll be offwiki for a week. Would it be OK with you to pause? Sorry to be annoying, but this is serious stuff and I can't do a thing about it. I wouldn't want to abandon a nominee through the course of things. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: As I have previously mentioned, I'm in no hurry. Real life always comes first. Take all the time you need to address them and good luck with that. Whenever you come back and feel like it, just leave me a message and we can resume where we left off. Feel free to delete the RfB page if you don't feel like having people see it until you are back. Regards So Why 19:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I came here for something else (see below), but does anybody mind if I throw a co-nomination on the pile? Or do people think I have done enough RfX nominations already this year and should just pipe down for the duration? In particular, I was thinking of pulling together some facts and figures for how many RfAs you've been involved with, how many candidates you've put forward, and how many of those RfAs have had your vote match consensus. I would offer to sort out the transclusion too, but I still feel rather guilty about GAB's RfA going full steam ahead without Dweller getting so much a chance to write a co-nomination statement, so it would be completely unfair to do that again. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no secret rule I know of that only crats should nominate people at RfB, so I don't mind; in fact, I'd be happy. Might want to ask Dweller if he does object though (when he returns). As for transcluding, I think I can handle that myself.

Regards So Why 18:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

What I specifically want to say is although we've sometimes disagreed on how to apply some policies (*cough* Micaela Schäfer *cough*), I've always gone away thinking "well although I don't quite agree, SoWhy's been polite and courteous about it, and they've got a point". That's worth ramming home. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that sentence alone is a high-praise nomination statement

Regards So Why 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I dropped something in. If the worst comes to worse, we can revert and I'll just put some of it in as a !vote Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks for the kind words. Just a little note: It's fine to refer to me as "he". While I love the concept of singular they, I don't think it is fitting to use when the gender of the person you are talking about is known ;-) Regards So Why 18:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Tentatively back. No objections to any co-nom you approve of, SoWhy. Want to go live? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Eagerly waiting to support. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome back, Dweller. I hope everything is well. If you feel like you can now be sure that you won't have to "abandon" me, I'm ready to go

Regards So Why 12:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

My situation is fluid and at some point, I will disappear for a week or more, but it's unpredictable when that will happen and life needs to go on. Let's do it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Done [9]. Let's hope the community is not too harsh on me

Regards So Why 12:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well you've got at least 3 supports, so how bad can it be? Nah, but in all seriousness, good luck :). Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello SoWhy, hope you're well. I don't wish this to sound condescending in any way (so please don't mind these words). I have struck my oppose, but feel it would be better if you withdraw your Rfb now. The growing group of editors pointing out to your literal application of policy is significant and I feel your withdrawing now would provide a positive basis for a future Rfb. I remain a keen learner from your work. Warmly. Lourdes 03:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Thank you for your advice. As I had previously indicated, I had no intention of running again before Dweller asked me and I don't have any intention of running again if this request fails. It's a lose-lose situation anyway - either I change my approach completely, then people will oppose my next attempt for doing so just to succeed in that attempt or I don't and people will oppose that attempt for the same reasons.
While it is of course disheartening to see so many people you respect opposing you, I feel that withdrawing might rob me of gathering the necessary criticism I need to improve my editing and admining in the future. Unfortunately, such requests are the still the best way to get honest feedback on your actions because people rarely call you directly out when you made a mistake. So I will continue to monitor the discussion and answer questions because that is the best way for me to grow as an editor which in turn is beneficial for the project. Even if my ego has to take a beating or two. Regards So Why 07:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

My wishes always. Lourdes 07:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

RfB thought

I know you are taking a bit of a pounding at the moment, but I hope you will not withdraw. Seeing your calm and professional demeanor throughout the RfB so far and your willingness to answer questions at length has reassured me that I made the right decision in supporting your candidacy regardless of how it turns out. I am disappointed that you have encountered so much opposition, but that's life, I suppose. Your work is valued here regardless. 28bytes (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@28bytes: Thanks for the kind words and the continued confidence in my work. Considering that it would require several key opposers to switch to support or a large influx of unopposed support votes just to get the request back into the discretionary range (and I don't see that happening), I am under no illusion about the outcome. That said, it serves as a useful way to get feedback on my actions and since I don't see any reason to rob myself of that, I won't withdraw.

Regards So Why Mobile 07:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!

A belated note of thanks for the very kind suggestion you made at my talk page earlier this week. I've been traveling for work this week (you and I are in the same profession, it appears) and your message was the only thing that salvaged an exhausting, discouraging trip! You prompted me to give the idea serious consideration, and after a close review of relevant guidelines, I think it's a little too early for me. These are the two areas where I see myself falling short: (a) I have no content creation to speak of; my efforts here have been almost entirely in the realm of copyediting gnomery and anti-vandalism (with a bit of anti-copyvio work thrown in); and (b) I am far too lacking in knowledge of the necessary technical (i.e. coding-type) fine points. But, now I know all this! And perhaps we can revisit this idea in about six months.

Again, Herzlichen Dank; your opinion counts for a lot with me and I'm grateful that you took the time to share it. Take care! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: Sorry to hear that. As for your points, while content-creation has become a trendy reason for opposing candidates in recent years, I don't think the community has arrived at a point were that alone is sufficient to deny a candidate adminship (cf. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/K6ka in recent times), as long as content awareness has been demonstrated. That said, if you want to change that, there is a good way to combine gnomery with content creation which is rescuing appropriate articles from deletion and improving them sufficiently to get them through WP:DYK which allows even those of us less skilled in writing prose to have articles appear on the Main Page. This approach serves the project in multiple ways: It prevents the removal of inclusion-worthy subjects and it allows you to demonstrate that you do have content skills. I started doing so only after my RfA passed but it is really a good way to contribute (seven of my 34 DYK credits were rescued from speedy deletion). As for the other part, I wouldn't worry about it. You know how to edit which is enough and there are a lot of scripts that automate many admin tasks anyway. Even I keep learning new things after 13 years (for example I only recently learned that [[WP:DYK|DYK]] and [[WP:DYK|]] produce the same output). As long as you keep on being willing to learn new things and are careful (using the preview button before using syntax you never used before for example), you will do fine.
That said, you are most welcome. If and when you feel ready to test the waters, I'd be happy to help in any way I can. Regards So Why 15:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A7 expansion discussion

Hi SoWhy,

It's pretty clear that my proposal to expand A7 is failing miserably and with your in-depth analysis of the examples I gave to Ritchie333 I have concluded that it's time to withdraw it. Your precise application of policy at the discussion has swayed me from neutral to support in your RfB by the way!

Thanks,

DrStrauss talk 22:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrStrauss: I know it's hard to see a proposal fail, so you have my sympathies. Thanks for being so graceful about it. Maybe we can think of a way to stop people from nominating such articles in the first place? A warning message in Twinkle's XFD module comes to mind as a potential solution. I truly think that some people simply forget about those alternatives and that reminding them might be helpful. Regards So Why 07:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For the most graceful RfX candidacy I have ever seen, you deserve this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thank you very much. I'm happy to receive some WikiLove (been a while) although being graceful when faced with criticism should be a matter of course. And in the end, it was merely me offering to help out some more because some people asked me to, not some life-changing extremely important role that I really had to have, so while I might be disappointed by the level of opposition, I am also happy about the many voices of support and am truly convinced that it's not a big deal to fail such a request.

Regards So Why 08:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Candidacy

I just wanted to say, regardless of how the RfB goes, I think you could be an asset to the community as an ArbCom member or trustee, so I hope you run. A campaign for one of those roles, even if unsuccessful, could help draw attention to some excellent essays you have written. 172.56.2.106 (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll keep it in mind, although I don't think I'm suited for one of those rules (and I don't think I have enough spare time either). Regards So Why 15:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If you run a single issue informational campaign devoted to raising awareness of how to properly use the CSD, though, then you can probably teach the electorate about an important topic without needing to actually serve. We haven't really had any offbeat candidates since Isarra ran in 2013-2014 so elections have gotten kinda boring. Anyway, thanks for your hard work and insights. 172.56.2.106 (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think your stance of narrowly-interpreting policies and guidelines makes far more sense than doing as some suggested, relying on common-sense and using IAR. The latter practices lead to chaos as everyone is doing whatever they think is right without a real basis in our collective beliefs. The former practices well-represent what we as editors have agreed upon. While I disagree with your NOBIGDEAL stance, I think Wikipedia as a project benefits from your continued involvement at the highest levels. Surely the WMF is going to fire one of our community-elected board members and a slot will open up. I know of at least one Wikipedian on ARBCOM who might not get re-elected. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

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

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Your RfB

Hello SoWhy, your RfB has closed without a consensus to promote being reached. Thank you for actively participating, many editors praised your ability as administrator and I hope you continue to support the project in that role. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification and handling it. As I am not completely delusional, it was clear that this was coming. Still, a gathered some valuable feedback, so not all was in vain.

Regards So Why 12:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the plunge SoWhy, I thought you handled it extremely well. –xeno^talk 14:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Hey, at least I got a barnstar out of it

Regards So Why 15:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's commendable the way you responded to opposition. Atypical case study of an Rfb. Well done SoWhy. Lourdes 16:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A socialist red rose? How thoughtful

Here's to hoping that at least my (imho perfectly normal) behavior can serve as an example to others, shall we?

Regards So Why 17:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to compliment you on your handling of your RfB. I think you did a great job responding and answering the questions fairly and honestly and you handled the entire thing very well. -- Dane ^talk 22:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Coming from someone who opposed the request, this means a lot to me, because it demonstrates that while we may agree on some things, we can all stay civil about it and harbor no ill feelings.

Regards So Why 07:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

grumbles

That was a real shame. For a time it looked as though we'd be welcoming you as the newest bureaucrat, which would have been awesome; I grew increasingly disappointed as your RfB crept towards yellow and then into the red. At least we'll still have your service to Wikipedia and I'm pleased to see that you've not decided to pack it in - I'm glad. :) I'm delighted I had the chance to support you, SoWhy - delighted indeed. Acalamari 01:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I know how you feel, although you probably should direct your grumbling towards your colleagues who "sank" the request with their !votes

Joking aside, thanks for the kind words, they are really boosting my spirit.

Regards So Why 07:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Hello SoWhy,

Thank you for your assistance with closing discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion; there certainly is a backlog over there that needs some attention, and I'm trying to find some to close as a "non-admin". Anyways, you may or may not know this, but if you cold, when you close or relist the final discussion on a day/subpage, could you please also remove the subpage's tranclusion on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (as I did here)? Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Side note: Though I opposed your RfB and I think we've "butted heads" at some point in the past, as Acalamari stated, I'm glad you didn't leave after your failed RfB. I can tell you're a net positive for Wikipedia, and for what it's worth, if you decide to stick around as an active admin, welcome back. Wikipedia is a very difficult habit to quit, and I say this out of personal experience.

Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. RfD is usually not my area of expertise, I was just reacting to some requests at WP:ANRFC. I'll try to remember it if I can't get Evad37 to add that functionality to XFDCloser. Thanks for the side note btw, I do appreciate it.

Regards So Why 06:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

No edit conflict?

Not an accusation, but re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mujahida Hussain Bibi , but it's curious how long the software takes to catch up on itself...? — fortunavelut luna 14:26, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I think the problem is that Evad37 has not yet added collision detection to WP:XFDC, cf. User_talk:Evad37/XFDcloser.js#Don.27t_close_already_closed_AFDs, so although I refresh often, sometimes someone else closes the discussion between me opening and finishing reading it. No big deal, I just reverted the close. Btw, since you are still using Mr.Z-man's script as part of User:Czar/closexfd.js, you might want to upgrade to XFDC as well, which is all-in-one and offers cool extra-features. Regards So Why 14:36, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

So it does- thanks very much. — fortunavelut luna 14:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Using semi-automated tools for link removal

Unsure if this is built into XfDCloser or if XfDCloser uses Twinkle (haven't yet played with the former), but regarding this sort of delinking, please try not to simply delink all instances without checking to see if it would instead be more productive to simply remove mention. Delinking an item in a list that requires entries to have Wikipedia articles just makes it harder to find problematic entries in those lists. When still linked, it's possible for me to use "what links here" to see where it may need to be removed. In this case, list of hip hop artists is on my watchlist and I saw the delink so could just finish the task, but if that artist were delinked from other lists, I'd have to now either search for "SD" (not a very productive search) or hunt through your contribs. Changing from red to blacktext also makes it harder to visually spot inappropriate entries in a list. In short -- and I realize this is more of a problem that I have with Twinkle, etc. than with its users (although everyone is responsible to make sure a semi-automated edit is an improvement before saving) -- I really think it's better not to delink deleted articles in lists (as opposed to in prose), since in the vast majority of cases it's more appropriate to remove and delinking makes that harder. Thanks for reading to the end of my rant :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Actually, XFDCloser should be able to remove items instead of delinking (see User talk:Evad37/XFDcloser.js/Archive 2#Unlinking DABs and See Also sections). Not sure why it didn't work this time, possibly because it didn't recognize this as a list. Thanks for the notification, I'll raise it with Evad37, see if he can address this for future AFDs. Regards So Why 16:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

A couple years ago I think that I opened a thread about delinking with regard to Twinkle, but, as I recall, nobody responded. I see XFDCloser being used for delinking more than Twinkle these days, I think, so thanks for following up with Evad37. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:24, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

DJ Flash_2

Dear SoWhy,

I have found a source which proves the notability of the author DJ Flash. The book is called Ego Trip's Book of Rap Lists (https://www.amazon.com/Ego-Trips-Book-Rap-Lists/dp/0312242980/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500200452&sr=1-1&keywords=rap%20lists). Click on look inside, then type in the search DJ Flash (I believe it's on page 33).

Yours,

Hrvoje Grahovac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcoast1978 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Westcoast1978: As previously explained, notability is established by substantial coverage of a subject. The book mentions him only as one of hundreds of artists and contains no details about him as a person. Again, we don't doubt he exists and that he is a DJ but soooo many people are. Notability is more than mere existence. Regards So Why 20:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear SoWhy,

DJ Flash here. I understand your reason for deleting the DJ Flash Page. I also Agree with Duffbeerforme When he said it was "An over the top mess of promotion, original research and dud sources" For that I take full responsibility. And I respect the hard work & dedication all of you put into keeping Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. The 10 + years "DJ Flash" was listed in wikipedia have allowed me the opportunity to reconnect with so many friends & colleagues that before the advent of the internet & wikipedia, I had no hopes of ever reconnecting. Although i retained my name DJ Flash (i was only a DJ for a few short years 1979-83) before becoming a Record Producer & Label Owner. the Page/Article focused on the Body Of Works I leave behind as a Record Producer. I admit i am not knowledgeable in all the rules of creating an article or Page. But i thank the many contributors & editors who have contributed to the page over the years. I will continue to donate funds to wikipedia & will always support your good works. Looking Back I wish the page could have been Saved, Edited and Sourced better. But i will live with your decision. When I began my career their were only 2 Flash's ..Grand Master Flash on the East Coast & DJ Flash on the West Coast ... Now i notice their are 100's of DJ Flash's from all over the world. If their is any way possible to recreate an edited version of the Page i would be most appreciative for your guidance & instruction & if not ... I will respect your decision ... Kindest Regards .. DJ Flash 'Djflash 1957 06:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Djflash1957: As I had explained above, not having a Wikipedia entry is not our goal if the subject is notable. However, said notability has to be established first. For that, we need reliable sources that substantially cover the subject (i.e. you). See WP:BASIC for more details. If you know of such sources (like old newspaper articles, books that contain details of you etc.), please provide them, so we can reassess the situation. Wikipedia operates on the principle that no action is irreversible and thus no deletion is either. We just need a good reason to reverse that decision. Regards So Why 13:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank You for your quick reply

I will make a wholehearted attempt to provide reliable sources. As i read Wikipedia's "Criteria For Musicians and Ensembles" (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theater groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

2-Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

(If This Category Includes Record Producers Please consider this Link From Billboard Mag. Regarding an Album Concieved, Compiled & Produced by DJ flash) ( https://books.google.com/books?id=YQgEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA112&dq=dr+dre+concrete+roots+billboard&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLwtGzk6LVAhXJ7IMKHWaSD7cQ6AEIPDAF#v=onepage&q=dr%20dre%20concrete%20roots%20billboard&f=false )

Also here is a Article about the Album in VIBE Mag. ( https://books.google.com/books?id=dywEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=dj+flash+producer+west+coast&source=bl&ots=Veo85MHM1G&sig=l1Mm09BZ4GYZ110ZEaCf_tOOuk8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbwsmIj6LVAhVpwYMKHceqAg44ChDoAQguMAM#v=onepage&q=dj%20flash%20producer%20west%20coast&f=false )

5-Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

If RHINO/Warner Bros. is considered A Major Indie Label. I Have Produced 5 Albums on that Label .please consider these Links ( http://www.rapreviews.com/archive/BTTL_westcoastrap1to3.html )

and ICE T "The Classic Collection" the album concieved, Compiled & Produced by Lee "DJ Flash" Johnson & mentioned in several Books Including Rolling Stone , All Music, etc... ( https://www.amazon.com/Trouser-Press-Guide-90s-Rock/dp/0684814374 )

( https://books.google.com/books?id=t9eocwUfoSoC&pg=PA401&dq=ice+t+the+classic+collection&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirhZPRm6LVAhWr6IMKHbdBDYUQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=ice%20t%20the%20classic%20collection&f=false )

( https://www.discogs.com/Ice-T-The-Classic-Collection/release/1922020 )

I feel as though these 5 albums may not meet wikipedias standards of Notability. Never the less I submit these Links for consideration. Thank you for your time and effort ,,, Best Regards Lee "DJ Flash" Johnson

'Djflash 1957 08:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Djflash1957: Unfortunately, as far as I can see only the VIBE article actually mentions you by name and only in a sentence. Do you have more sources that talk about you explicitly? A short biography in a book or coverage of your work for example? Regards So Why 06:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy:

I will try to locate some things. It is rare for West Coast Artists to be featured in Books. Basically because Most Hip Hop Books are focused on East Coast Artists. Only recently have a couple Books been written about West Coast Rap Pioneers. Like i mentioned I'm not aware of all the requirements to be listed in Wikipedia. It is difficult to understand why a Record Producer with a 30 yr History of 25-40 Albums / Singles featuring some of the Worlds Biggest known Artists, must also rely on other sources (Books) to be considered notable. When In Truth only a handful of people would read the book as compared to the Millions or records embodying the Producers Works are sold all around the world. However difficult, I do respect your guidelines, Do Articles that mention DJ flash's place in Hip Hop History such as this one qualify for consideration ? kindest regards ( https://www.amoeba.com/blog/2013/10/jamoeblog/hip-hop-history-tuesdays-los-angeles-rap-hip-hop-the-first-decade-pt-i-.html ) djflash 1957 03:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Djflash1957: The reason is verifiability. You know who you are and what you have done but others, including us, have to rely on what (reliable) third-party sources report on someone. So if we write that you produced 25-40 albums, we have to be able to point our readers to a reliable source that says so. Blog posts such as this one might be useful because they actually mention you and your work (although only a few blogs are considered reliable sources). I tried to find sources myself but it's quite hard since "DJ Flash" is not an uncommon DJ name (one that apparently Grandmaster Flash once used as well, which complicates things). I know it's frustrating but I'm happy you are wishing to work on it and I'll be happy to restore the article if I can find some more sources, I'll even be willing to copyedit and expand it. Speaking of sources, is this article about you? Regards So Why 11:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Thank You for your open mindedness. Yes That Article you Ref Above [10] is about me. I hope you will take all these links into consideration. I have located a couple Other sources that may meet standards & they mention me throught each article. The first is from Rap Reviews.com [11] The second is a review from a Blog that i just stumbled upon a few days ago [12] . Also i will include this link From Rolling Stone Mag. [13] List Of Top 20 West Coast Rap Songs Pre- Straight Outta Compton (Era) My Group "Rappers Rapp Group" is mentioned on Track 16 "Radio Activity Rapp" And finally here is an Article from a Washington DC. USA Paper [14] Thank you again for your consideration, As i recall there is another (1995) Article from an old Los Angeles Hip Hop Mag called "URB" I will try to locate it. Kindest Regards. djflash 1957 04:42, 2 Aug 2017 (UTC)

@Djflash1957: Not sure how reliable RapReviews.com is but it is a start, although it only mentions things you told them, so it might fail WP:SPIP. Blogs are usually not considered reliable sources and the Rolling Stone article does not mention you by name. The last one has a short mention. If you can find more, it would be best, possibly a large enough number of smaller mentions are sufficient to pass WP:BASIC. I will also endeavor to ask some fellow editors with access to old newspapers whether they can find something. Regards So Why 06:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

PS: {{replyto}} is used to ping someone, you don't need to use it for me because I already get a notification whenever someone edits my talk page

Regards So Why 06:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Precious five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Your RfB

I'm so sorry it was unsuccessful. I think you were an excellent candidate. Maybe if I'd have challenged (ironically) some of the comments from supporters early on, it might have been different. Unusually, you were criticised both for being overly strict and overly lax in your interpretation of consensus. I'd encourage you to reflect on the opposes and continue your excellent work, and, if you're not too bruised, come back and try again some day. I'm sorry if I fell down as your nominator... RfX can be a tough place and if it's any consolation, you handled yourself with great dignity in my opinion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: Don't worry about it too much. You were a great nominator and your help and guidance were invaluable. Yes, it failed, but you couldn't have prevented a number of editors, prominently some of your colleagues, perceiving me as biased or inflexible when it comes to handling crat tasks; that's something I have to try and change myself. I doubt I will try that again (this time I had more opposes and less support than the first time around) but that's okay. As I said to you in the very beginning, back in April, it was merely me offering my services to the community. They are allowed to reject it and I am not too upset about it. Regards So Why 09:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

What Dweller said. Just wanted to chime in and let you know that I very much regret missing the chance to comment in your recent RfB. I have great respect for the work you do here, and your demeanor and level-headedness throughout the ordeal (and in general), is an example to be followed. Regards, decltype (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but you have to say that...

Joking aside, thanks for the kind words. I don't need to hear them at an RfB to appreciate them.

Regards So Why 10:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Mandingo

Ok, thanks! I guess I pulled the trigger a little too fast - a few days ago the band created a page for itself (actually in Spanish), so I assumed this was spam too. Sorry, and thanks for taking the time to givE me an explanation --‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 14:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

G13 RFC

Per [15] you are incorrect. Undo your revert please. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: You are correct that some discussions can be closed as such. However, I disagree that this is such a case. First of all, less than a single day without a comment is not what those instructions mean by "discussion has slowed" but several days without comments when no reasonable editor would expect further input. Then, I disagree that consensus was "reasonably clear". That might be because I opposed the proposal but then again, your assessment that it was might be because you supported it. Lastly, policies are highly important pages which should always reflect consensus as good as possible which is why major changes to policies should be assesses by non-involved editors, see WP:TALKFIRST. See also what I wrote on your talk page regarding the appearance of bias. Regards So Why 17:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: and SoWhy: I saw both of you debating. To remove the perception of bias, I filed at ANRFC asking for closure, but also indicating that I'm ok with not having it evaluated right away. Hasteur (talk) 17:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Hasteur: That's the best way to go forward. Regards So Why 17:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

SoWhy is itching for an ANi for violation of WP:NAC just because I'm not an Admin. I went to WP:ANRFC to file after a week and ran into very clear instruction #1 which I referenced in my close. The bias is all SoWhy's who seems to hope dozens kf editors will come late to the party to outvote the changes. Legacypac (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Let's not make statements like that. It doesn't help AGF and civil discourse. It's not the end of the ~~world~~ wikipedia if this doesn't get addressed immediately. Hasteur (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: (edit conflict) I would have reverted any admin doing the same thing, although I doubt any would have made such an edit. Your assumption that my actions are biased by my opinion in the RFC is precisely the same as what others may think of your close of said RFC, e.g. that you just did it to prevent others from coming later and opposing. As I said before, I merely disagreed that this is a case described in WP:ANRFC #1. That I think changes to widely accepted standard[s] need to be made after assessment by uninvolved editors stems from WP:TALKFIRST I mentioned above which, unlike the instructions at WP:ANRFC, is actually a policy. Regards So Why 18:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The claim that a 42 Support 12 Oppose consensus is not reasonably clear stretches my AGF. Legacypac (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I would like to clarify some things: WP:CONSENSUS does not really have to do anything with numbers. So, hypothetical RfC with this tally could be closed as no consensus under some circumstances. For example some plain "per the above" !votes don't really have any weigh. And changes to policies normally require clear consensus. So I agree, you should really AGF. (SoWhy did as well while reverting) --Kostas20142 (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, WP:ANRFC states that uninvolved editors should close "where the issue is a contentious one, or where there are wiki-wide implications."--Pawnkingthree (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Off course it's not only about numbers but no reasonable close would go against over 75% support. SoWhy claimed an involved editor should not close - yet as an involved editor they reopened. If someone does not like a close the correct thing to do is seek to overturn it in the approprite venue. Legacypac (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

What a reasonable closer would do is for those uninvolved reasonable closers to decide, no? Either we are both wrong or no one is. Saying you were allowed to close it but I wasn't allowed to revert you does not work. I merely restored the status quo, which is usually agreed can be done (cf. WP:BRD). Again, I did it not just because you were involved but because (as Pawnkingthree notes above) the very reasons you cited in favor of your close do not apply when "there are wiki-wide implications". Imho, any change to the speedy deletion policy can be summed up as such. Regards So Why 18:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I support the reverts there, separately by A2soup and SoWhy. --Izno (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, that is not how you challenge a close. In any event, the path of least resistance is to wait for an uninvolved closer to close with support for the change (which will clearly happen - the consensus is quite clear). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: WP:CLOSECHALLENGE is merely an information page. WP:PROPOSAL is policy. And policy says "Ending a discussion requires careful evaluation of the responses to determine the consensus. This does not require the intervention of an administrator, but may be done by any sufficiently experienced independent editor (an impartial editor not involved in the discussion) who is familiar with all of the policies and guidelines that relate to the proposal." (emphasis added) I think you and I know I am usually one to follow the rules more strictly than others (it has been mentioned once or twice in a recent discussion) but even I don't believe a close that clearly contradicts the aforementioned policy has to be formally challenged. Again, I am not saying the outcome was necessarily wrong but that changing policies needs to be the result of consensus as determined by uninvolved editors to safeguard that it is not seen as one editor making changes in favor of their stated preferences. Regards So Why 19:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

SoWhy reverted both my RfC close and my edits to CSD13 with zero contact or discussion (until after the reverts) in violation of [16] policy and has refused to WP:ADMINACCT except for the unbelievable assertion the consensus is not clear. There is no wikiwide implications. This impacts only if we use G13 or Mfd on some subset of about 6000 pages in a current backlog. Nothing about my close was secret or underhanded for I even posted about it at AN and there is no urgent need to reopen the discussion to prevent some catastrophic event. If there is actual objections to my close other then that I am not an Admin, a policy based Close Review at AN would be most appropriate. In the interest of not having an ANi about SoWhy's breach of policy I've requested that an uninvolved Admin review the close and if they find the same conclusion, they restore it. Legacypac (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

BRD might apply to the actual CSD change but that is not contested. I put a lot of thought into rewlrding it to concisely state what it needs to say. We don't even need a RfC to reword a CSD, just make a change and see if it sticks. It's a stretch to say the "Good practices" wording under WP:PROPOSALS, which may or may not even apply to a CSD change, trumps the clear on point wording at Requests for Closures. Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, I have neither made any comments about the content of your close nor have I justified reverting it on you not being an admin. I'm sad to see that you continue to claim otherwise without any evidence. Any change to CSD has wiki-wide implications because it does not only affect the pages currently existing but all future pages and may well influence the way drafts are created in the first place. I maintain that the close was irregular because you (as an involved editor, not as an non-admin) made it and it would have been equally irregular if I or anyone opposing the proposal would have made it. Btw, since you now see that multiple people agree that you shouldn't have done it, can we just drop it? Nothing useful will come of further claiming you were right and I was wrong. Regards So Why 19:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Several of your statements and your quoting of policy are wrong. Nothing good will come of an Admin snubbing policy amd procedure so openly. Use the proper procedure if you want to challenge the close. Maybe I should not have done the close, but having studyed the policy and thinking about it for several days while waiting for the discussion to slow (not stop) I determined my close would be within policy and I wanted a first crack at rewording CSDG13 itself. You did not have time to refresh yourself on policy, did not discuss your concerns with me or maybe even consider how your Admin action would offend me before reverting. Shame on you. There is no big rush here. Legacypac (talk) 19:54, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I did not act as an admin but as an editor and I believe I acted according to policy and not out of spite against you or anyone else, despite your assumptions to the contrary. And you admitting that you wanted to make the close to reword the criterion based on your interpretation of consensus strengthens my point that your close might appear to be based on your personal opinions on the matter. If you still truly believe my actions were violating policy, you know where WP:ANI is. Regards So Why 20:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

please stop reprasing what I say in ways that are not correct to my meaning. As you may or may not have noticed in your hasty revert CSDG13 already repeated itself and needs a fairly substantial rewording to remain (or get more) concise during this change. There is no ambiguity about what types of pages it applies too or possible benefit to me by imposing my suggested wording. I only want the community to get the benefit of my thinking on how to reach conciseness.Legacypac (talk) 20:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Also since only an Admin is permitted to overturn a close, your assertion you did not act as an Admin is interesting. Legacypac (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Anyone can overturn a non-admin close. Where did you get the idea only an admin could? Jclemens (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Inflexibility

You know I lived in Germany for 18 years? I had a great time there and I miss a lot of it. I left just a month or two before the wall came down (that's what - 28 years ago?). There was a joke, said by Germans about themselves; it went something like this: Deutsche Friedhöfe sind voll von Fahrern, die im Recht waren. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Less a joke than a pretty accurate description (it translates to "German cemeteries are full of drivers who were in the right" for all those talk page stalkers too lazy to pull up Google Translate). It will probably surprise you to hear that I am actually a pretty relaxed driver, who for example - uncharacteristically for a German - frequently yields his right of way to allow a smoother flow of traffic for everyone. But that's probably because I'm half-Italian

Didn't know you lived in Germany, though. Where exactly if I may ask? Regards So Why 17:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Niedersachsen (Hannover, Celle, Nienburg, Bergen-Hohne), then Berlin for many years in a street right in front the wall a few hundred yards from Genzübergang Invalidenstr. and only a 30 min walk to the TU and the HDK.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Reliability of Tubefilter and the deletion discussion for Steven Suptic

SoWhy: You declined the speedy deletion of Steven Suptic, citing that Tubefilter "could pass as a reliable source." That article currently has an AfD discussion here. Would you be able to provide evidence that Suptic meets the notability requirements to have an article? You said that "Tubefilter might pass as a RS in this day and age, needs more discussion." Since you appear to be somewhat invested in the topic, could you to take the time to contribute to the discussion there? Thanks. Clbsfn (talk) 02:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Clbsfn: Sorry, I am not really invested in the topic. I merely declined to speedy delete it as WP:A7 because it might be a reliable source and thus the topic needs more discussion. If you wish to invite commentary on whether Tubefilter is a reliable source, you might want to try posting to WP:RSN. Regards So Why 08:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

help needed

Hello! I would like to ask you a favor. I have replied at AN/Requests for closure that I will close a specific RfC but an unexpected problem has occurred. My PC is damaged so I have to edit using mobile, but it can't open this very section in edit mode (maybe due to its size). I however have the template with the statement ready in my userspace. Would you mind if I asked you to subst it at the RfC?? ( using this permalink at summary of course). The RfC is at talk:Donald Trump ( the one for the use of "liar" and "lies" and the closure here --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: That sucks of course. Sure, no problem.

Done (careful, large diff). Regards So Why 13:30, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:44, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

your assistance please...

You deleted Talk:Marisa Lazo, as the talk page of deleted page.

Could you please email me a copy of this talk page?

I believe it is the first forum where I interacted with CommotioCerebri. I have a recollection that this is the first place I tried to explain to CC that the civil expression of disagreement is not a personal attack.

It's possible that my recollection is wrong: (1) that I was genuinely uncivil there, and I don't remember; (2) or that my explanation was insulting, and I don't remember; (3) that I merely thought I left an explanation as to why civil disagreement should not be considered a personal attack, but my browser crashed, or I was called away, before I hit save, or something like that.

I'd really like to know.

CC has made just 23 edits, so far -- at least under that wiki-ID. 18 of those edits are either excisions of material I contributed, or discussions of my contributions. I did warn them that focussing on one particular contributor's efforts was generally frowned upon.

On Talk:Marisa Lazo CC defended the edits of an IP contributor. I am pretty sure I specifically asked CC whether they made the IP edits. I can't remember now whether they ignored my question, or specifically denied being the IP, or perhaps merely implied they didn't make the IP edits.

I'd like to check what they wrote, as they did acknowledge, on someone else's talk page, that they had recently transitioned from making their edits under IP addresses, to using a named ID. I've edited on other, non-WMF wikis, like the Citizendium, which do not allow edits from IP contributors, and they have a marked increase in civility and decrease in vandalism. I certainly welcome any contributor to transition from IP contributions to named contributions. But I think anyone making this transition has a definite obligation to own up, if asked. We don't want any discussion where a single person is expressing one view, to look like multiple individuals hold that view, because they weighed in, using multiple IDs, or a named ID and and an IP address.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 00:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. Check your inbox. Regards So Why 08:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response. It helped. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft guidelines

FYI that SmokeyJoe has proposed a draft set of guidelines that were discussed at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol#Clarification_and_guidance_for_draftification. When I checked in with him last, he was of the view that an RfC at WT:Drafts would be best. Just giving you a heads up here so as to not crowd the VPR discussion. As always, thanks for all the work you do in bringing important topics to the community's attention :) TonyBallioni (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. Didn't know he has proposed a guideline, I checked WT:Drafts but didn't see any discussion, which is why I brought it to WP:VPPR. Regards So Why 20:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Not a problem. This conversation is important to have, and for wide ranging things like this, village pumps are often better than other project pages: you get a wider crowd than the normal watchlist group. Just wanted to point you to where the conversation had previously been taking place. Thanks again. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Help relisting

Hi - I came across a deletion discussion for Formation 8, Googled them and quickly found some sources saying they were one of the most notable VC companies in their day. They are defunct now, but they raised almost USD$1 billion dollars in two funds, and were bringing 95% returns. I don't know how thorough a WP:BEFORE was done, since the sources were easy to find. I updated the article, and commented on the talk page. After a few days, nobody has commented or changed their votes, which surprises me and possibly underscores a behavioral economics flaw in the AfD process. Nonetheless, can I ask that you relist in the hopes that this new info can extend the discussion? I'm not sure if I'm allowed to, since I'm involved. Thanks! TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 01:00, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: I probably would have if I had come across the page naturally but now you have asked me, doing so might look as if I only did so because you asked me to. You are allowed to ping the other participants of the AFD though to get them to reconsider their !votes. Often people don't watchlist an AFD they have !voted in and thus won't see new discussion. Regards So Why 05:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Rats - it's a no win then. But I'll take your advice and ping them - it will be interesting to see if people are willing to change their minds. Is there anything that says as a participating editor that I can't relist it myself? Or does that open things up to gaming also? It's not clear - and I even had a hard time finding the relist instructions. Had to add this: [[17]]TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 05:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Timtempleton: Per WP:RELIST, relisting is considered an "administrative" action, located in the admin instructions page and {{relist}} is called a "administration template". So the same rules apply for admins as well as non-admins, i.e. WP:INVOLVED. Relisting a debate you participated in might be seen as you trying to avoid the "wrong" outcome by relisting and should thus be avoided. PS: No need to use {{re}} on my talk page, I get a ping anyway. That template is only to get people to other pages. Regards So Why 05:59, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Barry R. Clarke page

Do you really think you have acted responsibly in doing this? [18] BRC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.157 (talk) 11:19, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I acted in accordance with consensus at the deletion discussion, so yes, I think so. Do you have any reason why I was wrong? Regards So Why 11:27, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes. First of all, even Saddam Hussein was allowed to defend himself at his own trial and he murdered thousands. I don't get that privilege. Second, the standard for 'notability' demanded in this trial is unreasonable. This requires that I have numerous academic citings. This is simply inappropriate for popular puzzle making. Do a Google search. It is easy to corroborate the claim that I have a best selling amazon puzzle book [19]. It is easy to corroborate the claim that I have written for a UK national newspaper for many years [20] with over 4,000 references on Google. In addition, the claim that I write for Prospect magazine is instantly verifiable on their website! [21] If to show that someone is well known (notable) they have to have numerous academic citings most of the biographical articles on Wikipedia would have to go. I think this is an unjust destruction of an article. P.S. If no one listened to you, you too would invent sockpuppets. I don't ask you to sympathize but the notability of the subject logically has no connection to past behavior on Wikipedia. BRC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.157 (talk) 11:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

First of all, it's not a trial. It's people on a privately owned website discussing with other people whether this website should mention a certain person based on what this website's rules. There is no right to having an article on Wikipedia and there is no right to try and influence a discussion using sockpuppets. I could just block your IP right now because of that and no one could argue it being incorrect. Such behavior is also usually a reason to distrust the editor in question, i.e. not helpful. Neither is threatening other editors via mail.

Then: Being cited as an academic is one way to establish notability. Others can be found at WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. What those ways have in common is that they require substantial coverage by multiple reliable sources. That's because material about living people has to be sourced, otherwise our policy requires us to delete them. None of the sources provided at either the AFD nor here are about the subject, they are by the subject. These sources don't allow us to write an article about the person because they contain no details about him but that's what we need. If you can provide newspapers or books that talk about the person at length, we can reconsider (as long as you stop violating the sock puppet policy). Regards So Why 16:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi SoWhy -- I saw you were someone who may be interested in "adopting" new users who are just getting experience in Wikipedia. I have an interest in becoming a better editor, and find there are a lot of policies that are taking some time to learn and understand. At the same time, I think the concept of Wikipedia is so cool - to have a community of people curating content in this way is truly unique. Might you consider 'adopting' me in the process of editing here and even learning how to publish a first article? --DrNewYork (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@DrNewYork: I'd be happy to, although my style of adopting basically means you can come to me and ask me stuff whenever you are stuck. I will try to help with articles but I'm not a master article creator myself. Regards So Why 04:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Sounds good to me. Thank you! --DrNewYork (talk) 08:03, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Nasone barnstar
	Thanks for creating the new Nasone article. I am surprised that one had not been created years ago. Nice find for a new article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:49, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: Thanks! You and me both. I read about the recent drought in a newspaper and wanted to learn more and was surprised to find no article exists. Luckily, that has been rectified now

Regards So Why 04:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey, water is quite important. Sometimes people forget about it's importance, until none is available for a while... North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

DJ Flash

Dear SoWhy

Regarding the RapReviews.com Article

various artists :: West Coast Rap: The First Dynasty, Vol. 1-3 :: Rhino/Excello

- RapReviews "Back to the Lab" series **

as reviewed by Matt Jost.. [22]

In my Defense: I did not speak to the Reviewer . because the Article is an independent Review (Not an Interview) I do not know & have never spoken to the Author/Reviewer Matt Jost. Please take this in consideration when making your decision.

Here is another article from The Vinyl District.com that ref. DJ Flash several times. [23] Please consider both these articles when making your decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflash1957 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 11 August 2017 (UTC) Best Regards

DJflash_1957 23:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflash1957 (talk • contribs)

@Djflash1957: As I said, the rapreviews.com article's problem is that it contains no information about you. Unfortunately, neither does the thevinyldistrict.com article. WHat we need is more articles like this one. PS: Remember that your signature needs to lead to your userpage, your username doesn't have an "_" in it though. Regards So Why 12:30, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Can you help me make my page better?

Hi, I'm writing because I really want to archive Chazz Miller's history. He is an actual person who is in danger of having his history of what he has done in Detroit erased if not documented. Too many new people are moving to Detroit and don't realize that there is already an Artist Village there can not be a new one, and this is the best way to document that so the young new people who are moving to Detroit realize this and understand better the city of Detroit and the People there in.

I live in Montreal so I am not in direct contact with this person. So there will be no meat puppet or sock puppetry. Just facts and history documentation. If you can help with this, I will be greatly appreciative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatChickOverThere (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@ThatChickOverThere: Hi there. Sure, I'd be happy to try and help. First of all, you might want to start by drafting the new article in draftspace, preferably at Draft:Chazz Miller. Draftspace is designed to allow editors to work on articles before they are ready, so you face less chance of deletion there (unless you again use text from other websites without permission). One you are done, you can request review by experienced editors. If you need a copy of the deleted article to work on, please ask.

Then: Familiarize yourself with the notability guidelines, for artists, for any biography and for any subject. While the speedy deletion was in error, articles need to demonstrate actual notability to survive a deletion discussion. Add citations from reliable sources that cover the subject in detail to establish his notability. The more a source talks about him, the better, especially to fill out biographical details. Passing mentions ("Chazz Miller, ..., said...", "Chazz Miller, Detroit-based artist, will also be there..." etc.) are not sufficient . These links might help:

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Feel free to ask for feedback on sources you have found. Last but not least, remember to sign your posts on talk pages such as this one using ~~~~ or clicking the

button in the toolbar. Regards So Why 17:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

So I made many edits and changes. By any chance are you at the Wikimania conference Montreal? I hope that this is more appropriate

@ThatChickOverThere: I removed the content from this page, I assume you just copied the content of Draft:Chazz Miller? Please don't do that, just link to the page. I'll have a look tomorrow. Regards So Why 19:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey there, I met User:ThatChickOverThere at Wikimania and we worked through the article together to sort out the issues of tone and add more sources. I think the topic is notable enough, and now that most of the WP:Peacock text has been removed, and some of the sources are being used more sensibly, I think it's OK for mainspace. Feel free to start an AFD if you think that a notability review is needed. In that case, please tag me so that I can give my input as well. --Slashme (talk)

@Slashme: That's okay by me. I, too, think this person is notable, so I won't contest it. Regards So Why 05:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! --Slashme (talk) 12:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamont Gallery

It looks like you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lamont Gallery just as I was adding a comment (odd that I didn't get an edit conflict). I suspect you made your keep decision based on the sources presented, but I took a look at the NYTimes article, and it's not what you might expect (see my comment in the AfD). I'd like to request that you reopen the AfD and relist it for another week to allow people more time to evaluate the proposed sources. In particular, I'd like to see somebody find the Boston Globe source and evaluate that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:13, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Usually, you would have to go through DRV for that but I understand the edit conflict problem, so I have reopened the AFD. Regards So Why 19:23, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Un deletion request for Yash Aradhya's page

This is with regard to Yash aradhay's wikipedia page was deleted and i contest the same. Yash Aradhya is a national champion in go karting and racing in the international arena. He has just turned 14 years and got his Formula-4 licence now and also won few National championship races in Formula-4. Request you to kindly Undelete the page of Yash Aradhya as we want to update his Formula-4 achievements immediately. Thank youSujith Aradhya (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

can I see a deleted page?

I see that you deleted a page called "Get Croissant" https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Get_Croissant

I am curious if there is any way I can see the original text of this page?

The Google serach returned the first sentence if that helps... "Get Croissant or (Croissant Coworking) is an American online marketplace software technology coworking company that provides on demand access to shared ... "

Thanks! Axcelis555 (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Axcelis555: Only administrators can view deleted pages as a result of this AFD failing WP:CORPDEPTH. If you wish to try again, use the article wizard. KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 20:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Axcelis555: Could you explain why you'd like to see the text? ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

DJ Flash_2

Dear SoWhy,

I have found a source which proves the notability of the author DJ Flash. The book is called Ego Trip's Book of Rap Lists (https://www.amazon.com/Ego-Trips-Book-Rap-Lists/dp/0312242980/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1500200452&sr=1-1&keywords=rap%20lists). Click on look inside, then type in the search DJ Flash (I believe it's on page 33).

Yours,

Hrvoje Grahovac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Westcoast1978 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@Westcoast1978: As previously explained, notability is established by substantial coverage of a subject. The book mentions him only as one of hundreds of artists and contains no details about him as a person. Again, we don't doubt he exists and that he is a DJ but soooo many people are. Notability is more than mere existence. Regards So Why 20:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Dear SoWhy,

DJ Flash here. I understand your reason for deleting the DJ Flash Page. I also Agree with Duffbeerforme When he said it was "An over the top mess of promotion, original research and dud sources" For that I take full responsibility. And I respect the hard work & dedication all of you put into keeping Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. The 10 + years "DJ Flash" was listed in wikipedia have allowed me the opportunity to reconnect with so many friends & colleagues that before the advent of the internet & wikipedia, I had no hopes of ever reconnecting. Although i retained my name DJ Flash (i was only a DJ for a few short years 1979-83) before becoming a Record Producer & Label Owner. the Page/Article focused on the Body Of Works I leave behind as a Record Producer. I admit i am not knowledgeable in all the rules of creating an article or Page. But i thank the many contributors & editors who have contributed to the page over the years. I will continue to donate funds to wikipedia & will always support your good works. Looking Back I wish the page could have been Saved, Edited and Sourced better. But i will live with your decision. When I began my career their were only 2 Flash's ..Grand Master Flash on the East Coast & DJ Flash on the West Coast ... Now i notice their are 100's of DJ Flash's from all over the world. If their is any way possible to recreate an edited version of the Page i would be most appreciative for your guidance & instruction & if not ... I will respect your decision ... Kindest Regards .. DJ Flash 'Djflash 1957 06:13, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Djflash1957: As I had explained above, not having a Wikipedia entry is not our goal if the subject is notable. However, said notability has to be established first. For that, we need reliable sources that substantially cover the subject (i.e. you). See WP:BASIC for more details. If you know of such sources (like old newspaper articles, books that contain details of you etc.), please provide them, so we can reassess the situation. Wikipedia operates on the principle that no action is irreversible and thus no deletion is either. We just need a good reason to reverse that decision. Regards So Why 13:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank You for your quick reply

I will make a wholehearted attempt to provide reliable sources. As i read Wikipedia's "Criteria For Musicians and Ensembles" (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theater groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.

2-Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.

(If This Category Includes Record Producers Please consider this Link From Billboard Mag. Regarding an Album Concieved, Compiled & Produced by DJ flash) ( https://books.google.com/books?id=YQgEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA112&dq=dr+dre+concrete+roots+billboard&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLwtGzk6LVAhXJ7IMKHWaSD7cQ6AEIPDAF#v=onepage&q=dr%20dre%20concrete%20roots%20billboard&f=false )

Also here is a Article about the Album in VIBE Mag. ( https://books.google.com/books?id=dywEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA127&lpg=PA127&dq=dj+flash+producer+west+coast&source=bl&ots=Veo85MHM1G&sig=l1Mm09BZ4GYZ110ZEaCf_tOOuk8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjbwsmIj6LVAhVpwYMKHceqAg44ChDoAQguMAM#v=onepage&q=dj%20flash%20producer%20west%20coast&f=false )

5-Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable).

If RHINO/Warner Bros. is considered A Major Indie Label. I Have Produced 5 Albums on that Label .please consider these Links ( http://www.rapreviews.com/archive/BTTL_westcoastrap1to3.html )

and ICE T "The Classic Collection" the album concieved, Compiled & Produced by Lee "DJ Flash" Johnson & mentioned in several Books Including Rolling Stone , All Music, etc... ( https://www.amazon.com/Trouser-Press-Guide-90s-Rock/dp/0684814374 )

( https://books.google.com/books?id=t9eocwUfoSoC&pg=PA401&dq=ice+t+the+classic+collection&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwirhZPRm6LVAhWr6IMKHbdBDYUQ6AEILDAB#v=onepage&q=ice%20t%20the%20classic%20collection&f=false )

( https://www.discogs.com/Ice-T-The-Classic-Collection/release/1922020 )

I feel as though these 5 albums may not meet wikipedias standards of Notability. Never the less I submit these Links for consideration. Thank you for your time and effort ,,, Best Regards Lee "DJ Flash" Johnson

'Djflash 1957 08:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Djflash1957: Unfortunately, as far as I can see only the VIBE article actually mentions you by name and only in a sentence. Do you have more sources that talk about you explicitly? A short biography in a book or coverage of your work for example? Regards So Why 06:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@SoWhy:

I will try to locate some things. It is rare for West Coast Artists to be featured in Books. Basically because Most Hip Hop Books are focused on East Coast Artists. Only recently have a couple Books been written about West Coast Rap Pioneers. Like i mentioned I'm not aware of all the requirements to be listed in Wikipedia. It is difficult to understand why a Record Producer with a 30 yr History of 25-40 Albums / Singles featuring some of the Worlds Biggest known Artists, must also rely on other sources (Books) to be considered notable. When In Truth only a handful of people would read the book as compared to the Millions or records embodying the Producers Works are sold all around the world. However difficult, I do respect your guidelines, Do Articles that mention DJ flash's place in Hip Hop History such as this one qualify for consideration ? kindest regards ( https://www.amoeba.com/blog/2013/10/jamoeblog/hip-hop-history-tuesdays-los-angeles-rap-hip-hop-the-first-decade-pt-i-.html ) djflash 1957 03:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Djflash1957: The reason is verifiability. You know who you are and what you have done but others, including us, have to rely on what (reliable) third-party sources report on someone. So if we write that you produced 25-40 albums, we have to be able to point our readers to a reliable source that says so. Blog posts such as this one might be useful because they actually mention you and your work (although only a few blogs are considered reliable sources). I tried to find sources myself but it's quite hard since "DJ Flash" is not an uncommon DJ name (one that apparently Grandmaster Flash once used as well, which complicates things). I know it's frustrating but I'm happy you are wishing to work on it and I'll be happy to restore the article if I can find some more sources, I'll even be willing to copyedit and expand it. Speaking of sources, is this article about you? Regards So Why 11:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Tropical Forest

Many thanks for the removal of AfD here - I can't think why it was proposed. Roy Bateman (talk) 02:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably a misunderstand what AFD is and is not for since the rationale mentions problems with the content that can be fixed by editing. But hey, even some clearly notable subjects were subject to AFD once. Regards So Why 09:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I've seen worse. Deleting Ed Sheeran via CSD A7 - twice! - looks rather amusing in hindsight. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

We shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking that because people are notable now, they always were. When Ed Sheeran was deleted in Nov 2006, he would have been 15 years old. The text of the article was:

“

Ed Sheeran was born in 1991 and lives in Suffolk, UK. He first picked up a guitar in 2002 and soon after wrote his first song, Typical Average. He has written over 30 songs since then.

In March 2005, Ed recorded his first professional CD The Orange Room EP, which features five songs. In April 2005, he played his first solo gig and in June his music was played on the radio for the first time.

Ed has been inspired by great teachers, including the American guitarist Preston Reed, the jazz guitarist Keith Krykant, the singer-songwriter Charity Quin, the opera singer Claire Weston and the singing tutor Richard Charlton.

In October 2005, Ed started recording his debut album at Din Studios in London. The album is now available. It has been produced by Julian Simmons, who has recently worked with the Guillemots. The album features 12 new songs and a bonus track. Various outstanding musicians have helped Ed on the album including Jack Pollitt (drums), Jonny Bridgwood (bass) Fiona Brice (violin), Helen Rathbone (cello) and Martin Hay (synthesiser). The rap artist Alonestar sings on one track and Ed's cousin, the talented young Irish singer-songwriter Laura Sheeran, sings on various tracks. Another of Ed's cousins, Hannah Sheeran, plays the clarinet and sings.

Ed is managed by his parents' company Sheeran Lock Ltd

Ed has made a video for his song Open Your Ears with Bruizer Productions. The set featured the spray-painting work of two of the UK's leading street artists, Graham Dews and Gwen Liby. The video has been put on Ed's My Space and You Tube as well as the home page of his website.

www.edsheeran.com - the www.myspace.com/edsheeran

”

It was a correct A7 deletion IMO. Indeed the current article (created in Jan 11) only has two sentences in the section "Music Career" that pre-date 2008... WJBscribe (talk) 11:50, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

That said, it does seem sub-optimal that despite the article being tagged twice by different editors and deleted twice by different admins (i.e. 4 experienced editors in total), the obviously well-meaning author was not welcomed nor did they have the reasons for the deletion explained to them on their talkpage... Perhaps unsurprisingly they never edited again :(. WJBscribe (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

As I pointed out at my current RfB, one can argue that it was indeed a correct A7 deletion, but then again, how many typical 15 year olds have records produced by a notable TV personality (Julian Simmons)? I fully agree with the second part of your comment. Regards So Why 12:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I think this has blown out of proportion a bit. I simply found it amusing because of the juxtaposition that somebody who had reasonable grounds to meet the A7 criteria in 2006 is now so well-known, anyone putting {{db-person}} today might well find themselves being blocked for vandalism. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

If it's just intended to be an amusing example of how notability changes over time so be it, but I understand that SoWhy is going further and saying that he would not have deleted the article in Nov 2006. I doubt that there are many admins (if any) other than SoWhy who would have declined the tag. The issue that I - and likely others - are struggling with at the moment is the relevance of SoWhy's strong views as to how admins ought to apply the CSD (which are not just held personally, but are a regular feature of his opposition to the RfAs of others) to his current RfB. WJBscribe (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

The Julian Simmons who produced Ed Sheeran in 2006 is not the same person we have an article on, so there was no way to write a reliably sourced article or redirect to another one, so A7 was correct. As far as I can tell, SoWhy said he'd bounce it to AfD, probably because he got his Julian Simmonses mixed up on a Google search, which isn't really the same thing as refusing to delete it. (He'd be wrong and the AfD would almost certainly be closed as SNOW delete, and today would be deleted per BLPPROD regardless, but it's easy to see these things in hindsight). Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I apologize for the confusion. Yes, I would probably have deleted it as well if I had known that (and I hadn't found any other sources). Ritchie is correct though, I certainly found the previous versions of the article deletable. I merely opined that they might not be speedy deletable based on that indicator for significance (which I now know is incorrect). Regards So Why 13:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit Conflict just as the AfD was closed

SoWhy, I am wondering what the process is supposed to be here. I was just about to comment on the AfD for Syed Ali Raza Usama, and while I was searching for sources I edit-conflicted with you closing the AfD as delete. Given my comment below that I intended to post, would you have considered relisting instead? Sorry, I've never had this happen before. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Weak Keep. I'm seeing plenty of mentions in the news [24] and reporters often refer to him as "well known" or some such, and he directed Pakistan's second highest grossing film of 2013 Main_Hoon_Shahid_Afridi [25]. None of this solidly says "Keep", but it makes me wonder that there must be sources that cover this guy in Urdu or Punjabi. I'm reluctant to endorse a delete until somebody searches sources in these languages. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 08:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Usually, if someone presented new arguments but was edit-conflicted, I would reopen the AfD and relist, however, I am not sure others will consider "there must be sources" as a valid enough argument. If you want, I'll reverse my close and the associated actions, no problem, but maybe you could ask someone who is a native speaker to check whether those sources actually exist before I do that? That might save us some work. Regards So Why 11:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thats Ok. I wanted you to be aware of it, and was also curious as to what the procedure was in cases like this. To clarify, Urdu and Punjabi do not use Latin characters, so any sources that exist on the subject in those languages won't be found google searching for the director's name in latin characters. I've tried searching myself using what I think is the Urdu of the director's name (سید علی رضا اسامہ), but haven't had much success using google translate. I think I'll just let this lie for now, and try to track down somebody at some point. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 12:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I think you are gonna have to bring the article back. See User_talk:Mar4d#Urdu_Sources_for_Syed_Ali_Raza_Usama. Mar4d really outdid himself. I'd suggest reopening the AfD, then I'll comment and invite Mar4d to do so as well. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 18:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Happy to.

Done. It might not be the correct way to do it but taking it to DRV just to restart the discussion seemed unnecessary. Regards So Why 19:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I guess you are not as much of a stickler for inflexible rules as some people are claiming over at RfB. Cheers mate. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 20:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Heh

Well, I'm all for skipping process when the outcome is already clear from the beginning. That's just not the case as often as some people think it is. Anyway, have a nice evening (or something, not sure where you are from) and feel free to come here again if you need anything else

Regards So Why 20:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Austin Found

Hello,

I noticed you deleted the article mentioned above due to its lack of notability. That being said, I have worked on a draft of this article on my sandbox and have provided sources with it. May I have your permission to please recreate the article? Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Hitcher vs. Candyman

Done. I moved the article to the article space for you. — Insert CleverPhrase Here 05:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

RfB?

How do you feel about Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/SoWhy 2? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Is this really the right climate now?

Seriously though, I'd give the same answer I gave you in April: you know me: I'm happy to serve the community in any way I can and if you are willing to risk your good name nominating me, I'm willing to offer my services.

Regards So Why 13:31, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd seriously consider it. You often stand out for being calm and sensible. And if I've asked you the same thing twice (senility is fast approaching), I must have been on the right track twice. So here are some questions to suss this out:

Been in any horrid disputes recently? (As a disputant)
Can you point me to some recent involvement in consensus assessing, like a couple of tricky AfDs you've closed or similar?
Do you think you're boring enough to be a Crat?

--Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:34, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Let's see:

I don't think so. I have been pinged a couple of times (most recently because of some interaction with Light2021 (see also above) at WP:ANI#Please_review_Light2021.27s_behaviour_at_AfD) but usually I tend to stay away from such discussions. I have been named as an involved editor at WP:ARCA earlier that year because of a protection decision I made, does that count? (permalink from before it was removed)
Phew...I handled literally hundreds of AfDs in the last few weeks because I noticed the backlog there. Maybe [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. Check also the comments in the above sections and in my talk archives for the last month.
Well, I am taking a five minute break from looking at some 100+ page bank statements to answer you, so you tell me. Also, people keep on telling me that I am a stickler for rules like it's somehow a bad thing. As a child, my parents tell me, I didn't want to play any games before first reading the instructions very carefully

Regards So Why 15:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

That's reassuring stuff. Anyone you got in mind you'd like to co-nom (or maybe nom instead of me?)? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Certainly no one instead of you. As for co-nom, my mind's drawing a blank, but any interested talk page stalkers can of course offer to risk their reputation alongside you

If you know someone who you think might want to, feel free to ask them as well.

As I said before, there is certainly no hurry. Regards So Why 15:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll leave this here for a day or so and then dive in. If I wait too long, I'll find myself posting at this page in October asking if you'd consider running at RfB. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Don't they say "third time's a charm"?

No worries, whenever you are ready, I'll be here. And who knows, maybe someone will be brave enough to co-nom by then. Regards So Why 07:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The link at the top of this section has gone blue. Your turn to start answering questions and then transclude. Feel free to take your time, there's no rush. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: Thank you so very much for your kind words. I have added my answers but if you don't mind, I'd like to sleep on it another night and transclude it tomorrow (if I am still crazy enough to face "teh dramaz" tomorrow as I am today

). Regards So Why 18:33, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The personal life issues I allude to on my user talk may be about to explode. When they do, I'll be offwiki for a week. Would it be OK with you to pause? Sorry to be annoying, but this is serious stuff and I can't do a thing about it. I wouldn't want to abandon a nominee through the course of things. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: As I have previously mentioned, I'm in no hurry. Real life always comes first. Take all the time you need to address them and good luck with that. Whenever you come back and feel like it, just leave me a message and we can resume where we left off. Feel free to delete the RfB page if you don't feel like having people see it until you are back. Regards So Why 19:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I came here for something else (see below), but does anybody mind if I throw a co-nomination on the pile? Or do people think I have done enough RfX nominations already this year and should just pipe down for the duration? In particular, I was thinking of pulling together some facts and figures for how many RfAs you've been involved with, how many candidates you've put forward, and how many of those RfAs have had your vote match consensus. I would offer to sort out the transclusion too, but I still feel rather guilty about GAB's RfA going full steam ahead without Dweller getting so much a chance to write a co-nomination statement, so it would be completely unfair to do that again. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no secret rule I know of that only crats should nominate people at RfB, so I don't mind; in fact, I'd be happy. Might want to ask Dweller if he does object though (when he returns). As for transcluding, I think I can handle that myself.

Regards So Why 18:00, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

What I specifically want to say is although we've sometimes disagreed on how to apply some policies (*cough* Micaela Schäfer *cough*), I've always gone away thinking "well although I don't quite agree, SoWhy's been polite and courteous about it, and they've got a point". That's worth ramming home. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that sentence alone is a high-praise nomination statement

Regards So Why 19:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I dropped something in. If the worst comes to worse, we can revert and I'll just put some of it in as a !vote Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me, thanks for the kind words. Just a little note: It's fine to refer to me as "he". While I love the concept of singular they, I don't think it is fitting to use when the gender of the person you are talking about is known ;-) Regards So Why 18:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Tentatively back. No objections to any co-nom you approve of, SoWhy. Want to go live? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Eagerly waiting to support. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Welcome back, Dweller. I hope everything is well. If you feel like you can now be sure that you won't have to "abandon" me, I'm ready to go

Regards So Why 12:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

My situation is fluid and at some point, I will disappear for a week or more, but it's unpredictable when that will happen and life needs to go on. Let's do it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Done [32]. Let's hope the community is not too harsh on me

Regards So Why 12:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Well you've got at least 3 supports, so how bad can it be? Nah, but in all seriousness, good luck :). Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello SoWhy, hope you're well. I don't wish this to sound condescending in any way (so please don't mind these words). I have struck my oppose, but feel it would be better if you withdraw your Rfb now. The growing group of editors pointing out to your literal application of policy is significant and I feel your withdrawing now would provide a positive basis for a future Rfb. I remain a keen learner from your work. Warmly. Lourdes 03:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Lourdes: Thank you for your advice. As I had previously indicated, I had no intention of running again before Dweller asked me and I don't have any intention of running again if this request fails. It's a lose-lose situation anyway - either I change my approach completely, then people will oppose my next attempt for doing so just to succeed in that attempt or I don't and people will oppose that attempt for the same reasons.
While it is of course disheartening to see so many people you respect opposing you, I feel that withdrawing might rob me of gathering the necessary criticism I need to improve my editing and admining in the future. Unfortunately, such requests are the still the best way to get honest feedback on your actions because people rarely call you directly out when you made a mistake. So I will continue to monitor the discussion and answer questions because that is the best way for me to grow as an editor which in turn is beneficial for the project. Even if my ego has to take a beating or two. Regards So Why 07:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

My wishes always. Lourdes 07:46, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

RfB thought

I know you are taking a bit of a pounding at the moment, but I hope you will not withdraw. Seeing your calm and professional demeanor throughout the RfB so far and your willingness to answer questions at length has reassured me that I made the right decision in supporting your candidacy regardless of how it turns out. I am disappointed that you have encountered so much opposition, but that's life, I suppose. Your work is valued here regardless. 28bytes (talk) 03:55, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@28bytes: Thanks for the kind words and the continued confidence in my work. Considering that it would require several key opposers to switch to support or a large influx of unopposed support votes just to get the request back into the discretionary range (and I don't see that happening), I am under no illusion about the outcome. That said, it serves as a useful way to get feedback on my actions and since I don't see any reason to rob myself of that, I won't withdraw.

Regards So Why Mobile 07:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the support!

A belated note of thanks for the very kind suggestion you made at my talk page earlier this week. I've been traveling for work this week (you and I are in the same profession, it appears) and your message was the only thing that salvaged an exhausting, discouraging trip! You prompted me to give the idea serious consideration, and after a close review of relevant guidelines, I think it's a little too early for me. These are the two areas where I see myself falling short: (a) I have no content creation to speak of; my efforts here have been almost entirely in the realm of copyediting gnomery and anti-vandalism (with a bit of anti-copyvio work thrown in); and (b) I am far too lacking in knowledge of the necessary technical (i.e. coding-type) fine points. But, now I know all this! And perhaps we can revisit this idea in about six months.

Again, Herzlichen Dank; your opinion counts for a lot with me and I'm grateful that you took the time to share it. Take care! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Julietdeltalima: Sorry to hear that. As for your points, while content-creation has become a trendy reason for opposing candidates in recent years, I don't think the community has arrived at a point were that alone is sufficient to deny a candidate adminship (cf. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/K6ka in recent times), as long as content awareness has been demonstrated. That said, if you want to change that, there is a good way to combine gnomery with content creation which is rescuing appropriate articles from deletion and improving them sufficiently to get them through WP:DYK which allows even those of us less skilled in writing prose to have articles appear on the Main Page. This approach serves the project in multiple ways: It prevents the removal of inclusion-worthy subjects and it allows you to demonstrate that you do have content skills. I started doing so only after my RfA passed but it is really a good way to contribute (seven of my 34 DYK credits were rescued from speedy deletion). As for the other part, I wouldn't worry about it. You know how to edit which is enough and there are a lot of scripts that automate many admin tasks anyway. Even I keep learning new things after 13 years (for example I only recently learned that [[WP:DYK|DYK]] and [[WP:DYK|]] produce the same output). As long as you keep on being willing to learn new things and are careful (using the preview button before using syntax you never used before for example), you will do fine.
That said, you are most welcome. If and when you feel ready to test the waters, I'd be happy to help in any way I can. Regards So Why 15:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

A7 expansion discussion

Hi SoWhy,

It's pretty clear that my proposal to expand A7 is failing miserably and with your in-depth analysis of the examples I gave to Ritchie333 I have concluded that it's time to withdraw it. Your precise application of policy at the discussion has swayed me from neutral to support in your RfB by the way!

Thanks,

DrStrauss talk 22:19, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@DrStrauss: I know it's hard to see a proposal fail, so you have my sympathies. Thanks for being so graceful about it. Maybe we can think of a way to stop people from nominating such articles in the first place? A warning message in Twinkle's XFD module comes to mind as a potential solution. I truly think that some people simply forget about those alternatives and that reminding them might be helpful. Regards So Why 07:59, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	For the most graceful RfX candidacy I have ever seen, you deserve this. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thank you very much. I'm happy to receive some WikiLove (been a while) although being graceful when faced with criticism should be a matter of course. And in the end, it was merely me offering to help out some more because some people asked me to, not some life-changing extremely important role that I really had to have, so while I might be disappointed by the level of opposition, I am also happy about the many voices of support and am truly convinced that it's not a big deal to fail such a request.

Regards So Why 08:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Candidacy

I just wanted to say, regardless of how the RfB goes, I think you could be an asset to the community as an ArbCom member or trustee, so I hope you run. A campaign for one of those roles, even if unsuccessful, could help draw attention to some excellent essays you have written. 172.56.2.106 (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, I'll keep it in mind, although I don't think I'm suited for one of those rules (and I don't think I have enough spare time either). Regards So Why 15:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

If you run a single issue informational campaign devoted to raising awareness of how to properly use the CSD, though, then you can probably teach the electorate about an important topic without needing to actually serve. We haven't really had any offbeat candidates since Isarra ran in 2013-2014 so elections have gotten kinda boring. Anyway, thanks for your hard work and insights. 172.56.2.106 (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think your stance of narrowly-interpreting policies and guidelines makes far more sense than doing as some suggested, relying on common-sense and using IAR. The latter practices lead to chaos as everyone is doing whatever they think is right without a real basis in our collective beliefs. The former practices well-represent what we as editors have agreed upon. While I disagree with your NOBIGDEAL stance, I think Wikipedia as a project benefits from your continued involvement at the highest levels. Surely the WMF is going to fire one of our community-elected board members and a slot will open up. I know of at least one Wikipedian on ARBCOM who might not get re-elected. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

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

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Your RfB

Hello SoWhy, your RfB has closed without a consensus to promote being reached. Thank you for actively participating, many editors praised your ability as administrator and I hope you continue to support the project in that role. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 12:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification and handling it. As I am not completely delusional, it was clear that this was coming. Still, a gathered some valuable feedback, so not all was in vain.

Regards So Why 12:57, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the plunge SoWhy, I thought you handled it extremely well. –xeno^talk 14:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. Hey, at least I got a barnstar out of it

Regards So Why 15:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

It's commendable the way you responded to opposition. Atypical case study of an Rfb. Well done SoWhy. Lourdes 16:13, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

A socialist red rose? How thoughtful

Here's to hoping that at least my (imho perfectly normal) behavior can serve as an example to others, shall we?

Regards So Why 17:15, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I would also like to compliment you on your handling of your RfB. I think you did a great job responding and answering the questions fairly and honestly and you handled the entire thing very well. -- Dane ^talk 22:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Coming from someone who opposed the request, this means a lot to me, because it demonstrates that while we may agree on some things, we can all stay civil about it and harbor no ill feelings.

Regards So Why 07:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

grumbles

That was a real shame. For a time it looked as though we'd be welcoming you as the newest bureaucrat, which would have been awesome; I grew increasingly disappointed as your RfB crept towards yellow and then into the red. At least we'll still have your service to Wikipedia and I'm pleased to see that you've not decided to pack it in - I'm glad. :) I'm delighted I had the chance to support you, SoWhy - delighted indeed. Acalamari 01:20, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I know how you feel, although you probably should direct your grumbling towards your colleagues who "sank" the request with their !votes

Joking aside, thanks for the kind words, they are really boosting my spirit.

Regards So Why 07:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Your RfB

I'm so sorry it was unsuccessful. I think you were an excellent candidate. Maybe if I'd have challenged (ironically) some of the comments from supporters early on, it might have been different. Unusually, you were criticised both for being overly strict and overly lax in your interpretation of consensus. I'd encourage you to reflect on the opposes and continue your excellent work, and, if you're not too bruised, come back and try again some day. I'm sorry if I fell down as your nominator... RfX can be a tough place and if it's any consolation, you handled yourself with great dignity in my opinion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 07:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: Don't worry about it too much. You were a great nominator and your help and guidance were invaluable. Yes, it failed, but you couldn't have prevented a number of editors, prominently some of your colleagues, perceiving me as biased or inflexible when it comes to handling crat tasks; that's something I have to try and change myself. I doubt I will try that again (this time I had more opposes and less support than the first time around) but that's okay. As I said to you in the very beginning, back in April, it was merely me offering my services to the community. They are allowed to reject it and I am not too upset about it. Regards So Why 09:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Hello SoWhy,

Thank you for your assistance with closing discussions at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion; there certainly is a backlog over there that needs some attention, and I'm trying to find some to close as a "non-admin". Anyways, you may or may not know this, but if you cold, when you close or relist the final discussion on a day/subpage, could you please also remove the subpage's tranclusion on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (as I did here)? Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 22:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Side note: Though I opposed your RfB and I think we've "butted heads" at some point in the past, as Acalamari stated, I'm glad you didn't leave after your failed RfB. I can tell you're a net positive for Wikipedia, and for what it's worth, if you decide to stick around as an active admin, welcome back. Wikipedia is a very difficult habit to quit, and I say this out of personal experience.

Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. RfD is usually not my area of expertise, I was just reacting to some requests at WP:ANRFC. I'll try to remember it if I can't get Evad37 to add that functionality to XFDCloser. Thanks for the side note btw, I do appreciate it.

Regards So Why 06:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Cathy Berry

Hi, I'm strugglimg to understand your thought process in closing this as nc. Please can you add a rationale and perhaps expand on how you weighted the different votes? Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:51, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, Spartaz. I thought it pretty clear but here you go. Hope that helps. Regards So Why 07:18, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

afd bria r

Dear SoWhy, Thanks for your relist. There was an Afd I was participating in that you relisted to generate a more thorough consensus. You said NPACTOR may not be the only applicable guideline and that two others could be applicable. I think the person in the wikipedia article meets those guidelines but someone else deleted the article. It was for Guinness World Record holder Bria Roberts. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Bria_Roberts Can you reopen it? She's been notable and in many sources. http://www.nbcnews.com/video/can-woman-set-guinness-record-for-jumping-rope-with-a-leg-behind-her-head-760405571555 https://www.yahoo.com/tv/jump-rope-record-attempt-goes-poorly-except-it-totally-doesnt-on-today-203740017.html http://www.today.com/video/can-woman-set-guinness-record-for-jumping-rope-with-a-leg-behind-her-head-760405571555 http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/most-skips-with-one-leg-behind-the-head-in-one-minute http://www.spike.com/video-clips/9ni4z6/1000-ways-to-die- http://entertainment-newsss.blogspot.com/2013/11/bria-roberts-contortionist-attempts.html Those are links that I posted in the discussion. I have a magazine somewhere that she's in too. The person who opened the afd gave incorrect information about her, like claiming she was an extra in 1000 Ways to Die even though she was the main character and speaking through the show, and saying she was the only person to ever try for the world record when she wasnt. He was demeaning her and her place in entertainment even though she meets the guidelines set by wikipedia. [User:Floppy292|Floppy292]] talk 20:02 , 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Floppy292. Unfortunately, I cannot reopen a discussion closed by another administrator. You have to ask Courcelles to do so. If he refuses, you can state your case at WP:DRV. Regards So Why 07:21, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Hey again SoWhy, Thank you for answering and for the information. Appreciated! Floppy292 talk

DYK for Nasone

On 22 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nasone, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Romans like to drink out of large noses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nasone. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nasone), 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.

Alex Shih ^Talk 00:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Great hook! — Calvin999 14:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

I know, right? I was so happy I came up with that

Regards So Why 14:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi. I was writing about a historical watch and my page godt deleted because of some claim that i was a corporate page. I disagree with this one

André — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreot (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@Andreot: Please be more specific. I only deleted one page you created and that contained no information. Regards So Why 15:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Moves from main space to draft space

I'm ashamed to say I would find it too soul-destroying to become involved in the draft space discussions. but you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Poorly references sports biographies. If I understand right it is possible, with no guideline against, to use AWB to make bulk moves from main to draft space simply because the editor thinks it is a good idea. I can't make out whether the inclusion of Sir Edward Antrobus, 8th Baronet was a mistake because the editor denies it was included at all. A very weak article but, with its history, it shouldn't just be vanished. Thank you for thinking about the consequences of all this when very few people do. Thincat (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. That's precisely why I proposed having a guideline for such moves, unfortunately, it seems consensus is against me. This is more disheartening than many things I experienced here, including that recent failed RfB of mine. In this case, DrStrauss actually started a discussion (even if only after being advised to do so), so that's not as bad as the other cases. As I recently pointed out at WT:CSD, more than 400 such moves happened this month alone, that's approx. 5,500 articles being moved to draft space per year (and that's just the ones without redirects. Regards So Why 19:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the best to hope for is that someone does it maliciously on a large scale but even then maybe the individual will be blamed rather than the system. I came across a malicious example several years ago when an article personally unwelcome to an involved editor was quietly moved to the userspace of a retired user. Someone from WMF protested when the redirect was deleted so the thing was recovered. So, this has always been possible. I think a difference is that a group of people now feel they have an entitlement. Anyway, best wishes. Thincat (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 75#Keeping track of cross-space moves....

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 75#Keeping track of cross-space moves..... Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 11:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Someone brought at soft deletion you did to DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 August 29. Doesn't look like the nom informed you so I thought I should :) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Regards So Why 15:18, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for sorting out my issues with deletion sorting listing on Southamerican University... yes, it was me who originally listed them, my query was, why did it work when you listed them, and not when I listed them? I still can't see what I did differently or incorrectly, and I've put articles up for AfD before and never had this problem. I was just asking for another uninvolved pair of eyes to have a look and tell me what I did wrong. Anyway, it's all sorted now, so thank you very much for your help, hopefully we'll get some participation now. Richard3120 (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Richard3120: The question is probably how did you list them? Because you created the nomination with the notices already in place, so it does not look as if you used a script to add them. Regards So Why 13:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, that's probably it – sorry, I can write well enough, but I'm hopeless at anything related to writing software or coding, so maybe I should stick to writing articles... Thank you. Richard3120 (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

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

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Jamil Ahmed Nizamani

This article was about my profile.My name is Jamil Ahmed Nizamani.firstly this was not uploaded by me,I just made some editing.I think this article deleting is unfair.Reason is that this belongs to a person who is living and have done something in life.Nothing happens if you do not upload it.I do not need this.Millions of people have performed better than me in this world.it is really very awkward for a person requesting for uploading his profile.I feel compulsion to let you know,that I can add something more in this article about me.Every one is unique so i am.I am suffering from dystonia still managing my job,business.Keeping my self busy with different activities on internet.you must read my post on my English language blog's post Beginning of the world peace.I am the only surviving son of my parents.My parents gave birth to four special children,three passed away in their twenties,one of special sister is living with me.There is much more that world needs to know.its up to you what you do.whatever you do just please let me know about your views.And pleas clearly mention the reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnizamani (talk • contribs) 04:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jnizamani: The article was deleted because there were no reliable sources that establish notability. I can restore the article for you under the rules but unless you can provide such sources, it's likely to be deleted again. Thus I suggest you post some sources first and then I'll restore it. Regards So Why 11:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

You can read my ebook "Eleven words in English.This work is not published in hard form.you could help me to get it published.links for the book are available in the article.If I get recognition for my work,I have pendig books in my mind on group of words etc.My sindhi language blog contains 130 posts.I will keep writing it.Get it translated in English to understand it.I expect you wil review the article and restore it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnizamani (talk • contribs) 18:35, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Neither books nor blogs you publish are reliable sources. Please read the link. Also, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, so please do understand that we cannot publish your work. We can consider having a biography about you once reliable sources have started covering you. Regards So Why 20:06, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I am really very thankful to you for your positive response.If so let the article delete permanently I do not have any other reliable source according to your standard.Its good i learnt something from your logical discussion.Permanent deletion will keep me now more relaxed.please do it at once.This state of no where will keep my attention diverted.As you delete it permanently just let me know.I think after permanent deletion,google will not search it.Still it shows it in search.

No need of keeping this duplicate article dear sir

I want to bring this Afd to your notice which you relisted few days back, as you wanted to stop deletion as the film was going to release in some days and would have got coverages. I also participate at Afd to save worthy articles from deletion. But that article was a duplicate one, I have given brief explanation at that Afd. Anoptimistix (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Anoptimistix (talk) 13:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

See my reply at the AfD. I'm leaving the discussion open for people to consider this alternative. Regards So Why 13:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

How can I request that a page you soft deleted yesterday (9/5/17) be restored?

Hello SoWhy,

I visited a Wikipedia page yesterday (9/5/17) about Joe Herzenberg, the first openly gay official in the former U.S. Confederacy:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Joe_Herzenberg

and saw a notice at the top that it had been marked for deletion. Reading the rationale behind this proposed deletion, it appeared that the main problem was the article didn't meet Wikipedia's GNG standards. One reason for this was that the article linked to only one published obituary (from 2007) for Herzenberg, and ten years later that particular link is now dead. But living in Joe's adopted hometown of Chapel Hill, NC, I know there was substantial press coverage of Joe and his groundbreaking political career both while he was alive and at the time of his death in 2007. For example:

http://www.ibiblio.org/carrborocitizen/main/2007/11/01/obituary-joseph-a-herzenberg/

https://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/joe-herzenberg-1941-2007/Content?oid=1204878

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erik-ose/top-mccain-advisor-learne_b_138697.html

https://www.advocate.com/news/2007/10/31/north-carolinas-first-gay-elected-official-dies

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.obituaries/ugg6nL31dTI

http://andjusticeforall.dconc.gov/gallery_images/durhams-inaugural-pridefest/

http://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/out-and-elected/late-1980s/joe-herzenberg

I was in the process of creating a Wikipedia account today, planning to add some links to the article and comment on why I believed it shouldn't be deleted. By the time I got my account set up, you had already decided to soft delete it:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joe_Herzenberg

http://deletedwiki.com/index.php?title=Joe_Herzenberg

So if you could point me towards the exact page where I can request that this article be restored, that would be great. As a new user, this process is confusing. I'm not sure If I should be filing a request for undeletion or a deletion review:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion

or if I should be contacting you like this on your talk page. Please steer me in the right direction.

Thanks a lot,

Outforgood (talk) 05:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Outforgood: Since the article was soft-deleted, any admin can restore it upon request. I think the best solution would be to restore it to draftspace, a special place for unfinished articles to be worked on, so you can improve the article in peace (for six months). Then, when you are ready, add the code {{submit}} at the top to request a review by an experienced editor. You can find the article restored now at Draft:Joe Herzenberg. Happy editing and feel free to contact me again if you have more questions. Regards So Why 06:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

AfD help

Hi. An article which you soft deleted, Conphidance, was recreated. However, the same issues which led me to nominate it the first time still exist, so I nominated it the second time. However, something happened and it didn't pick up the first AfD, and now the link to AfD discussion leads to the closed first AfD discussion. Can you lend a hand, please? Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Onel5969: Not sure what went wrong. I used Twinkle and it worked as expected. You can find the correct nomination at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conphidance (2nd nomination) now. I cleaned up the rest. Might want to report this bug in page curation. Regards So Why 13:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the first time that's happened to me (although I don't do a lot of 2nd noms). Appreciate the help. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:55, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Siddharth Ramaswamy

Can you pleae tell me why do u delete Siddharth Ramaswamy article. All the details in that article was genuine and i given all the necessary reference links too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunanoop93 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Arunanoop93: Yes, I can: Because the community decided that it should be deleted, see this discussion. I could restore the article but unless you can demonstrate that significant coverage in reliable sources exists, it will most likely be re-deleted without the possibility to have it restored on request. So in order to avoid this, you might want to tell me what sources you have that cover Mr. Ramaswamy in detail without simply quoting him and I can tell you whether it makes sense to try again. Regards So Why 15:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi SoWhy I can send u reference links of Siddharth Ramaswamy

ImDb link^[1]
Article about him and his Movies^[2]
Tamilnadu State Award (2013) for best Cinemtographer ^[3]

I hope all these links are Reliable Sources. Kindly restore Mr Ramaswamy's article. this discussion The discussion shows its contain lot of peacock term . i assure i will re edit the article , once i got it back and i can add more reference links too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunanoop93 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Regards Arunanoop93 Arun Mohan 18:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC) Arun Mohan 17:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunanoop93 (talk • contribs)

References

@Arunanoop93: Thanks for the links. Unfortunately, IMDB is not considered a reliable source because - like Wikipedia - anyone can contribute. The second link might be a reliable source but it's not independent, because it only repeats what the subject has said (see also WP:SPIP) and thus will not be enough to establish notability. The third link does not mention him at all as far as I can tell (and even if it did, there is no "substantial" coverage). I restored the article per WP:REFUND as requested and placed it at Draft:Siddharth Ramaswamy. Draftspace is a special namespace that allows you to work on the article before submitting it again without fear of deletion (unless you abandon it). Once you are done, place {{submit}} on the article to have an experienced editor review it. Regards So Why 20:36, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Special:Diff/799873330

Hi Admin! It's OK if Basit Ali (singer) page has been deleted. But you removed his name from the page in this edit. I don't ask you more, but it is my request to re-add the name only. Thanks! M. Billoo 09:58, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@M.Billoo2000: Sure. Thanks for the heads-up. The script is designed to remove entries from stand-alone lists but sometimes it can't tell whether a page is such a list. Regards So Why 11:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Nimrod de Rosario

There were two deletes and one keep. Is this not enough to agree the article should be deleted? Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

@Contaldo80: AFD is not a vote, it's a discussion. You (and another editor) alleged the subject was not notable, another editor alleged that it was, neither side actually discussed this in-depth, in fact, no discussion happened for two weeks. Per WP:NOQUORUM, "no consensus" was a viable outcome. It seems, however, that the script swallowed my rationale, which included a link to WP:NPASR. I amended the close, feel free to renominate the article. Regards So Why 09:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes but hang on. The fact is that the individual opposed to the deletion did not engage in discussion. I can hardly have a discussion with myself. The individual is not notable and the other editor provided no detail to back up the claim of no notability. By closing the debate - rather than agreeing the article should be deleted - you've allowed an article to remain online where the individual is clearly not notable and the whole thing highly dubious. Two votes against and one in favour is close enough to consensus. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, the policy allows admins to close such discussions as no consensus with no prejudice against speedy relisting. Which is what I did. Your analysis that consensus was in favor of deletion might be influenced by the fact you were the one nominating the article for deletion, no? You are free to take it to deletion review if you believe the close should be overturned but honestly, just renominating the article seems easier to me. Regards So Why 12:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Declining speedy for Peerless SC

I had placed the speedy tag on Peerless SC because the club fails WP:FOOTYN. Peerless is a club based in Kolkata City which plays only in Calcutta Premier Division, which is not a national level cup or tournament. The club does not pass general notability criteria either. That's the reason I had placed a speedy delete for the same. Coderzombie (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Coderzombie: Please re-read WP:A7 which explicitly states that "significance or importance" is "a lower standard than notability". That a subject fails a notability guideline is not reason for speedy deletion, which you should know considering your experience and tenure. If it really fails notability criteria, consider merging it to the league's article or an article about the season per WP:ATD. Regards So Why 15:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Coderzombie: It doesn't have to pass general notability guidelines, just make a credible claim of significance, which it surly does. If you suspect a failure of SNG guides such as WP:FOOTY, you should file at WP:AFD, where, if the community supports your argument, it will indeed be deleted. FYI, I've watchlisted the page ;) — fortunavelut luna 15:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry SoWhy, I didn't get an edit-conflict there. — fortunavelut luna 15:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I had nominated for speedy delete because Comp-2 created multiple pages for the same club with the same content, so as a measure of cleanup, I nominated the page. But you're right, I'll PROD this first and failing that nominate for AfD. Coderzombie (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cryonic Temple

Sigh... I don't really want to put the time into this... but point me to the record label that this was supposed to be a part of. I think there's probably a lot more cleaning up to do there. TJW ^talk 12:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

That would be Limb Music, although with bands like Rhapsody of Fire the label is probably notable. PS: Nice new signature but the J is really hard to read, might want to try some spacing or different colors. Regards So Why 12:13, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Meh. My wife wanted me to request a name change. So don't worry, it should be entirely different on or around Monday. TJW ^talk 12:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm anxious to see what name you come up with ^^ Regards So Why 12:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

GreenMeansGo. Seems vaguely encouraging while being utterly meaningless. Just gotta wait for the usurp to go through. TJW ^talk 13:06, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Scott Quigley

Any chance you can move this deleted article into my userspace somewhere. Has now made two league appearances for Blackpool. I have a fairly detailed knowledge of The New Saints and Welsh Premier League, so from my userspace, I can clean up and expand whatever was done last time, and then create a new article? Thanks in advance Zanoni (talk) 19:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Zanoni: Sure, no problem. You can find it at User:Zanoni/Scott Quigley. Regards So Why 20:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)]

Thanks! - not much to go on - but will have a crack tomorrow! Zanoni (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comparison of CRM systems

So I noticed you deleted the addition of CRMNEXT. Can you let me know what was wrong about it? Refer to: 20:49, August 15, 2017 SoWhy (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (10,196 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (Removing link(s): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CRMNEXT closed as soft delete (XFDcloser)) Also the wiki page of CRMNEXT appears to have been deleted! This is a legitimate organization having a considerable presence in the CRM space in Banking Can you point me in the right direction?

Company site for reference: https://www.crmnext.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nik-Hill (talk • contribs) 09:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The article was deleted by SoWhy following the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CRMNEXT (where nobody showed up). It was restored, and then deleted again by RoySmith at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CRMNEXT (2nd nomination) where three people argued to delete it. That gives a consensus that the Wikipedia community does not want an article on this topic; if you want to challenge this, you will need to raise a deletion review. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marisa Lazo as delete. I request userification of the article and talk page. First, Lazo continues to be the subject of news coverage. This news article, on the general topic of "rooftopping", devotes several paragraphs to Lazo, calling her "Perhaps the highest profile example of this in Canada..."

When another crane-climbing incident occurred, in early August, the climber was an elderly homeless man who climbed the crane to protest the construction of luxury condos when many men like him had no housing at all. He explicitly distinguished his motives (protest) from those of Lazo, who the press dubbed "crane girl", who was apparently motivated by thrill-seeking.

I request userification to User:Geo Swan/Marisa Lazo. I request userification of the talk page, as well.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Good luck in creating something long-lasting! Regards So Why 16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Umm....

I noticed that on User talk:Citationhelper you stated that my signature does not contain a link to my user talk page, which indeed it does. perhaps there is something I missed, or you viewed an old signature of mine, but my signature is '''[[User:Citationhelper|'''''Citation''''''''''helper''''']]''' ([[User talk:Citationhelper|talk]]). Please tell me if I missed something or if there is something you want to elaborate on. Thanks for your time! Citationhelper ^(talk) 20:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Citationhelper: That was probably it. I noticed it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Ritchey and you probably changed it since then. Glad it works now. Regards So Why 20:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Content Verification

Hi Mr. SoWhy Previously i was created a bio article page in the name of Sooraj Palakkaran https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Sooraj_Palakkaran&action=edit&redlink=1. But unfortunately it was not verified, actually i insert all available reference link from different sources.So kindly give as a feedback or suggestion what was the exact problem occurred.Also i have to recreating the same article again what i will do for the same. -Vishnu-Wikiappu13 (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Wikiappu13: As you can read in the discussion that lead to the deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sooraj Palakkaran), the problem was that the references were not reliable sources (such as newspapers, books, academic journals etc.). In order to create an article about a subject, you need to prove that the subject has been the subject of substantial coverage in multiple such reliable sources. You can read an introduction to it at Wikipedia:Your first article#Gathering references. Regards So Why 07:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.imdb.com/name/nm1391250/

[2] ttp://www.studentfilmer.com/2015/10/13/shooting-a-period-film-on-tighter-budgets-this-man-has-answers/

[3] ttp://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/tn-govt-announces-tamil-film-awards-for-six-years/article19273078.ece

[1]

[2]

[3]

Tropical Forest

Edit Conflict just as the AfD was closed

RfB?

RfB thought

Thanks for the support!

A7 expansion discussion

A barnstar for you!

Candidacy

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

Your RfB

*grumbles*

Regarding Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

No edit conflict?

Using semi-automated tools for link removal

DJ Flash_2

Precious five years!

Your RfB

Mandingo

G13 RFC

Inflexibility

Reliability of Tubefilter and the deletion discussion for Steven Suptic

help needed

your assistance please...

Draft guidelines

Help relisting

Deletion of Barry R. Clarke page

Adoption

A barnstar for you!

DJ Flash

Can you help me make my page better?

Un deletion request for Yash Aradhya's page

can I see a deleted page?

DJ Flash_2

Tropical Forest

Edit Conflict just as the AfD was closed

RfB?

RfB thought

Thanks for the support!

A7 expansion discussion

A barnstar for you!

Candidacy

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

Your RfB

*grumbles*

Your RfB

Regarding Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Cathy Berry

afd bria r

DYK for Nasone

Speedy deletion

Moves from main space to draft space

Discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 75#Keeping track of cross-space moves....

FYI

Thank you

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

Jamil Ahmed Nizamani

No need of keeping this duplicate article dear sir

How can I request that a page you soft deleted yesterday (9/5/17) be restored?

AfD help

Declining speedy for Peerless SC

Comparison of CRM systems

Your assistance please...

Umm....

Content Verification

grumbles

grumbles