User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 71

Archive 65

←

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

→

Archive 75

Undelete request for "Keith St John"

Hello - can you please undo the deletion of User:Keith St John/sandbox . I will be working on editing the page as suggested and including the necessary published sources as references for validation.

Thank You very much and have a wonderful day.

Keith St John (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• I have restored this draft after discussion at REFUND and on my talk page. JohnCD (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@JohnCD: Thanks, I've been away, and sort of back but not really.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

About: Draft:Republic Metals Corporation deletion

Hi, I have taken note of this company through a silver stacking hobby. I research every mint company before purchasing anything from them and was wondering why Republic Metals Corporation did not have a page on Wikipedia. After looking into why there is no article, it seems that a bunch of people have tried and failed miserably to make this article (lol), so I figured I should step up to the plate for any fellow silver stackers looking for information on this company. I found that in order to make a draft for the Republic Metals Corporation article I must contact the one who deleted the draft page. You deleted the draft:Republic Metals Corporation ("21:52, 15 April 2016 Sphilbrick (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:Republic Metals Corporation (G 13 (TW))".) I am new to editing on here but my plan is to base the format of my new draft on existing articles of companies that are similar to Republic Metals Corporation. I imagine this method is what many people do when they first start out editing, and will ensure that the article stays neutral and follows all of Wikipedia's guidelines. How can I proceed to make the draft page? Thank you in advance. SilverStacks (talk) 18:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@SilverStacks: One of the reasons we ask you to check with the person who deleted the article is that in some cases the reasons for the deletion may result in some heads up concerns to pass along to you. That is not the case here. The draft was abandoned as a G 13 which roughly means someone worked on it and then gave up on it before it was ready. You should feel free to re-create a draft with that name.

If you haven't already I urge you to read:

Wikipedia:Your_first_article. It contains a lot of useful information.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Please Restore Draft:The Shade Store

Please restore The Shade Store draft page as I'd like to make edits and resubmit. Thank you, TSSawalker (talk) 19:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

@TSSawalker:  Done --S Philbrick(Talk) 19:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment

174.44.195.220 (talk) 01:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Category : List of HIV Positive people under the Miscellaneous heading, one person that has not been mention is Tracy Allen-Lee. She was a NYC EMT who got infected from a patient. She was and currently remains the only FDNY EMT or Paramedic to have a Work Relates HIV/AIDS infection and to have died fron that infection. She also is one the first NYC employees to have her HIV/AIDS infection covered by NY State Workers Comp. She died in August 1997.

New comments go at the bottom.

I did not see a cat with that name, but cat includes existing articles, and I do not see an article about Tracy Allen-Lee. The first step is to create such an article, if she is notable (which seems unlikely), then we can find what cats apply.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Please restore Draft:Michael Steinberg (lawyer)

I am requesting restoration of Draft:Michael Steinberg (lawyer), which you deleted per WP:G13. I intend to complete it and move it into mainspace. Thanks.--JayJasper (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@JayJasper:  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!--JayJasper (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

We have a problem...

The formatting on List of current NCAA Division I women's basketball coaches is now effed up, most likely from vandalism on a conference template. That means looking for a needle in a haystack. — Wyliepedia 10:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Found it pretty quickly. — Wyliepedia 10:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@CAWylie: Thanks, that was quick.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Elsword

I saw the Elsword page that it needs to be rewritten completely so I make something that anyone wouldn't do. The first step is REWRITE it from classes and characters. As for same content, it because I rewrote it to make it tidier, of course some content are tidy enough so I let it be. After that. I will delete all the (characters) contents in Elsword because I can't do it all day by myself. I rewrote it like for a whole day and I need a rest. It's not even 24 hours yet. --Yukinotane (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Yukinotane: Sorry but you cannot do that within Wikipedia. We do not permit copyright violations, even in old versions of articles even for a few seconds. You can do such things off-line but not online.

Not fully sure what you are intending to do but if you are talking about a major rewrite of an existing article, you should discuss it at the talk page of the existing article before going ahead. If I understand what you're trying to do it will take some time and would be a shame for you to put in all that work and then have someone disagree with the approach.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

You see, I was trying to help to make a better article. The last time someone wrote something on the discussion page was 1 year and a half ago so no, I'd rather taking an action than waiting for a reply a year later. This is my opinion, you are free to not agree or deleting the page, I don't care anymore, sorry. But I already moved all the similar contents in the original page and tidying up the page a bit and the initial problem should be solved now. Thanks. --Yukinotane (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Noël Coward talk page closure

Dear Sphilbrick, would you please review this closure? Note Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox (and the related Talk page), where editors have set up a WikiProject whose goal is to force infoboxes into articles over the objections of the principal content contributors. Why would the closing adminn give content contributors' opinions less credence than a band of editors who go around trying to force infoboxes into articles? It seems to me clearly a violation of the spirit of the Arbcom infobox case. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: Sorry, but I won't be able to. There are a couple reasons for this, which I decline to elaborate (none of which involve you). Sorry.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Anyhow, feel free to comment at the Talk page either way. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Undelete Request "Ahmedalalousi"

Hi, My personal page was deleted despite contest and feedback. Grateful if you could review the responses provided and restore the page accordingly, whether unmodified or with highlighted objections which could be addressed as edits. Cheers, Ahmedalalousi (talk) 22:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ahmedalalousi: You should not think of it as your personal page, which could include general information about you but as your user page. It should be discussing you as an editor. In particular see WP:UP#NOT--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Which is a bit difficult when all my previous edits and contributions have disappeared subsequent to a renaming request. I'm going to have another stab at inserting a new page to see where this gets. Grateful if you could restore the page on that understanding, and I'll get down onto the sanitisation exercise. Still confused about how the page violated policy, when numerous other pages of similar, far more 'bold' personal promotion content remain out there in the WikiPedia wild. Cheers, Ahmedalalousi (talk) 07:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand your statement that your previous edits have disappeared due to renaming. While I'm not active in the renaming process my understanding is that the history is generally preserved (with a special exception for editors with over some large number such as 100,000 edits but I don't think that applies here). If it was abandonment of an old account and creation of a new name, you should have access to the old user page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I asked for a renaming of my old account, which was done, but with it all my old edits and accolades received for quality edits ..etc disappearing; this is an issue I intend to pursue separately, and any help appreciated of course. Now back to the subject matter of my personal page: if you could please restore it, then I will affect any edits that are upsetting the policy as stated, even though I don't believe them to be violations. Thanks in advance -- Ahmedalalousi (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, you look like an editor with one edit to an actual article and multiple edits to your user page. Some leeway is given to editors with many thousands of edits to include some personal, non-Wikipedia information on their user page, although it is still expected to be predominantly Wikipedia related. At the moment, you are a long way from that point. If you resolve your other issue, and I see that you do have many thousands of edits, I'll reconsider, but not now. Feel free to ask someone else.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:44, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Philbrick: You know what? I have better things to do with life and time ...etc. I'll re-do the personal page with different content, lame enough, and let this be a show to the rest of the community of how a supposedly open and collaborative community effort gave birth to yet another information Frankenstein. Ahmedalalousi (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Studentuniverse-logo reduced resolution.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Studentuniverse-logo reduced resolution.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me like it is being used.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) The logo was changed to a larger version. I reverted back to this smaller one. — JJMC89 (T·C) 18:37, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@JJMC89: Thanks for the explanation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 18

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 18, June–July 2016
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

• New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
• Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
• TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
• OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Read the full newsletter

The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Anand Sharma

Would you RD1 again, please (link to history). Thanks, — Sam Sailor 13:20, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor:  Done --S Philbrick(Talk) 13:31, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I suppose www.oecd.org/mcm2010/45216240.pdf is copyrighted; anyway, IP continues to copy-paste in the article. PC? — Sam Sailor 13:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Creating Page for Kimberly Ellis

Hi, I am hoping to create a page that has already been deleted once for Kimberly Ellis, frontrunner in the race for Chair of the Democratic Party and executive director of Emerge California. Can you please allow me to edit the draft of the previously deleted page so I can add sources and content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kglastimosa (talk • contribs) 22:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kglastimosa:  Done Draft:Kimberly_Ellis--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Good afternoon, is there anything else I can do with the Kimberly Ellis page to assure that it gets up and running as soon as possible? Best, Kglastimosa (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)Kassandra

@Kglastimosa: I'm not the best person to ask, try the wp:teahouse where experienced editors specialize in helping new editors.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Placeholder

Hi, a few month ago you have deleted a draft of mine. I would like to work on it again. it was: draft: Sam N. lehman Wilzig. can you please help me do it? thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chen s.b.p (talk • contribs) 21:56, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@Chen s.b.p:  Done (It wasn't draft: Sam N. lehman Wilzig, but it was Draft:Sam N. Lehman-Wilzig )--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Undelete Request - Virgin Islands National Park

I'm by no means any sort of expert, but I am trying to make good faith efforts to fix the incomplete and outdated VINP page. Could you undelete and assist with specific parts that violate guidelines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 303dk (talk • contribs) 16:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@303dk:No, I cannot undelete copyright violations.

I provided explanations (on your talk page) of how to properly copy material within Wikipedia.

Some additional advice is on this page Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

1992 Molson Indy Toronto and 1993 Molson Indy Toronto

72.23.100.102 (talk) 19:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Can you create the 1992 Molson Indy Toronto and 1993 Molson Indy Toronto pages? Thanks.

Create? Like, from scratch? No. If you mean restore a deleted article, there is no such deleted article. I deleted a talk page, but there was no article.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Please consider creating an account.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:56, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

72.23.100.102 (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)What can I do at this point.72.23.100.102 (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Create an account. Wikipedia:Why create an account? --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As an aside, I recently read an exchange (unfortunately did not retain the link) where one editor was accusing another editor of treating anonymous editors differently than registered editors. My oversimplified view is that there are some situations where I think an edit by an anonymous editor ought to be treated with exactly the same respect as the identical edit by a registered editor. However, there are other situations where I feel differently. If you have a registered account, I can probably help you. If you choose not to create an account that's your call.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

MORT (long non-coding RNA)

Hello Sphilbrick, I have completely rewritten the article, as suggested, quite a while ago, the rewrite is available at Talk:MORT_(long_non-coding_RNA)/Temp, others contributed. Could you check it please, approve it and move it where it belongs? Thanks! ElmonstruodeGila (talk) 22:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@ElmonstruodeGila: Sorry, but I don't feel comfortable doing that. To nominate an existing draft or user sandbox for review, add the code {{subst:submit}} to the top of the draft or sandbox page. --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, done!ElmonstruodeGila (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

philly public defender

Thanks for your flag on Defender Association of Philadelphia. I have now addressed the copyright concerns and the speedy removal can be removed. Thanks! --JumpLike23 (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jumplike23:  Done--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

only one month?

Even Doc supported an indefinite block - drawing the line only at a CBan, and The ed said the next block would be for more than one month - so I am surprised at the one month block imposed at AN/I ... ah well. Engleham will let loose in a flash, I am sure. Please keep an eye out though. Thank you. Collect (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Far less than I expected, but I'll try to focus on the positive - the dissents were on the details, not the substance. If they return and keep their nose clean, well, that's good, but if not, a much longer block will be forthcoming.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Misfiled speedies

Hello. Just a heads up that I saw you take out four articles on my watchlist (two articles at AfD and apparently db-hoaxed, one a db-copyvio, one a db-corp) in the space of a minute last night, and all with the explanation "G 13", which wasn't appropriate to any of them. Not questioning that they had to go, but I guess you misclicked something when pulling the lever. I don't know if it's worth cleaning up so that future generations know that an article went because it was a hoax or a copyvio (or if other, more confusing speedies got processed in the same way in that minute). --McGeddon (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I screwed up and still don't know quite what I did wrong, although I have some guesses. I must have had two tabs open, one with all CSDs and one with only G13s. I normally open all the G13s, verify that they are valid, and then delete as a group. I opened a few, then saw that some were not G13s, so must have selected them from the wrong queue.

I restored both, so they can be properly deleted. I agree that is the best course.

I checked the others I deleted about that time, and the others appear to be legitimate G13s.

Thanks for letting me know.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: Sorry, forgot to ping you. --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:45, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries, good to see things fixed. --McGeddon (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Kéda Black

Hi there,

could you please restore this article? I've created and developed a bit his French equivalent, so I would like to do the same on English Wikipedia. NAH 10:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC).

It was a single sentence - which I has reproduced here:

Kéda Black, born in Mwami (Zambia) 23 May 1976, is a French food writer of Scottish extraction.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you; so I can restore it myself? NAH 18:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC).

@Nomen ad hoc: You can recreate it, as long as you improve it adequately. But you really ought to start in draft space, unless you plan a massive edit.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:51, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

LixiLan

Hi Sphil,

Can you undo your deletion of LixiLan? I'm not 100% sure what the context was for the nominator to call it advertising to being with, but I'm guessing the problem was lack of references. I'll insert a few more if you undelete.

Thanks! NickCT (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT:  Done I restored the article and moved it to a user sub page. User:NickCT/LixiLan I encourage you to check with the nominator — it definitely was not a lack of references.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: - Thanks! Is the language advert-y? Seems neutral to me. But regardless, it can be reworked. NickCT (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT: @Jytdog: had a stronger opinion - I concurred but checking with Jytdog will be helpful.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: - I don't see where Jytdog left his opinion. Regardless, in reviewing our combination drug category, it seems we have a de facto naming convention for these things. It looks like I shouldn't have used the tradename. NickCT (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT: see this diff--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: - Do you see an explanation in that diff as to why he feels it's advertisement? NickCT (talk) 16:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be best to ask Jytdog.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Guess so.... NickCT (talk) 16:31, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

NickCT the two sources for that article are a) a press release and b) a reuters article that basically repeats the press release with the tiniest bit of addition reporting (the rosy sales projections). The underlying science discussed was a conference presentation, something we don't use for content about health at all, and we generally don't add content about clinical trial results at all, and never based on press releases. The press release notes that the results were "statistically significant" but that is a very different thing from clinically significant. Based on these sources, we don't know if this drug combination is going to be something really amazing/transformative for the field of diabetes or just a me-too drug that regulators might not even approve and that doctors might not even use, or something in between. The notion that the drug will be approved next year is 100% WP:CRYSTALBALL. This stub is all hype. Bad for WP but great for Sanofi's shareholders, who might see a bump in price based on this hype. It shouldn't exist yet. Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: - Thanks for clarifying your position. Agree that it's not clear whether LixiLan will be amazing or transformative. That said, I'd question whether that matters. What matters for WP is notability, right? Even a drug that fails in clinical trials should still have an article if the drug was notable (i.e. if enough sources have noted it). NickCT (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

As a postscript, I might agree that the two sources that were initially on the article were insufficient to establish notability. But I'm still not sure why that would lead one to assume it's advertising. I don't make this drug. Why would I be advertising it? Seems a little nonsensical. NickCT (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

As a post-postscript, maybe we should go the relevant talkpage to avoid cluttering Sphilbrick's talkpage. NickCT (talk) 19:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

right now it needs TNT for being 100% hype. And a press release and a lightly dressed press release do not = N. I don't know why you add content hyping health news like this to WP - you do it pretty often (I could find diffs but I am not looking for drama - I do wish you would be more conservative when you write about health and use higher quality sources. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Little confused on what "100% hype" means. Could you point to policy that warns against "100% hype"?

re "dressed press release do not = N" - Right. That's what I said about possibly not having established notability. re "I don't know why you add content hyping health news like this to WP" - Perhaps because I work in the industry and find this type of thing interesting and notable? I think you'll probably find that folks have a tendenancy to add/edit articles according to their profession/education (i.e. folks with backgrounds in history more likely to edit history articles).

But regardless, I think we should focus on the content and whether we feel the content is notable or not. If you honestly feel it's not notable, I encourage you take this to AfD. AfD is a good forum for determining notability. It might be a good discussion.

May be worth noting that I don't think we have a specific policy governing when a drug becomes notable or not. Maybe we can start a conversation about developing policy at AfD? NickCT (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I work in the industry too and i understand very well what is notable from a business and medical perspective and I understand the use of press releases to calm or stoke investors, which has nothing - nothing - to do with what we are about here in WP. But when I work in WP my work is driven by what very strong sources say and what our mission is - which is to communicate accepted knowledge to the public - enduring, encyclopedic content is the goal. Hype over phase III results of a drug that has already been rejected once by regulators and that Sanofi very much needs to succeed, is just bad editing. In general a drug is notable when there are MEDRS sources that have something meaningful to say - not ^&%$ press releases. ffs. Jytdog (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure your understanding of things establishes notability. We should use strong sources. Yes I agree press releases aren't strong sources. Yes we should try to improve the sourcing. No, having poor sourcing doesn't make something advertising. Nor does it mean that good sources don't exist. If you'd wanted it sourced better, you should have said "this should be sourced better", and not gone spouting off about advertising.

re "communicate accepted knowledge to the public" - Can you point to a single line in the article I created where I'm not presenting "accepted knowledge"?

re "encyclopedic content is the goal" - Examples of drug development efforts, failed or successful strike me as "encyclopedic content".

re "drug that has already been rejected once by regulators and that Sanofi very much needs to succeed" - I sense anti-Sanofi vibes. NickCT (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't answer you above - the policies that bar "100% hype" are WP:PROMO as well as WP:NPOV; basing WP content - and even a whole article - on a press release and a lightly dressed news piece based on the press release is a recipe for generating content that violates PROMO and NPOV. About drug development - there is in general encyclopedic content one could write about the business and scientific challenges of drug development for any specific drug, and WP needs more of it in my view; the badly sourced thing you created in WP is not a meaningful discussion of drug development - it is just investor hype. Please do read WP:NOTNEWS and WP:PROMO and WP:CRYSTALBALL, each of which is part of the policy, WP:NOT. Please do read NOT - it defines the mission here. Please read WP:MEDRS which governs sources for content about health (the claim that there are "positive" Ph III results is a health claim) - the sources you have brought are about as far from OK under MEDRS as one can get. Please read WP:MEDMOS which defines what content an article about a drug should have. Please let me know when you have read that stuff - you can me ping me on your talk page or start a discussion on mine. I wish there were more people who understood the biotech/pharma business who were active on WP and grounded in the mission and policies, but the content you are generating and sources you are using so far are just not OK. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Please restore Draft:Stephen Aiello

I am requesting restoration of Draft:Stephen Aiello, which you deleted per WP:G13on 28 August 2016 . I intend to complete it and send it for publication. Thank you. Atrialbyfire (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

@Atrialbyfire:  Done --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Atrialbyfire (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Sphilbrick. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP & AfC

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)