User talk:A Train

Since 2005

Archive I (Feb-July 2005) • Archive II (1 August 2005 - 8 August 2005) • Archive III (9 August 2005 - 21 August 2005) • Archive IV (21 August 2005 - 26 August 2005) • Archive V (27 August 2005 - 11 September 2005) • Archive VI (12 September 2005 - 14 September 2006) • Archive VII (15 September 2006 - 1 March 2007) • Archive VIII (2 March 2007 - 12 May 2007) • Archive IX (12 May 2007 - 19 October 2007) • Archive X (19 October 2007 - 8 August 2016) • Archive XI (9 August 2016 - 7 May 2017) • Archive XII (10 May 2017 - 25 July 2017) • Archive XIII (25 July 2017 - 20 December 2017)> • Archive XIV (23 December 2017 - 24 May 2018)

This user may have left Wikipedia. A Train has not edited Wikipedia for a considerable amount of time. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Hello. With regards to this thread, is it normal for admins to consider one specific violation at a time (or in this case, a tangent of a specific violation such that even the violation itself went ignored)? Evidently, it seems multiple PA violations, as well as RS, NPOV, FRINGE, and 3RR violations went ignored, while only a tangent of one specific violation was considered. One could say this is comparable to a criminal committing break-in, rape, murder, and robbery, but the criminal is only charged with breaking a plate. For future reference, do admins as a matter of policy consider only one violation (or a tangent of a violation) at a time even if a post contains quite a number of reported violations? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousSam11 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, drop the stick. When you notice that absolutely no one agrees with you, that's usually a good moment to re-examine your position. A Train^talk 00:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"No one agrees" being you and the accused. Just to make it clear, are you stating that calling me a "genocide denier" (for civilly correcting incorrect fringe-theory information), a "lunatic" (in response to being proven wrong by hard factual data), among other personal attacks is okay? Breaking other rules, including 3RR where there's no subjectiveness, is okay? Are you saying that breaking 5 different rules repeatedly is acceptable? I'd appreciate straight-forward answers to these questions, because it appears that sometimes rules are enforced and sometimes they're not. What I'm understanding from you is that I can call someone a lunatic for no reason, and you would be fine with that.

I'd just like to understand what the policy is, as it appears to be subjective, and ignoring all violations and focusing on a specific tangent of one (and still misinterpreting it) is particularly disingenuous. I'd imagine that even if an admin does not enforce the rules, they would still be able to explain them. SeriousSam11 (talk) 07:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SeriousSam11, here's a working link to the archived ANI discussion. I strongly suggest that you read it again. Several experienced users (ie, not just me and "the accused" — there's a term you stop using if you want to be taken seriously) chimed in. Not a single one of them found any merit in your accusations. Several of them suggested to you that you stop digging yourself deeper.

Bullet points for maximum clarity:

• None of the experienced uninvolved editors at ANI (including but not limited to @John from Idegon, Tarage, and NinjaRobotPirate:) thought that your accusations of racism had any merit. All of them suggested that you drop the stick and walk away.
• You have repeatedly made a claim that TTAAC has broken 3RR without supplying diffs to that effect.
• You brought a content dispute to ANI. That is not what ANI is for. (That 'is' what Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is for, btw.)
• I did you a favour by closing your ANI report before it led to your block for disruption. If you continue tilting at this particular windmill, casting aspersions at me and others, then I will bring us back to the previous course.

Please take a time out and return to Talk:Halabja chemical attack with an open mind, and re-consider your position in light of the policies that other editors are citing. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and if you can't meaningfully collaborate with users who don't hold the same opinions as you, then you will have a very difficult, frustrating time here.

Thanks for your energy and enthusiasm, but you really need to redirect it in a direction that isn't wasting other volunteers' time. A Train^talk 09:09, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go one step further. Drop it or I'll go back to ANI and ask for a topic ban. --Tarage (talk) 09:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing. I have been collaborating well. Aside from me is a user who responds to factual data and evidence in response to unreliable sourcing and conjecture, with 1) personal attacks, 2) RS/NPOV/FRINGE/OR violations, and 3) edit warring (I did supply the diff where the user started edit warring on the thread, unless you're asking for something else entirely) that has proven to be less than ideal.

This focus on racism is misleading. The user was making personal attacks, whether or not you consider any racist undertones. And assuming someone's nationality/ethnicity in conjunction with an insult is almost always regarded as having racial undertones. Why would the user automatically assume I am Iraqi (then followed by an insult)? Again, the racist undertones are just a tangent to things such as "genocide denier" and "lunatic" among other things, which are insults and which still seem to go ignored. If a user responds to enhancing the reliability and NPOV of an article with insults, that's certainly absurd.

Having worked with current and former Reddit employees and also 2 former admins here, the difference in moderation is apparent, to say the least. Here, it appears everything in a case can be ignored except a small, misconstrued part of the overall case. There, everything is taken into consideration, especially on the largest (default) subreddits where I have moderated. Having played and being told I've played an integral role in building up the fourth most trafficked site in the US is certainly not a small matter.

Tarage: I cannot say I am surprised that a user very well-known on this site for attacking people has to chime in. Are you also stalking me? I advise to re-consider this behavior. Your activities on Wikipedia are largely relegated to attacking users and making threats. If you get your kicks from bashing people in order to assuage whichever maladies you may be suffering from, this isn't the place for it.

In any case, I have dropped the matter. I was simply asking for clarification on site policy, and I received about as decent a response as could be expected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeriousSam11 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally attack me again and I'll report you. --Tarage (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you don't like how we do things here on Wikipedia, Sam. We'll do our best to soldier on without you. A Train^talk 21:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Appealing a block. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the links to Goldmoney from Draft:Kelvin Al-Kasil Roy and Kelvin Roy. Just so you know, the two do not represent the same person. IPs have been copying the draft article on top of Kelvin Roy the past year.--Auric talk 14:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Auric. I closed the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Goldmoney AfD and had the automated script unlink all the backlinks, so if I did anything above and beyond there it was through sheer coincidence. If you're having any sustained problems with IP editors at that article let me know and I can semi-protect it if appropriate. A Train^talk 16:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In the Pedro Perebal afd your deletion explanation was "Insufficient sourcing for a BLP, and a textbook WP:BLP1E as User:Joe_Roe argues". Can you tell me what is your threshold for sufficient sourcing for BLP? And how do you apply WP:BLP1E (notability for one event) if the reason I created the article was due to the subject's notability for its achievement of learning by himself several languages being a security guard and not because he is related to any event? Thinker78 (talk) 02:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thinker78, I'm sorry your article was deleted — I know myself how frustrating that can be.

BLP concerns are taken very seriously and trump almost everything else on Wikipedia. To understand how BLP1E applies, you need to think about this from the perspective of the media coverage (which all comes from a brief period of time), and not Mr Perebal's process of learning languages (which took many years). If you think of the references that the article used, they all arose from a single period of publicity from early April to early May, as the story of Mr Perebal's achievement percolated through the media around the world.

If Mr Perebal runs for president of Guatemala in 2019, or if he writes a best-selling book on self-improvement through language learning, then there will be substantial media coverage of him beyond just that about the one event that made him briefly famous. Put it another way, it is too soon to know if Mr Perebal will be a noteable figure in the future.

All the best, A Train^talk 08:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. Can you clarify what would be sufficient sourcing for BLP for you? And you keep mentioning "an event". What event are you talking about? Thinker78 (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thinker78. The event we're talking about is the round of media interviews and human interest stories about Mr Perebal that appeared roughly around April-May 2018. If, in the future, there is additional significant media coverage of Mr Perebal for another reason, then you would have a slam dunk case for writing an article about him. A Train^talk 19:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really think you are misusing the term "event" in this one. It doesn't appear very reasonable saying that media interviews are an event that made Perebal notable, of course media interviews make people notable but saying that the media interviews themselves are an event that made people notable is stretching it past the breaking point in my view. Perebal is notable because he learned many foreign languages by himself working as a security guard in Guatemala in a seedy part of town. That makes him notable and that's why he got the round of media interviews. He is not a participant in any event that made him notable. Thinker78 (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, I've been around for a little while and closed more than a couple of AfDs. I'm pretty sure I've got this one right. But you seem quite committed to this article. If you want, I will reopen the AfD for another week and restore the article so folks can look it over.

If you opt for this, I would not get your hopes up. I would be very surprised if the discussion suddenly swung towards keeping the article, and you're just going to be disappointed all over again. But I'm happy to leave it up to you. Do you want me to re=-open and relist the discussion? A Train^talk 20:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be nice. Well, yes, if you give me the option to reopen the afd discussion I take it. I think transcribing this talk page discussion there would be helpful to other editors too. But tbh you left me wondering about your reasoning for labeling the subject as related to an event. I try not to take dogmatic positions but I thoroughly defend the positions I take and I challenge other's positions. If I feel my position is untenable I change opinion and adopt the other person's position. You can see an example of that in this Requested move discussion in the talk page of the article Cold-stimulus headache, discussion in which I worked many hours, between pondering, writing and investigating, ultimately changing my opinion. Thinker78 (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Thinker78, I have restored the article and relisted the deletion discussion. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to close the debate again, so this is where I get off. Bon courage, I hope you are satisfied with the ultimate result. A Train^talk 07:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the relisting! Thinker78 (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I understand. There has been so much back and forth over this topic for so long that I'm refusing even to get involved now. Bobo. 18:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't blame you. I have no specific interest in the subject matter but I was coincidentally involved in some of the AfD's last year and I remember how acrimonious it got. Be well, Bobo. A Train^talk 19:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the AfD of Jasmine Directory. Even if I do have a decent experience of editing on Wikipedia I don't want to touch the article ever again to avoid any possible issues. All my proposals went through using the edit request template and obviously I plan to do so in the future as well when needed. The live version of the page is reviewed by a few independent editors (diff) and ce, cleanup, NPOV were addressed as well. So, I was wondering if you could remove the COI and notability tag, because I suppose I am not allowed to (I'd prefer not to edit at all the article). Thank you! Robertgombos (talk) 21:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robertgombos, it's great that you understand that it's better not to edit in areas where you have an interest or even the appearance of one. Given that I closed the AfD maybe it's better if someone else assesses the tags on the articles. All the best, A Train^talk 23:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks! Robertgombos (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source: cartasdecuba.com: article in spanish language: Espana acelerara entrega de ciudadania a los cubanos. The Spanish ambassador in Cuba said "casi 150,000" "almost 150,000". Thanks. Cgx8253.

User:Cgx8253, thank you very much for getting back to me—after Googling I have found the article in question. It's very important that you start adding links to specific articles that you're citing when you're making edits. Otherwise your fellow volunteers have to burn a lot of their (and your) time asking you for more details and then hunting down the articles to verify that your changes are accurate and come from reliable sources. I'm not trying to discourage you, because I know that you're trying to be helpful, but in fact, many of your edits end up getting removed, and you are actually creating more work for other volunteers.

Please start including links to your references—even if you don't know how to format them into footnotes, you can just put them between square brackets to make links. Thanks again, A Train^talk 23:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hidden the edit summary from this edit of yours. I'm sure you were frustrated and just venting, but it really wasn't appropriate. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You thought “pick another hill to die on” was inappropriate? Have you not heard the expression before? I’m genuinely surprised. A Train^talk 23:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. My apologies. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Welcome to Women in Red's June 2018 worldwide online editathons. New: WiR Loves Pride New: Singers and Songwriters New: Women in GLAM New: Geofocus: Russia/USSR Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:15, 29 May 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikipe-tan. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello A Train, you closed the discussion as "Delete" and did the link cleanup, but the article itself wasn't deleted. Could you double-check the processing please? Just noticed this minor hickup while scanning through some related articles :). Thank you for looking into this. GermanJoe (talk) 19:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, GermanJoe. Thanks for the heads-up. :) A Train^talk 20:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

None

Al Ameer son • AliveFreeHappy • Cenarium • Lupo • MichaelBillington

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful request for comment, administrators are now able to add and remove editors to the "event coordinator" group. Users in the event coordinator group have the ability to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit. Users will no longer need to be in the "account creator" group if they are in the event coordinator group.
• Following an AN discussion, all pages with content related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, are now under indefinite general sanctions.

Technical news

• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in June. This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.
• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team will build granular types of blocks in 2018 (e.g. a block from uploading or editing specific pages, categories, or namespaces, as opposed to a full-site block). Feedback on the concept may be left at the talk page.
• There is now a checkbox on Special:ListUsers to let you see only users in temporary user groups.
• It is now easier for blocked mobile users to see why they were blocked.

Arbitration

• A recent technical issue with the Arbitration Committee's spam filter inadvertently caused all messages sent to the committee through Wikipedia (i.e. Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee) to be discarded. If you attempted to send an email to the Arbitration Committee via Wikipedia between May 16 and May 31, your message was not received and you are encouraged to resend it. Messages sent outside of these dates or directly to the Arbitration Committee email address were not affected by this issue.

Miscellaneous

• In early May, an unusually high level of failed login attempts was observed. The WMF has stated that this was an "external effort to gain unauthorized access to random accounts". Under Wikipedia policy, administrators are required to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Legobot (talk) 07:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello A Train, I noticed that you closed this AfD as delete and deleted all redirects, talk pages, etc. but not the main page itself. Would you mind taking some time to do so? Regards, JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JTP, thanks for catching that. Second time in a week that's happened; I'll file a bug report with the developer of XFD Closer. A Train^talk 15:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out that Don Greene 1 (talk · contribs) is likely a sock of Dan Jones 3 (talk · contribs). If you will look at the edit summaries for both users, they seemed to have blanked a number of sock case investigation pages.--IanDBeacon (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, IanDBeacon; if there's an SPI at some point I'll remember that. A Train^talk 20:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:A Train, thanks. I've just opened an SPI. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dan Jones 3--IanDBeacon (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I ask an intervention for a case of serious conflict of interest.

Recently I edited the pages Templeton Foundation and Fenggang Yang.

There is User:Phoenixhill, who I am 100% sure is Fenggang Yang himself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fenggang_Yang), who continues to delete large sourced parts of the text in Templeton Foundation, a organization with which he is related, and add allegations that academics who have criticised him are "Communists" in the article Fenggang Yang (as written in the talk page of the article, many of them are not Communists at all). Page 1, page 2, his talk page.

He has already been reverted by multiple users. The most disturbing thing is that he insinuates that I am an agent of the Chinese Communist Party and I am "not qualified to make the editing until you have done your reading and homework". I am an unknown independent person who just happens to be knowledgeable in these topics.

Here another discussion about user Phoenixhill (which started from his insinuation that I am a Communist agent).--Amorphophallus Titanum (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Admin, can you please unlock this module: Module:Location map/data/Nepal, so I can update the location map? Or can you change the location map on this module?--- 👤Raju💌 04:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Raju, what's the change you want to make? A Train^talk 06:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your reply, I requested you to unlock the module to make some changes but it is already done. Now no need to unlock. Thank you___ 👤Raju💌 06:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Would you look again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COSCO fleet lists. The nom and my support make two clear deletes. Eggishorn's Drafity means remove from mainspace, which equals a delete rather than a keep. Nosebagbear does not make a comment in favour of either keep or delete, he says that notability is an issue, but if sources could be found then he would !vote keep. There are no keep comments, and certainly no keep arguments. Murgatroyd49 is unclear on the process, and is mainly asking questions (such as should he move the list to the main article) - he makes no keep comment or argument, seeming in doubt himself if the list is notable. I put forward policy based arguments which were not rebuted (if you look at Murgatroyd49's comments he is asking for clarification on points I raise, and then makes an error in understanding that we can't rely on primary sources for notability). Numerically it is Delete 2, Draft/Userfy 1, Keep 0. And there is a "reasonable, logical, policy-based argument" for delete - per WP:CLOSEAFD. The main decision to make is to either delete or to userfy to Murgatroyd49's userspace. There are other options available at WP:SOFTDELETE, such as redirecting to the main article (COSCO), though I don't think any of those are appropriate for this situation. I would not object to userifying to Murgatroyd49's userspace. SilkTork (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, SilkTork: I re-read the debate this morning and I think my interpretation of the consensus is correct. A Train^talk 06:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement is fine. Would you explain your rationale so I can understand your thinking? If you can point out either a keep vote or a valid keep argument I've missed, we can discuss the matter. If you prefer not to discuss it further, no worries, just let me know and I'll go to WP:DELREV. SilkTork (talk) 08:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Enforceability of logged voluntary editing restrictions. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor, Would it be possible to userfy the article on Ammar Campa-Najjar so I can bring it back up to speed? Ammar Campa Najjar is a candidate running for Congress in California's 50th District and he already won the primary and the Democratic nomination. Although winning a primary does not automatically make one notable, in this case he is notable because he has a serious chance to win. The article about him that you deleted did not have any BLP violations, and should be userfied so it can be put back up. - User:Narayansg

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		Hello again from Women in Red! July 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: Sub-Saharan Africa Film + stage 20th-century Women Rock Continuing: Notable women, broadly-construed! Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Are we losing momentum? London calling (the Mayor of London!) Publication about Wikipedia's coverage of women mathematicians Women in Red is featured in Toolhub
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alt-right. Legobot (talk) 04:30, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes

Andrevan • EVula

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about the deletion of drafts closed with a consensus to change the wording of WP:NMFD. Specifically, a draft that has been repeatedly resubmitted and declined at AfC without any substantial improvement may be deleted at MfD if consensus determines that it is unlikely to ever meet the requirements for mainspace and it otherwise meets one of the reasons for deletion outlined in the deletion policy.
• A request for comment closed with a consensus that the {{promising draft}} template cannot be used to indefinitely prevent a WP:G13 speedy deletion nomination.

Technical news

• Starting on July 9, the WMF Security team, Trust & Safety, and the broader technical community will be seeking input on an upcoming change that will restrict editing of site-wide JavaScript and CSS to a new technical administrators user group. Bureaucrats and stewards will be able to grant this right per a community-defined process. The intention is to reduce the number of accounts who can edit frontend code to those who actually need to, which in turn lessens the risk of malicious code being added that compromises the security and privacy of everyone who accesses Wikipedia. For more information, please review the FAQ.
• Syntax highlighting has been graduated from a Beta feature on the English Wikipedia. To enable this feature, click the highlighter icon () in your editing toolbar (or under the hamburger menu in the 2017 wikitext editor). This feature can help prevent you from making mistakes when editing complex templates.
• IP-based cookie blocks should be deployed to English Wikipedia in July (previously scheduled for June). This will cause the block of a logged-out user to be reloaded if they change IPs. This means in most cases, you may no longer need to do /64 range blocks on residential IPv6 addresses in order to effectively block the end user. It will also help combat abuse from IP hoppers in general. For the time being, it only affects users of the desktop interface.

Miscellaneous

• Currently around 20% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 17% a year ago. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless if you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 04:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		An exciting new month for Women in Red! August 2018 worldwide online editathons: New: Indigenous women Women of marginalized populations Women writers Geofocus: Bottom 10 Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Notable women, broadly-construed! For the first time, this month we are trying out our Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in August. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Hey, one of the pages I created named 'Syed Shah Abdul Haq Gilani' was recently deleted after nomination for speedy deletion. This person who nominated it for speedy deletion had no sort of know-how on the subject and accepted the fact too. It is a request if the page is restored or the content's emailed to me for improvement so I could make a new page regarding the same person.

Thanks! Zaydbinumar (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of COSCO fleet lists. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SilkTork (talk) 08:13, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is something suspicious happening repeatedly. The same Spanish user 'SAVH' has managed to delete an article that was previously by consensus approved by a board of English WP users and administrators after 4 nominations for deletion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artur_Balder_(4th_nomination)). The recurring situation has all the odd looks of a persistent 'sham' and 'hate', and I think someone has to do something to clarify this.

If you analyze the voting, at least one of the 'delete' votes comes from the Spanish WP, and had been previously involved in similar polemics in favor and coordination very often with 'Savh'. On the other hand, there are a tone of arguments against the deletion, it is just very strange. The user 'Savh' acknowledges direct contact via twitter with a journalist, and exposes all reasons to delete from a 'de-faming' perspective. I think we should be able to recover the article and clean it if necessary, the WP was born to grow and to be neutral, this is against its purposes.

Savh avoids at all cost for instance to give any credit, nor to mention, any collaboration with Academy-award winner Susan Sarandon in the subject's last film, there are photos of them together, and a trailer out there.

I think the 4th nomination is just another sham, and it is necessary to elevate the action to the attention of administrators, and to examine the article. There is enough traceability of notoriety. For instance, 'obsessed' Savh insist on a fine of 30,000 euros because allegedly Balder said a journalist has 'friends in high places', the news published at El Pais. Well, this is relevant in Spain perhaps, but according to the First Amendment there is no way to sue someone in the USA because of such facts, and these rulings are considers accrding to the Speech Act, 'repugnant to' the constitution of the USA, for here there is wider freedom to criticize a public figure... On the other hand, the same source he cites, El Pais, exposes the 'success' of Balder's children books as back as 2006, and that's not a press release as he suggest, see here: https://elpais.com/diario/2006/06/10/cultura/1149890405_850215.html

SAVH is obviously biased and is, as it states, in direct contact with the journalist that obviously has had problems with Balder. This is not enough to delete any article.

There must be a way to examine and rollback this absurd intromission of Spanish editors obsessed in bringing their own neuras into the English WP fabric.

Do you really think this is just a bureaucrat's job? Avoiding to mention the El Pais 2016 praise of the writer's book, for instance, and focusing from the first sentence of the article in the polemic between him and a journalist? And avoiding mentioning the film with an Academy-award winner actor, but reinforcing the 'lesser' view about the MoMA screenings? Do you really think that this is neutral? Four nominations for deletion by the same subject who is tying to impose its view over and over and a direct conversation on twitter with one of the part looks to you like 'neutral'? --FirstAmendment1 (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clicking through old links in my contributions page, I was stunned to see that the article on The Mansion on Turtle Creek had been deleted for non-notability, as this hotel is a Dallas landmark and has hosted numerous celebrities as well as various presidents and foreign rulers. When I read through the deletion page, it became evident to me what the problem was: the cursory search for evidence of notability was done under the uncommonly-used official name, Rosewood Mansion at Turtle Creek, rather than the name that it has been known by for most of its life as a hotel, The Mansion on Turtle Creek. As a Dallasite, I can certainly see why the unimpressive results from searching the official name would fail to convince an outsider of notability if the person weren't a specialist in luxury hotels or fine dining. The WP policy page about deletion reviews says (a) finding new information subsequent to a deletion is a good basis for requesting a review and (b) before requesting a review, one should try first contacting the administrator who officially determined the deletion. So that's why I'm on your user talk page.

Here's just one example of how the search results differ when the correct name is searched:

Google Books search for "Rosewood Mansion on Turtle Creek" = 785 results

Google Books search for "Mansion on Turtle Creek" = 5880 results — that's a 650% increase

Now let's take industry indicators of notability:

• Zagat ranked The Mansion as best hotel in the United States in the 1992, 1995, and 1997 surveys — an AP story printed in the Los Angeles Times from 1995 notes that in that year, best-in-US meant it beat out the Hotel Bel-Air in LA (which the Rosewood company later bought) as well as the Four Seasons hotels in Chicago, NYC, and Boston, and that the then-touted Plaza Hotel of NYC and Trump fame hadn't gotten into the Top 100 that year or even the Top 10 for NYC. Zagat said the Mansion received 28 out of 30 points that year, calling it "European elegance with old-fashioned Texas hospitality and ... top honors in dining, location, and style." ("Executive travel: Plaza Hotel falls off Zagat's Top 100 list: Lodging: no NY hotel made survey's fab five, which includes L.A.'s Bel Air", Los Angeles Times, April 20, 1995)
• In 1990 The Mansion received the Mobil Travel Guide Five Star Award -- here's how Texas Monthly writer Skip Hollandsworth tells it (in a 1992 story about how people in London were NOT responding kindly to the parent company, Rosewood, buying London's most expensive hotel):

"In Dallas society, of course, Rosewood is treated with almost godlike reverence. With part of the money she received as beneficiary of a trust established by her late father, oilman H. L. Hunt, Caroline Rose Hunt founded the company in 1979 to create small, elegant hotels. Her first effort was the Mansion on Turtle Creek, which garnered a national reputation: It received the coveted Mobil Travel Guide Five Star Award in 1990, and last year it was named by the U.S. Zagat survey as the best hotel in the country. The always-packed Mansion Restaurant alone has taught the sometimes rowdy Dallas rich more about fine wine and haute cuisine than any other establishment in the history of the city. Social climbers have been known to bribe the maître d’ to be seated at the restaurant’s highly visible front tables." (emphasis mine -- "Beyond luxury: a Texas company has shocked London by taking over one of the world’s most expensive hotels—only a block from Buckingham Palace", Texas Monthly, June 1992)

To all this, we could add the famous folks who've stayed and/or dined there, either in its prior life as the 1920s mansion of cotton baron Sheppard King (FDR and Tennessee Williams, among others) or after it became a hotel (Larry Hagman and the cast of Dallas while filming various seasons of the show; presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush; Crown Prince Abdullah (later King Abdullah), who rented the entire hotel, including one room just for his TVs (!); Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. We could add the fact, mentioned above in the Texas Monthly piece, that it was the pet project of Caroline Hunt, an entrepreneur and heiress that The Dallas Morning News says was "once considered America's richest woman" (see this October 2017 article by business columnist Cheryl Hall) and was the foundation of the Rosewood Hotels & Resorts empire that she sold in 2011 for $799 million.

Don't get me wrong — I've got no personal connection to the hotel, just a fondness for Dallas history. And while I haven't yet looked back at the original article, when I do, I'm quite prepared to find it sounds as gushing as one of the deletion voters said ... certainly that was the case with the Neiman Marcus article's mention of Stanley Marcus back in 2005 when I first discovered there was no article on him at all. Some careless person had done a copyvio of a timeline from the NM web site, including how "the retail and fashion worlds mourned the death of Stanley Marcus" in 2002. Some wag on the talk page for the NM article thought that was absurd, simply because s/he had never heard of him. I was inspired to go start an article about him, since he was one of my dad's business idols, and pretty soon, I had 200+ pages of material found online to back up the claim, a trove of material I'm still working on distilling for the article all these years later in an effort to move it from Good Article to Featured.

Something similar is true of the 69 pages about The Mansion that I've put together in Word just in the last few hours, working only from WP:RS material, and that length is despite the fact that for many of those articles, I only pulled a paragraph or two. I think it's highly likely some of the material in the deleted WP article will turn out to be stuff from press releases and so on, but I can definitely make a good case that there's plenty of verifiable, reliable, secondary-source material on which to base a solid case for notability. So may I create the article again? Lawikitejana (talk) 11:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've now discovered what you probably already knew, that there isn't any (apparent) way to see what the article looked like before deletion. I'm hoping if you let me re-create, there will be a way to see if there's any usable material in the prior version(s). Lawikitejana (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for a response. Lawikitejana (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article Ayman Sadiq is redirecting again and again without a valid reason. Reason why there'll be an article of this topic. 1. He has won Queen's Young Leader Award. 2. Forbes 30 under 30. WP:ANYBIO 3. His website is not just an web. it's an organization, largest online platform of the country. 4. He is an Youtuber himself. 5. A public speaker, visits school,collages among the country. 6. He has wrote a book (have sources). 1 of these 6 is not notable for Wikipedia but together all, he deserve an article on the encyclopedia which make him notable to having an article. I requested that editor to make a move request or make deletion entry rather than redirect the page. he didn't. I don't know how to get help regarding this and discovered you as an administrator. As I read Wikipedia once a day, i think I have right to give my opinion. if the topic doesn't meet Wikipedia notability, Article must be deleted. I'm sorry to disturb you here, but I'll be very happy if you give sometimes on this topic. Thanks.

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

Administrator changes

Sro23

KaisaL • Ymblanter

Guideline and policy news

• After a discussion at Meta, a new user group called "interface administrators" (formerly "technical administrator") has been created. Come the end of August, interface admins will be the only users able to edit site-wide JavaScript and CSS pages like MediaWiki:Common.js and MediaWiki:Common.css, or edit other user's personal JavaScript and CSS. The intention is to improve security and privacy by reducing the number of accounts which could be used to compromise the site or another user's account through malicious code. The new user group can be assigned and revoked by bureaucrats. Discussion is ongoing to establish details for implementing the group on the English Wikipedia.
• Following a request for comment, the WP:SISTER style guideline now states that in the mainspace, interwiki links to Wikinews should only be made as per the external links guideline. This generally means that within the body of an article, you should not link to Wikinews about a particular event that is only a part of the larger topic. Wikinews links in "external links" sections can be used where helpful, but not automatically if an equivalent article from a reliable news outlet could be linked in the same manner.

Technical news

• The WMF Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input on the second set of wireframes for the Special:Block redesign that will introduce partial blocks. The new functionality will allow you to block a user from editing a specific set of pages, pages in a category, a namespace, and for specific actions such as moving pages and uploading files.

		September is an exciting new month for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons! New: Women currently in academics Women + Law Geofocus: Hispanic countries Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative Check it out: Monthly achievement initiative All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards. It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in September. Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): Call for members for the Gender Diversity Visibility Community User Group Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#The Endless Night of Wikipedia’s Notable Woman Problem (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

• Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

• Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
• Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
• Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

		Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October! New: Clubs Science fiction + fantasy STEM The Mediterranean Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Justlettersandnumbers • L235

Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the process for appointing interface administrators has been established. Currently only existing admins can request these rights, while a new RfC has begun on whether it should be available to non-admins.
• There is an open request for comment on Meta regarding the creation a new user group for global edit filter management.

Technical news

• Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
• The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
• Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
• The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
• Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
• Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.

		Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives New: Religion Deceased politicians Asia Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): WikiProject AfroCine launches (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A year ago ...

"I do my level best to be responsible with the admin tools"
... you were recipient no. 1760 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes Sir Sputnik Kudpung • Liz • Lourdes Everyking • Jackmcbarn Interface administrator changes Dinoguy1000

CheckUser changes AGK • Ivanvector • Stwalkerster • TonyBallioni Oversight changes Amorymeltzer • Oshwah • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93 Keilana

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment determined that non-administrators will not be able to request interface admin access.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the Mediation Committee should be closed and marked as historical.
• A village pump discussion has been ongoing about whether the proposed deletion policy (PROD) should be clarified or amended.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether pending changes protection should be applied automatically to today's featured article (TFA) in order to mitigate a recent trend of severe image vandalism.

Technical news

• Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
• A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
• The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
• The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-enwikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.

Hello, A Train. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, A Train. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The WiR December editathons provide something for everyone. New: Photography Laureates Countries beginning with 'I' Continuing: #1day1woman Global Initiative
		Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!): BBC 100 Women 2018 (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox family. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Administrator changes

Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz

Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

Deryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
• A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
• A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
• A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

• Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
• To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
• Since deployment of Partial blocks on Test Wikipedia, several bugs were identified. Most of them are now fixed. Administrators are encouraged to test the new deployment and report new bugs on Phabricator or leave feedback on the Project's talk page. You can request administrator access on the Test Wiki here.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 3 December 2018. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these conce