This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:78.26

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand the complaint: the alleged facts turn out to be true but there is nitpicking about some words? Those words could be rephrased instead of the whole facts being deleted. After criticism, I stuck to the sources as closely as I could. I am not guilty for the words of those sources, it's their choice, not mine. We don't have to remove objective facts from Wikipedia just in order to pamper true believers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:19, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I have restored almost all of the material. Keep in mind that Spectrum represents the "liberal" or "progressive" wing of Adventism, and therefore has a strong editorial slant. It is a reliable source, but we can't use their opinions in Wikipedia's voice. (For instance, the article you cite clearly assumes that Ellen White was a divinely inspired writer but debates the methodology and extent of her inspiration, which is fundamentally, obviously not acceptable for Wikipedia.) Kinda like using CNN regarding Trump, or Fox News on just about anything. It's a reliable source, but you have to weed through their slant and stick to the facts.
I wish to directly apologize to you for being so slow to respond to your queries and requests. I hope the material I added back in conveys the information you were trying to include. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:34, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Seventh-day Adventist Church[edit]

@78.26: You are invited to vote on portal Seventh-day Adventist Church, which has been nominated for deletion..Catfurball (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Catfurball: Thanks for the notice. I'll try to give this a deeper look in the near future, but it certainly does look under-maintained and little viewed. Committing to maintaining this seems like an awful lot of work for something that is sparsely viewed. Perhaps spending time improving articles related to the Portal would be a better use of time? This is not, in the slightest, meant as admonishment. It is merely a suggestion to think about. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

request for revision deletion[edit]

Hi, I think the article Otto Brixner needs deletion of all revisions prior to [1] due to a lot of puffery content. It has been imported from German Wikipedia where this puffery has also been removed and is dealt by the Arbitration Committee now. --2A02:8388:580:6600:5DCD:A213:DA90:F38 (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Puffery isn't a reason for revision deletion. Serious BLP violations are. Is there particular wording you believe rises to the level of slander/libel? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there is. Relating to this revision (but also in older revisions back to the German revisions from which it is translated)
  • "who sentenced the justice victim Gustl Mollath into a forensic hospital" - when do you have a justice victim???
  • "once hiding in bushes along with other undercover investigators" - suggests that he is very interested in putting people to jail
  • "As a supervisor, he eliminated the fee demands of the supervisor which in his opinion were excessive. As a result, those affected had complained about him in a protest march to the president of the judiciary. Although Brixner was transferred to another position, he was regulated the supervisor by law" - suggests that he should not be supervisor any longer
  • "ever made use of communication in criminal proceedings (So-called. Deal on penalty), that is, a practice widely used in criminal justice" - in German law this Deal is something suspect, but the article suggests that Brixner acted rather unusual
  • "considered a judge that is a 'tough dog' ("Judge Mercyless")" - insult
  • "Mollath had presented the court, as proof of his black-money allegations, with a 106-page folder with receipts to accounts in Switzerland and other evidence documents. In his interrogation before the committee of inquiry of the Bavarian state parliament said Brixner on 17 May 2013 that he had never read this folder" - libel, especially since according to German law the court maybe wasn't allowed to read this folder (because the accused has to give his statement orally only)
  • "The revelations to Gustl Mollath and Otto Brixner" - I mean "revelations" ...
  • "In addition to demands for reforms in psychiatry and justice, it was required to hold those responsible to account. Above all, the former judge Otto Brixner was named.[15] In its final report, the committee of inquiry stated that it was refusing to punish Brixner." - libel, the article says that Brixner should have been punished
  • "Otto Brixner had interrupted the defendant Gustl Mollath each time loudly and threatened with a reference to the room if [...] Literally, Brixner, addressed to Mollath, had shouted: "If you keep this up, you'll never come out again" (referring to the psychiatry department) [...] Brixner had shouted at Mollath for over eight hours without interruption.[17] [...] Brixner had acted like a "dictator."[18] [...] when you call Otto Brixner, you have to be prepared to barely speak one sentence to the end. He speaks in a very harsh tone." - a lot of irrelevant information, overinterpreting the cited sources and libel
  • "Brixner had determined the appointment of the court on his own initiative, refrained from hearing the accused and operated a willful falsification of the facts with the documentary material available to him" - libel taken from a text of a lawyer that has never been proven. Even the article itself says "appealed in advance for a possible retrial, in particular to a blog entry[24] the former prosecutor Gabriele Wolff" and Gabriele Wolff was never involved into this case.
  • "outrage against Brixner was ignited by the fact that it is the fundamental obligation of all German courts to take full note" - as I said, according to German law the accused has to give his statement orally
  • "Brixner is also already in the run-up to the criminal proceedings in a telephone conversation with the financial management caused Mollath's allegations concerning the black money allegations to be discontinued by the tax investigation authorities" - libel that has already been proven to be not true --2A02:8388:580:6600:5DCD:A213:DA90:F38 (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi 2A02..., this was a history import from dewiki, do you see issues with just the history or with the version that was translated here: THIS VERSION ALONE?. If you think the translated version is bad, you can nominate the entire page for deletion. If the only problem is with the imported history, which has since been suppressed on dewiki, we can delete the imported history, restore the translation, then restore the non-suppressed history from dewiki. Please ping me in any reply here. — xaosflux Talk 02:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux: Well, I do not know the right way to solve this problem. The imported German version of this article contains a lot of libelous information; indirectly it accuses Brixner of crimes. We now have this problemativ German version imported to enWP and translated into English. I removed the libelous content two weeks ago ([2]) but still we have the former, problematic revisions in revision-history. And of course, one can question whether or not Brixner satisfies the notability guidelines at all. --2A02:8388:580:6600:74D8:81EF:2CA7:3823 (talk) 06:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • OK there are at least 2 ways forward 2A02: If your only issue is with the edit history before 2018-08-02T18:53:07‎, let me know and I'll delete all that history, then re-import the current history from dewiki that you say has been cleaned up alrady. If your problem is with issues after that you may need some WP:TNT and should list the article at WP:AFD. — xaosflux Talk 13:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Xaosflux: the issue is with the edit history before 2019-06-16T17:03. Since there is still a big argument on how to deal with this article in deWP (here) the problematic contents have been removed there and the article was then blocked so that this removal would not be reverted (as has been done before). So the revision deletion is still pending there. A reimport would also reimport the problematic revisions. On the other hand a long lasting dispute in German wikipedia cannot be a reason to accept revisions accusing a living and named person of crime here... as far as I know I cannot request deletion without an account here, right?! --2A02:8388:580:6600:A175:6AFA:A123:EE3E (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I removed the history prior to that edit here and left a note at Talk:Otto Brixner - feel free to follow up on the discussion there. We will not reimport the history without a request. — xaosflux Talk 14:53, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

New socks of Aryanshukla9936[edit]

Hello. Following up on your fine work on the SPI for Aryanshukla9936, you might like to take a look at the edit history of Draft:Ionnish Patseas, an attempted rebuild of Giannis Patseas under a variant spelling. Original was created by sock Aryanshukla87. The edit histories of the user page and user talk of co-creator CNTFOUNDATION are also worth a read, if they aren't already deleted for username violation by the time you read this. Thanks, 84.21.145.26 (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm an WP:ADMIN, but I'm not a WP:CHECKUSER, so although I have no reason to doubt Aryanshukla87 is a sock of Aryanshukla9936, I don't see it from behavioural evidence (which is why I reported Beingaryanshukla). From a behavioral standpoint, Indian record labels and Greek basketball players are a long way from each other. You can make a report at WP:SPI of course. In the meantime I'll be declining this draft, and thank you for bringing the orignal AfD to my attention, that is really helpful. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Why was AFD discussion closed for "Seoul National University Hospital massacre"[edit]

I nominated the named article (Seoul National University Hospital massacre) for deletion on 12 June, and it was closed 26 June without any discussion. Why? There were no responses supporting the article or saying why it should not be deleted. There are three sources cited. The second is a dead link from a right-wing newspaper in South Korea, and the third is based on a report from the South Korean military. The first is just a passing mention and appears to include military deaths in battle in the figure given (900). No historians appear to have written about the subject and the article has serious issues with the sources and verifiability. I believe the discussion should have remained open until there were actually responses.

@Incogreader: I have no idea what you're talking about. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seoul National University Hospital massacre had two participants, with a strong rationale for keeping. How can you claim there was no participation? If you disagree you can always take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. (and please sign your messages.) 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 03:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I checked the wrong discussion page - I never saw the other two comments until now.Incogreader (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Joc-O-Sot[edit]

Hello, 78.26. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Joc-O-Sot".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Lapablo (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Please delete the revision history[edit]

Please delete the revision history for revisions 905013866, 905013155, and 905014002 in the English WP page for Moon jae-in. They are 2 edits by a new user and 1 revert, and those edits are clearly false and of no encyclopedic value (fitting category for Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material), so I am requesting that you delete them. They are also a serious violation of the biography of living persons policy. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/905014002 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/905013866 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/905013155 Bukjintongil (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Bukjintongil: I don't read Korean at all, so I can't speak to what the changes said, but the English changes appear to be commonplace juvenile vandalism to me, which no one would take seriously. If we were to delete these kinds of vandalism (as oppose to revert, which has already happened (thank you Sophiajoanne) we would be overwhelmed. Is there something in the Korean text which is more insidious than the English changes would imply?

RE: Draft:Nicholas Laucella - noted Italian/American Flautist - Request Administrator Review and a Move to the Main Page[edit]

Ciao 78.26 I have enjoyed reading about your outstanding contributions to the Wikiproject: Articles for Creation and the Wikipedia Teahouse. I recently submitted a new draft biographical article entitled Draft:Nicholas Laucella which documents his work as Principal Flautist with the New York Philharmonic in the 1910's and for several decades with the Metropolitan Opera Orchestra in the 1920's and 1930's. It includes several links to his recordings which have been included within the Library Of Congress's Online Jukebox as well as the University of California at Santa Barbara's Online collection of Historical 78RPM recordings. You might enjoy listening to them! In addition, the article is well referenced with reliable sources, including the archives of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra in New York City. If you have some free time, could you kindly consider reviewing the article and expediting its move to the Main Page? Many thanks in advance for your thoughtful consideration and best wishes for your continued editorial success on Wikipedia! Enjoy the music! Ciao Respectfully yours 2620:65:8000:A203:E9A8:AC63:64C2:AE1C (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2019 (UTC)GCU

Looks like Voceditenore beat me to promoting this to mainspace. Well done! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, well done! I've tweaked it a bit and have added a couple of sources that you could use to flesh it out on the talk page. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Ciao 78.26 & Voceditenore --Many thanks for your prompt reply and kind assistance--it is greatly appreciated! The article looks fantastic - Enjoy the links to his his historic operatic collaborations! Ciao to all 17:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)GCU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:65:8000:A203:E9A8:AC63:64C2:AE1C (talk)

Precious anniversary[edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Jai Gurudev[edit]

For some reason XFDCloser deleted the talkpage, the redirects, and their talk pages, but it choked on deleting the article itself. I'd do it myself, but want to avoid any appearance of impropriety. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:55, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: - thanks for the heads up! I'll take care of it. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Looks all set now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Mystica (entertainer)[edit]

She was raised in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, she left and started singing secular songs; acting in movies and is a television host. She has given up the first two, after getting baptized back into the Seventh-day Adventist Church. By going to evangelist meetings held in her native country the Philippines, by Doug Batchelor. Her article was started by User:Lorenzo Kiel, but he didn't added references, so it got changed to a draft. I don't know if he will do anymore work on it thou. I added a little information and connected to other articles. I believe you would be interested in working on this draft.Catfurball (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Catfurball: I'll see what I can find, but the extra sources I have access to are American, so if Google News or Books hasn't indexed something, it might be hard for me to figure out if the topic is notable. I'll have a go at it, hopefully within the next couple of weeks. Real Life is interfering right now. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Mystica is notable by what little I looked at and today User:Lorenzo Kiel added some new material. She has performed hear in the United States by what I read. I never heard of her before, until one day I was looking at some YouTube videos and found a couple of videos on her.Catfurball (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


Bike or die[edit]

Requesting undeletion == Deletion review for Bike or Die! == An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bike or Die!. 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. pinchies (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_August_21#Bike_or_Die! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bike_or_Die!

Mark Poloncarz[edit]

I would like the opportunity to correctly source any unreferenced information that led to the deletion of Mark Poloncarz's page, current Erie County Executive in New York State. What steps can I take to do so?Davebojo8 (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Davbojo8

@Davebojo8: I could restore a version to your sandbox. That would allow you to work on it at your leisure without worrying about it being deleted. May I suggest you use the WP:AfC process for peer-review when you finish? All the best, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@78.26: Sending a version to my sandbox sounds great, and will absolutely use the WP:AfC for peer review upon completion. Thank you very much. Davebojo8 (talk) 17:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)Davebojo8
 Done @Davebojo8: you will find it at: User:Davebojo8/Mark Poloncarz. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Did You Know (DYK) Nomination request for: Henry Lewis (musician)[edit]

Ciao 78.26 - Just a quick tip about the article Henry Lewis (musician) -- it is currently classified as a "Stub" but has recently been upgraded, as well as expanded with a suitable Discography. I'm not certain but there seems to be some indication that it might even be "Ready for Prime Time" on the main page "Did You Know Column" --perhaps with the following introduction: Did you know ... that the African-American conductor Henry Lewis conducted the Seventh Army Symphony Orchestra in support of American's cultural diplomacy initiatives after World War II? If you have a chance, perhaps you could take a look and help the nomination process along -- assuming that the article is suitable of course! I would try to nominate it myself, but the entire process seems far too complex for me to fathom. In any event, enjoy the article and the audio link to his performances during 1955 after World War II while Germany was in ruins! Best wishes as always - Regards 104.207.219.150 (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)PS

It would be easier if you created an account (hint, hint, nag, nag.. Face-smile.svg). To whom should credit be given, to 104... or to 2620...? I'm going to go with the latter by default. It wasn't a stub before expansion began on the 25th, and it certainly isn't now. Even though this isn't a "new" article it does qualify for DYK as it has been expanded more than five times (previously it was 2060 bytes, and now it is 12000). Since expansion started on the 1st, that only leaves us until September 1st to get it nominated, and I am and going to be very busy in real life the next few days. I'll try, but perhaps the fabulous Gerda Arendt will be able to assist. She's undoubtedly even busier than I am, but more competent. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Ciao 78.76 No problems regarding credits -- as far as I am concerned, like the music presented in the article itself, there is more than enough for all to share. Bravos to all and enjoy the music. 104.207.219.150 (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
His is a fascinating life, thank you for the article. I made some formatting. Could you please do a bit more, seeing that references follow an item immediately, and no spaces also between several for one fact? The language is sometimes a bit repetitive, but I'd understand that you need that for being long enough ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Gerda Arendt: I used 104's suggestion to start. I'll tidy as I can, but I'm going to sign off soon and will probably not be around until Sunday. I'd like to clean up a few of the references (add specific page numbers, etc.) if I can. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the nom, - and once that deadline was met we can take it easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
That was my thinking! I'm working on a review for QPQ, to get that out of the way. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg Thanks for supporting my recent albeit unsuccessful RfA. Your support was much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019[edit]

Mi Sandi AfD[edit]

Greetings, 78.26. Thanks for taking care of the Mi Sandi AfD proposal. Could you please clarify whether you took into consideration that Ko Ko Chit Chit, the article's creator and a Keep !voter in the discussion, is a confirmed sockpuppet? Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 10:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@The Gnome: Not really. My close was based much more on Bondegezou assessment, which came right before the third relist was to close. I didn't find Ko Ko Chit Chit's argument compelling at all. That editor is not a sockpuppet of anyone that I know of, but it is globally locked for spamming. At time of close the account was not locked, so I could not have considered this aspect. All the best, and thanks for all the work you do around here! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter[edit]

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Samuel May Williams[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Samuel May Williams you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

added BradvChetsfordIzno
readded FloquenbeamLectonar
removed DESiegelJake WartenbergRjanagTopbanana

CheckUser changes

removed CallaneccLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed CallaneccFoxHJ MitchellLFaraoneThere'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Henry Lewis (musician)[edit]

— Maile (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

in followup to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Footy Show (Canadian TV program)[edit]

Can you pass me the text from The Footy Show (Canadian TV program) so I can move some of the content to more appropriate articles. Thanks, Nfitz (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

@Nfitz: glad to. You'll find it at User:Nfitz/The Footy Show (Canadian TV program). 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:38, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Nfitz (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Naira Marley[edit]

Hello. You deleted Naira Marley in June following an AFD. Is the new version of the article substantially different from the one you deleted? Thanks, Tracy Von Doom (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@Tracy Von Doom: Yes, it is completely different. The previous version was a copyvio of a fansite, with no references. This version has entirely different wording, and has references. There is some language that is close to one of the sources, which really should be revised. See [3]. I hope that helps. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Very helpful thanks, especially the copyvio check. FWIW, he seems notable, with reasonable coverage online in RS. I just didn't want to waste time working on it if it was about to be G4'd. Tracy Von Doom (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
No worries there. Based on what's there I agree he appears to be notable. It certainly isn't anwhere near speedy delete territory. Happy editing! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:02, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Black-footed cat[edit]

@78.26: The article Black-footed cat has been vandalized 7 times today by the same vandal. Can you protect this article.Catfurball (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

It's all been from the same IP address, so protecting the article would be my second choice. If this address vandalizes again, please report him at WP:AIV. I would block, but the last vandalism was two hours ago, so hopefully the individual became bored. Thanks much! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)


Bike or Die![edit]

I would like to request that we reinstate the redirect for Bike or Die --> Bike or Die! thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinchies (talkcontribs) 18:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your support at my RfA. I don't recall us having interacted before and so your taking the time to not only examine my record but to share their findings with others is truly appreciated. I hope that I continue to be CLUEful as an administrator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I have no doubt you will. Congratulations! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 02:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

request copy of deleted KDRMA article[edit]

Hi, could you please "refund" to me a full copy (with edit history) of Kane-DuPage Regional Museum Association to my userspace. This relates to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kane-DuPage Regional Museum Association which you closed "delete". I want to consider developing it better, which User:RoySmith suggested i might do, or perhaps to use in creating a different page about museum associations that have "passport" / shared admission/marketing programs, more generally. There exists a category about them, but no main page about them. Which could give the KDRMA as an example, whether or not it has a separate article. I'm not sure, i'd like to consider that.--Doncram (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Doncram: Glad to! You'll find it at User:Doncram/Kane-DuPage Regional Museum Association. Thanks for all your work! 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Request copy of the relisted article 'Bardhyl Selimi, which was deleted with no explanation around Sept 10-12, 2019[edit]

Originally, this article was deleted on Sept 4, 2019, though due to my summer holiday I requested a delay on any final decision until Sept 7, 2019.

The main argument was that the many of 20 odd provided references led to the article's subject as an author or co-author. I improved on that adding 50 more references from Albania / Kosovo (in Albanian) and from all around the world (including China, France and Poland) in Esperanto as a proof of the global-wide notability of Bardhyl Selimi in the spheres of Albanian- and Esperanto-language cultures.

I relisted the improved article on Sept 9, 2019.

The relisted article was removed with no explanation, let alone any discussion.

Sincerely, Hyrdlak (talk) 08:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak

I see you placed this up at deletion review, where it will be handled by the community, so there isn't anything for me to do at this point. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Samuel May Williams[edit]

The article Samuel May Williams you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Samuel May Williams for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019[edit]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please UNDelete Thita_Manitkul and Move to Thita Manitkul Rangsitpol[edit]

[4]

a member of national legislature is inherently notable https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/830074904

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thita_Manitkul

Delete - She is not notable person in Thailand even me who live in Thailand doesn't know who she is. If the page can still keep I think I can crete my profile in Wikipedia too or other people around the world can do it. This page is edit by her family include bias and unreference message. The important is she is not important to has her own Wikipedia page. Ministerboy (talk) 00:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC) Delete - The Norwegian WP twin article have been stripped down to only two sources that might mention her, but they are in Thai so it has not been possible to check. All the other sources that was provided did not mention her name. This needs at least one reliable source proving that she actually have been an elected member of parliament. Whithout that the article does not seem notable. regards ツDyveldi ☯ prat ✉ post 21:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC) The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.2001:44C8:4407:E94C:9C8D:E493:2F7A:20D7 (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I am going to decline to restore this. According to the deletion discussion, the primary reason for deletion was the unrelenting POV issues contained in the article. The article should be re-written from scratch, in neutral language by a neutral editor. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

"I would say that, in general, Vmavanti has improved since I blocked him"

What you omitted from that statement was the fact I was blocked for about two minutes. Unjustifiably. Someone else had to come along and unblock me and tell you your block was unjustified. The block was your first mistake. Your second mistake was telling only part of the story, thus suggesting to others something ominous like "We've blocked him before, you know the type..." You wrote "Quality control is Vmavanti's strong suit, collaborative editing is not". I'm not really sure what that first part means, but the second part is false. That's another mistake. You used my name and you criticized my ability. Is this uncivil? Is this a personal attack? If it's neither, what is it? If you tell me, then maybe I can learn the peculiar protocols of Wikipedia when it comes to communicating. I asked the person "Show me the attack". This is a person who has insulted me several times. Yes, personal attacks. As is often the case on WP, this person refused to answer. Isn't refusing to answer a simple, direct question uncivil? If I'm going to be accused of something, I at least deserve an explanation—AND a chance to defend myself by speaking freely without fear of punishment. (Why do you think Eddie left? Another good editor gone). On the Smooth Jazz page one person claimed "Discussing the article is not discussing improvements to the article". That's false and I said so. We were digging into it. It was very much relevant and shouldn't have been roped "off topic". That killed the discussion. There's no reason why we can't talk about that subject. But that person became enraged. That person accused me of using the Talk page inappropriately. That person left templates on my Talk page about the rules. That person quoted acronyms and gave links which were not relevant or needed. That person refused to engage in discussion. Is that uncivil? Of course it is. That person accused me of being uncivil when I wasn't, which according to your rule is a personal attack, so that person should have been warned, not me. What about the person who said, "Anyone who thinks otherwise is not living in this universe." Is that uncivil? Is that a personal attack? You never seem to be around when I'm the one being attacked. I get attacked, you show up, and you blame me. Don't you think people get very annoyed when that happens repeatedly? Don't you realize the chilling effect this creates when people abuse their power? It's others (not me) who run to the teacher, leaving you with the impression that I am a troublemaker when I am not, leaving you with the impression that I can't collaborate when I can, leaving you with the impression that I am always bugging you when it's others who do that. Saying someone can't collaborate goes both ways because collaboration takes at least two. So it depends whose side you choose. Saying "you can't collaborate" is simply another way of saying "you ought to agree with me." I've never said it to anyone, and believe me I could have, many times. There's a lot I could be saying that I haven't been saying. Every day. I never used a person's name. If I didn't use a person's name, how can it be a personal attack? People swarm in, misread the situation, threaten me, then disappear, leaving me unable to defend myself or speak up. I find such experiences Orwellian and extremely inappropriate not only on Wikipedia but from any human being in any context.
Vmavanti (talk) 21:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Three administrators, and a very experienced editor, have taken the time to let you know your editing style was problematic. They did not seek a block. That is a gift, and what you do with your gift is up to you. Part of editing Wikipedia is working alongside other editors whose experiences, opinions, and priorities differ from your own, and that is true of any editor. Good day. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 11:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
You addressed none of my points. That is common on Wikipedia. Perhaps it is other editors who have been unjust to me. You never address that. If people refute my points, then I will consider whether I'm the one at fault or "problematic". It's problematic when one person knows better than the people he's arguing with. That certainly is a problem. Expertise makes one a target. Dodging questions doesn't lead to better communication or behavior. Ambushing a person, insulting them, and threatening them isn't a gift. It's hit and run bullshit. Admins need to follow the rules just like the rest of us. If I am being accused of making a mistake, I need to know specifically what it is. That's not just a rule. It's not just the decent thing to do. It's the most practical, obvious thing to do—if people don't know what they have done wrong, they can't correct their mistakes. I rarely ask rhetorical questions. If I ask someone, anyone, why is this or that wrong, or what am I be accused of, those are serious questions offered in good faith. But instead of answering an honest question a person says to me, "Did you really think I was going to take that seriously?" You think I am the one the blame for that comment? That makes no sense to me. You're angry at the wrong person. That comment is totally out of line. I still don't know why I was threatened with a block. And I'm not going to play "fill in the blank" and indict myself. That is a tactic I have seen in the real world in many workplaces when the boss wants someone to leave but is too afraid of a lawsuit to do honestly. Here's a suggestion for improving everyone's life: WP needs to concentrate less on whether people are nice. It needs to stop policing speech. It needs to give people the freedom to discuss, debate, argue. Admins are not hall monitors. There is real work they can do. Editing, which I have done in the read world, is by nature contentious. WP is naturally contentious. Its foundation is conflict, arriving at consensus on Talk pages through conflict. Demolition derby. Straight out of JS Mill. It's foolish to set that up and then tie people's hands by denying the freedom to speak.
Vmavanti (talk) 14:23, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It is hard to discern any point in these long paragraphs. What I do see is the old "denying [people] the freedom to speak", which isn't what happened here and it isn't relevant. This isn't a free-speech zone. It's not expertise that makes you a target, and you aren't even a target. Drop this victim role play; it does not become you. (And yes: the personal attack was blatantly obvious.) Drmies (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Who asked you? Who are you? Why are you constantly butting in? Why are you shadowing me? Not only that, you had another chance to answer the question and you didn't. You don't see any points in the above paragraph? Then the problem is yours. Why do I say that? Because I can list the points and you can't. There's proof right there. Don't assume all questions are rhetorical. This is a problem I have had when communicating on the internet, particularly with British people whose normal conversation contains irony and sarcasm. Well, I am not being ironic or sarcastic or rhetorical in any way. I am being literal. Good, clear American prose. Pick any sentence and I will explain it in detail. How many editors say that? Very few. You should do it on my page rather than someone else's. But, yes, I am serious. I mean this literally. Choose any sentence for clarification. Ask me anything. How many editors say that? Very few. On my User page I advise people to use literal language, not figurative, and to read the lines rather than between the lines. Anyone who knows how to contribute to Wikipedia knows the difference between the general and the specific. There is a difference between feeling attacked and being attacked. And "attacked" isn't even a very good word here. It's not "attack". No one's being punched, shot, or killed. Editors need to be much more literal. It's not enough for admins to generalize: "You did this, bad boy." You have to give specifics. Then tell why. That does not mean a linked acronym because that is not discussion. The more general the comments, the more likely any conversation about anything become adversarial and unproductive. One admin has to said to me "Accusing someone falsely of being uncivil is grounds for block" which is dumb in so many ways I wouldn't know where to begin. If editors could see through their anger and engage with what I am saying, we could make a lot of progress. What I am about to say will probably make you both relax: I cleared my large watch list. I no longer receive those emails and I changed my prefs. I'm reducing the amount of editing I do. I haven't been doing any editing the past few days. I'm not quitting, not yet, but I'm reducing my presence. Now I imagine this will make you both sigh with relief. That is my gift to you. But it's not a victory for anyone. It's Wikipedia's loss. Not mine.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Drmies is an administrator, a better one than I. One of the jobs of an administrator is to monitor activity in light of the Five Pillars, one of which is civility. I am well aware that you feel persecuted, but none of your lenghty prose shows any understanding, or willingness to contemplate the remotest possibility, that some of your communications with other editors are less than civil. So there's really nothing more to do here, until the inevitable happens. Which is a cryin' shame, because I was just looking over edits at Louis Prima and I saw your significant improvements to the discography there. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 17:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
One: Why do you answer for Drmies? Can't that person speak for themselves? Two: Again the complaints about "lengthy" prose and long paragraphs. It's nothing compared to what I have seen on other pages. Three: Regardless, what's wrong with talking? Talk pages are the foundation of Wikipedia. I don't understand the hostility toward talking, however long it takes to analyze a subject. Four: I don't understand the unwillingness to a) answer simple, direct questions b) ask for clarification or further discussion of any of the sentences I have written. Both of you refuse to do that, and I don't why. To repeat: Pick a sentence, any sentence. I am not kidding. Five: In order for me to respond to an accusation, I first have to hear a specific accusation. Six: Your conclusion that I lack "understanding or willingness to contemplate the remotest possibility" is simply false. You draw a conclusion but you don't refer to any of my actual words. Again and again and again you generalize and conclude rather than refer to the text. I see this every day on Wikipedia. One ought to base one's reasoning on what is before one's eyes—the text. I was trying to explore that very subject when Drmies butted in and muzzled the conversation on the Smooth Jazz page and again here. There's a difference between an inquisition and an investigation. I'm a problem solver. Talk pages are for talk and analysis. Problems are addressed at the level of specificity. Nothing I have said here is against the rules.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
"until the inevitable hapens" : This means what exactly? Specifically. I remind you that the word "inevitable" means impossible to avoid. It simply must be. It's a word I rarely use because I recognize human beings have choices and free will. So...again...generalities versus specificity. Be specific. Until what happens? What is your prediction?
Vmavanti (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Inevitable: In this case, if you continue to tell other editors that they shouldn't be editing here when they disagree with you, and if ignore consensus and edit oppositely, you will eventually be blocked again or leave in frustration. You can reply here if you want, but it will very likely be ignored as it has been explained enough. I'll be happy to talk about our shared love of jazz music, the weather, or how to improve the prose of a given article. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
"If you don't know the answer to that, you probably should not be contributing to Wikipedia." You weren't talking. You were insulting. 78.26, I suggest you apply rollback if the editor continues to leave these lengthy diatribes whose only purpose is to distract and irritate--I have no intention of responding to them anymore, except for by blocking them for further infractions of WP:CIVIL. 331dot, you have mentioned before that you felt you were too INVOLVED with this editor to block them: I disagree. You did them a great favor by unblocking them, a greater favor than I would have done. I would like for you to consider whether you really are INVOLVED. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Vmavanti I think you need to take time to consider if this project is compatible with your personal outlook and skills and if you are fit for participating in it. All comments here are viewable by all and able to be responded to by all. You are free to ignore any posts you don't want to respond to(i.e. if you are waiting for a response from a particular user). 331dot (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Samuel May Williams[edit]

In recognition of having Samuel May Williams become a Good Article, and jumping in when the original nominator left, I wanted to send some congratulations your way:

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For efforts to have Samuel May Williams become a Good Article. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, well done. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


Oh sweet!! @Kaiser matias:, I am truly grateful for your assistance and insight. Thank you, thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Samuel May Williams[edit]

The article Samuel May Williams you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Samuel May Williams for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kaiser matias -- Kaiser matias (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Bravo, 78.26. Good for you. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2019 (UTC)