User talk:RL0919

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

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019[edit]

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

ANEWSicon.png

Administrator changes

removed 28bytesAd OrientemAnsh666BeeblebroxBoing! said ZebedeeBU Rob13Dennis BrownDeorDoRDFloquenbeam1Flyguy649Fram2GadfiumGB fanJonathunderKusmaLectonarMoinkMSGJNickOd MishehuRamaSpartazSyrthissTheDJWJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks re Ayn Rand[edit]

Thanks for your friendly and helpful approach to my formatting screwup. I've tried to leave the thing less of a mess. Hope it worked! Socsciedits (talk) 00:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks much better this time, thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 01:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Technical undeletion request[edit]

Could you please undelete Category:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board per the outcome of this DRV? schetm (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

The discussion in the DRV focused on restoring the primary project page and (more importantly) the associated Talk page, which had a history of discussion that the community would like to preserve. I'm not sure the category, which has no such history, was intended to be part of that. But it's probably better for you to ask User:Sandstein as the closer of the DRV how he interprets it. As the deleting admin, I certainly don't object to restoration if Sandstein believes it is covered by the DRV. --RL0919 (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Frank Matcham FAC[edit]

All comments addressed, with sincere thanks. An excellent set of comments. CassiantoTalk 21:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Review[edit]

Hi RL0919. The article on Loubna Bouarfa has recently been deleted after a discussion on notability. Sources of higher notability have since been added to the article, with multiple sources stating the same facts. As this is article is on a member of the EU High Level Expert on AI, which is a relatively new position (since June 2018), but their contribution to the European and global artificial intelligence policies are growing in influence and notability. This is the link of the discussion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Loubna_Bouarfa . Please reconsider and advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.17.166.110 (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. This article was deleted yesterday. There were edits adding sources that happened during the deletion discussion, and many of the same sources were listed in this comment in the discussion. The additions were responded to in the discussion, and the consensus continued to favor deletion afterwards. I would not reverse a closure based on information that has already been considered during the original discussion.
If you believe there are even more new sources that indicate notability, you could use that new information to create a draft article, which could be considered in a deletion review to allow recreation of the article. --RL0919 (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Word[edit]

Thanks for the message, thanks for keeping an eye out! I'll try harder in the future to make constructive edits.

Ron — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.147.112 (talk) 01:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Review[edit]

Hi, RL0919. You recently have deleted article on Pinky Campbell could you help me if I rewrite article properly or restore the previous article with proper sources, I don't know why this article was deleted as she was an actress worked a lot of famous movies till 2012 in India until she moved to the USA so I can find only sources which are from 2012 when media was talking about her during that period.Krohitk (talk) 04:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Krohitk: I don't think I would be of much personal assistance in improving the article, but I could restore it as a user space draft for you to work on improving it. If you can get it to the point where it has sufficient sourcing that is independent, reliable, and provides significant coverage, then you could request a deletion review to allow the updated version back into article space, or you could submit it through the articles for creation process. --RL0919 (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@RL0919: Thanks, so I got some magazine and newspaper article on her but it is not available on the internet can I upload it on Wikimedia for reference? also, can I use USA people Locator/ Directory as a reference for her birth date and additional information?Krohitk (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@Krohitk: Published articles from reliable sources can be used as sources regardless of whether they are available online, although you might get some additional questions about them. A "directory" might or might not be considered a reliable source, depending on how it is compiled. You can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard if you want feedback on a specific directory. Also, I went to restore the article as a user draft, only to find that you already have a draft at User:Krohitk/Pinky Campbell. If you prefer to continue from the draft you already have, we can leave the previous article version deleted. If you prefer to work from the previous article version, I can either delete your current draft and replace it, or I can move the article to a slightly different page name in your user space. Let me know what you prefer. --RL0919 (talk) 15:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
@RL0919:Hey I have made an article of User:Krohitk/Pinky Campbell can you please review it and help out with the errors(talk) 20:35, 04 Aug 2019 (UTC)

File:Live and Let Die by Guns N' Roses US single.jpg[edit]

Hello. You deleted the previous versions of the image and then renamed it. However, I just found out recently and would like the file to be reverted back to the US commercial cassette please. I would also like to upload the CD single cover to be uploaded as a newer file. I plan to use both the US tape and the UK CD covers concurrently. George Ho (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The original file name of File:Live and Let Die by Guns N' Roses US cassette.jpg is now an unused redirect. If you want to have the cassette cover at that name, I could delete the redirect so you can upload the file to that name. But to "revert" everything since your earlier upload effectively means deleting the existing file at File:Live and Let Die by Guns N' Roses US single.jpg, which isn't necessary for you to upload the other files. If the result of your efforts is that the existing file becomes unused, it will eventually be deleted as a WP:F5, but that's a different thing from me deleting it just because I was asked to. So if you are good with just the redirect being deleted, let me know and I can take care of that. --RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay. Deleting the redirect sounds fine then. George Ho (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Done. --RL0919 (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Now what about the cassette single? George Ho (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Not sure I understand the question. File:Live and Let Die by Guns N' Roses US cassette.jpg is where the cover of the cassette single was previously, and the name is now available. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll elaborate: Can you revert the version back, or you can't? George Ho (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC) Never mind. I re-read your earlier reply; I'll upload the tape cover in that former name soon. George Ho (talk) 23:27, 22 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) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Adam Everett Livix[edit]

I want to ask you to reconsider the delete decision based on a majority of editors who do not think the policy reason to delete was correct. In addition the editor on the AfD who was tendentious in pushing the theory that you accepted has been blocked as a sock. I would ask you if you could either extend the AfD or use the WP:CONSENSUS or WP:NOCONSENSUS policies to guide a decision. Lightburst (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The majority of editors who participated in the discussion did not agree with deletion in the first place. I knew this when I closed the discussion, so nothing has changed because some of you have chosen to continue pressing the issue on the AFD's talk page. I also re-re-read the discussion, discounting the sock editor, and the substantive result is the same: most of the delete comments (not just those from the sock editor) appeal to WP:BLP1E; the keep comments make no attempt to refute the applicability of that policy and do not raise any alternative policy/guideline that would override or even contradict BLP1E. Since "These processes are not decided through a head count" (WP:DELAFD) and "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments" (WP:CLOSEAFD), and no new arguments or evidence related to the policy issues have been offered, there is no reason for me to alter my decision. --RL0919 (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I am often reminded that AfD is not based on votes and I am clear on that policy. However Wikipedia has contradictory policies: on this issue and it appears you chose the side of the minority ivoters and minority opinion. BLP1E does not override WP:GEOSCOPE See:Richard Jewell and others like him. In effect I am saying you used your position to cast a supervote which overrides the majority opinion. Also, why is blanking necessary? The subject is already widely published in book, and international RS news. Lightburst (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not have contradictory policies. BLP1E is policy. GEOSCOPE is a guideline. There's a difference. You lose credibility by exaggerating - for example (and this has already been pointed out to you), the subject is not "widely published in [a] book" - the book describes itself as a "chronology" and simply repeats what was published in the newspapers without adding any independent opinion and as such, we discount it as a new source and instead only count the original published AP source instead. You also lose credibility for being obtuse - the article on Richard Jewell meets the notability criteria because of sustained significant in-depth coverage and not (as you suggested) that he was accused but not convicted of a crime. Finally, at some point in time, you need to understand the difference between "majority opinion" based on a headcount of !votes and how consensus is reached based on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. HighKing++ 15:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Sadly High King...I am not one of your loyal subjects waiting for pearls of wisdom to fall from your lips. You are combative and often wrong in your assertions. I was discussing the matter with the closing administrator and your confrontational comments are unwelcome. Have a nice day in the castle. :) Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
GEOSCOPE is about the notability of events; BLP1E is about whether we should have articles about a (possibly notable) living person who is covered in sources because of a single (possibly notable) event. So in a sense you are correct: one does not override the other, because they are about tangential subjects. Since the article in question was a BLP, the BLP1E policy is the relevant one. Whether some other article does or does not meet the criteria of BLP1E is not relevant; you are welcome to open a separate discussion about deleting another article, or about changing/abolishing the BLP1E policy. Since you mention supervoting, I'll add a quote from the essay at Wikipedia:Supervote: "[I]f the majority view at an AfD is based on a position that would clearly violate ... BLP concerns, the majority is wrong." Absent some new information (such as "the subject has died" or "here's coverage unrelated to this event that shows he is notable for something else"), that seems to be precisely the situation here.
Courtesy blanking is appropriate so that Wikipedia does not repeat and magnify unproven WP:BLPCRIME allegations, or supplement them with additional speculations made by editors in the discussion. In any case, that is a separate matter from deletion. An article can be deleted without the AFD being blanked, or vice-versa. --RL0919 (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
RL0919Thank you for the rational and measured response to my questions and comments. Even though I disagree with your opinion on this AfD, I respect how you got to the decision. In lieu of a deletion review do you have an objection with creating an article based on the events, and or indictment? The theft of IDF bomb making material and other items, along with conviction of the other party? Lightburst (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that would be acceptable, provided that an article about the event can't just be a coatrack or pseudo-biography to reproduce the same content about Livix. It is generally accepted that we can have articles about events even in cases where BLP articles about involved parties would not be appropriate. Based on things said in the Livix AFD, I suspect the event may also be challenged as not notable, but if so that's a matter for a different AFD. I did not reach any conclusions about the notability of the event since it wasn't necessary for closing the Livix AFD. --RL0919 (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
RL0919 - sorry to butt in - the two events in question are a minor weapons charge (dime a dozen, with a little bit of coverage in June 2015 - would not pass GNG), and the arrest of our BLP subject for discussing with various people a wild and crazy plot. The "plot" itself consisted of talk (without cooperation of others) and a acquiring a few flashbangs. The BLP subject was determined to be psychotic, was committed and subsequently was released. Beyond lack of CONTINUEDCOVERAGE (for good cause) - I can't see how we can describe the psychotic ramblings here without BLPCRIME issues here (particularly given the lack of coverage following the mental eval).Icewhiz (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
It's possible that you are correct and there is no meaningful article that can be created without significant BLP problems. If there isn't adequate information in sources to create an acceptable article, then either the editors working on it realize that and don't go forward, or it's back to AFD. Regardless, that's not really for me to say at this stage – I'm not suddenly the content master for this subject because I closed an AFD. --RL0919 (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you RL0919. And Icewhiz...Lol...stealing two kilograms of explosives is a minor crime? Yikes where do you live icewhiz? I will likely accept RL0919's recommendations and sober assessment of the AfD. Lightburst (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Per SMH street value of 625$ (of which only 125$ were paid). And - such minor grade stuff is stolen from army bases all the time. Six months military prison time is minor, yes.Icewhiz (talk) 05:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

While I appreciate everyone's enthusiasm for the subject matter, my user talk page is not the appropriate place to discuss it beyond my actions as the closing admin for the AfD. --RL0919 (talk) 07:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Would you be so kind to do the courtesy blanking? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Adam_Everett_Livix Thanks, Nick Humley (talk) 11:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Done. I held off while there was active discussion of the closure, but that seems to have tailed off. --RL0919 (talk) 12:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of stakes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints[edit]

User:RobThomas15 has asked for a deletion review of List of stakes of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 02:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Jay Schneiderman Article[edit]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and looking to be a regular contributor in whatever way possible. However, my timing was almost perfect. I recently went to add to the article on Jay Schneiderman and found that only recently it had been discussed and deleted here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jay_Schneiderman

I have since familiarized myself with the Wikipedia guidelines on notability and more and I am confident that what I was planning to do will be sufficient for it to remain as a standalone article. I was planning to update the content with recent material of regional significance, as well as add a significant number of reliable, independent, and secondary sources. This would include the replacement for the primary source hyperlink that has since be deactivated and cited as evidence for the proposed deletion.

More specifically, material will be submitted that will easily demonstrate that the article subject is a "major local political figure who has received significant press coverage" and who "meets the general notability guidelines" of Wikipedia.

Gracias, Señor Omnisciente (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2019 (UTC)


@Señor Omnisciente: I could do something for you called "userfication". I would restore the deleted article but place it in your userspace at User:Señor Omnisciente/Jay Schneiderman, with a {{Userspace draft}} template at the top of it. When you have added the material that you think shows his notability, you can click the "Submit your draft for review" button on the template. It will go into the Articles for Creation queue for another editor to review the updated article. (This may take a few weeks if there is a backlog.) If the reviewer agrees that the article indicates notability, it will be published as an article again. If not, you may need to find some additional material to make your case. If this approach seems acceptable to you, let me know and I will proceed accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 20:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. that would be most appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Señor Omnisciente (talkcontribs) 19:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Señor Omnisciente: Done as I described. --RL0919 (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will get to work on it.

Update as of 9/25/19: Good morning. I'm sorry to bug you again about this, but I wasn't sure who else to inquire with. I submitted changes and rewrote this article via the UserSpace Draft you prepared for me. (Thank you again). I submitted on September 5. I know you said it "may take a few weeks if there is a backlog," so it being right at 3 weeks I thought I would check in with someone, even though it is being reviewed by another admin. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Señor Omnisciente (talkcontribs) 15:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Señor Omnisciente: Looking at the stats for the AFC backlog, it looks like 3 weeks is about the median wait right now and 2/3rds are less than 7 weeks, so it seems likely that someone will get to you soon. Unfortunately I can't make any promises, since like other things on Wikipedia it's an all-volunteer activity, and each reviewer gets to pick and choose what they want to review and when. --RL0919 (talk) 19:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, btw. I realized I hadn't responded. This is very helpful. It's my first one so I'm eager is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Señor Omnisciente (talkcontribs) 14:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Camp Tel Noar (3rd nomination)[edit]

Regarding your close of this as keep. As I stated in the AfD, all the sources found are passing mentions. I asked for people to identify which sources provide the in-depth coverage required by WP:GNG but no one did. Could you let me know which "specific sources were surfaced to establish notability"? I don't see how the keep arguments outweigh the delete ones here. Thanks. ----Pontificalibus 09:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This one is a full page spread about the camp; this article is about it; this is about an event at the camp, which you discounted, but others did not. Even discounting the arguments not based on sources, these sources and others brought forward in the discussion were convincing to several participants, so I don't see a good case to disregard the clear majority favoring keep. --RL0919 (talk) 09:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. The article begins "Camp Tel Noar is a Jewish summer camp for children ages 7 through 16". It follows that other events held at the camp's location have no bearing on the notability of the summer camp for children. Whilst the first source is therefore fine, the other two should be disregarded. However if no other contributors to the AfD bothered to consider this point, then I guess it's best to reword the article's lead to make it clear the article is about the campsite, not just the summer camp held there.----Pontificalibus 10:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello RL0919. I'm inclined to agree with Pontificalibus here. Of the keep !voters, only one mentioned any new sources that might establish notability. Since both Pontificalibus and I questioned that those sources provided significant coverage of Camp Tel Noar, I don't think a consensus to keep was yet established. Would you consider relisting the AfD so that a more in-depth analysis of the sources could take place? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I slept on it, and reviewed the discussion and sources again, and I'm still not inclined to re-open the discussion. The sources provided by RebeccaGreen seem to establish the existence of multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources with significant coverage (the basic GNG requirement), even if not every source she listed qualifies as such. --RL0919 (talk) 18:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Adobe Photoshop version history[edit]

Hint hint 👌 ——SerialNumber54129 05:48, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Apparently an XFDCloser script failure combined with my own failure to notice that it failed. Thanks for letting me know. --RL0919 (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The vote was to merge the content into Adobe_Photoshop#Version_history but this hasn't happened Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
The result was definitely not "merge". Most participants thought the detail was excessive; only a couple even suggested the conditional possibility of merging. I think a redirect would be OK if you want to create that. --RL0919 (talk) 11:35, 5 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) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Ayn Rand[edit]

Thanks for the correction. 75.191.40.148 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Winnie Harlow[edit]

Hey Much Love as a friend, How are U? They forgot to add to Winnie Harlow 's Wikipedia page on the television part, that Winnie Harlow appeared on The Kim Kardashian episode of Jimmy Fallon, where they play the phone game, I'm watching it now. TelleyTell (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

False positive[edit]

Look at this diff [1]. You misinterpreted the last name Guarente as a typo of Guarantee. I already fixed but please be more careful next time. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's an AutoWikiBrowser typo fix that was mixed with find/replace changes, and I guess I overlooked the context in the long diff. Thanks for catching it for me. --RL0919 (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for today![edit]

Harriet Tubman 1895.jpg Justice Award
Today is better than yesterday. Thank you for that! --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

deprecated[edit]

Hardly a big deal, but since your JWB edit summary is popping up all over the place with your name on it (here's one), maybe you'd like to fix the spelling. Thanks for updating the CS1/2 params. Mathglot (talk) 05:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Ha, I'm pretty much done for the moment, so I will have to live with my shame (and note for the future that spellcheck apparently doesn't work inside the JWB settings). --RL0919 (talk) 05:34, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

deadurl[edit]

There's Monkbot 16 going through those already. I suggest letting the bot handle those to reduce watchlist cluttering. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:16, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep, I know. But it has tens of thousands of articles to fix and is going in (sort of) alphabetical order. I focused on the highest traffic articles from the past two weeks, then the 1000 level 3 vital articles, many of which the bot won't touch for weeks. But those are done now, so I'll be taking a pause regardless. --RL0919 (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Theatre project banner[edit]

Musicals and musical theatre actors get the Musical Theatre project banner, not the Theatre project banner. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

According to whom? --RL0919 (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC) And also, how would this justify removal of the project from actors who have also appeared in non-musical plays, such as John Barrowman? --RL0919 (talk) 03:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

request article you deleted restored to my draft space[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Games_with_ray_tracing I'd like to have it restored so I can then do a full history export and then import it at at the list wikia as I have other list articles that have been deleted. [2] Dream Focus 15:42, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Done; you can find it at User:Dream Focus/Games with ray tracing. --RL0919 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

kPa → KPA[edit]

In this edit to Korean War, you changed several instances of "KPA" to "kPa"-- the proper capitalization for Kilopascal. While the Korean People's Army did try to exert pressure on the South, I changed these all back to "KPA". Can you check if you have other edits like this? Thanks. --A D Monroe III(talk) 15:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October![edit]

AfroCine - bare logo.png

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

  • Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
  • Diversity winner
  • Gender-gap fillers
For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

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) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Please restore the AFD at Mark Conaghan[edit]

I was about to make this comment when I got the edit conflict message.

"*Maybe keep. His performances in works are reviewed in the press ([3]), [4]) and even in this journal article: "Adapting Australian novels for the stage: La Boite Theatre's versions of Last Drinks, Perfect Skin, and Johnno.", Joanne Tompkins, Australian Literary Studies, April, 2008, Vol.23(3), p.305(13). He was the main subject of this article in The Queensland Times and this article in The Daily Examiner. From the resume it looks like he was a resident artist at the Queensland Theatre Company which is a professional Australian theatre. There productions are regularly reviewed in the press, so there is bound to be more coverage behind the paywalls of newspaper websites in Queensland. It's a borderline call. I could see people making arguments either way."

This needs more time. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 01:19, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Conaghan. --ST47 (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Having additional sources to discuss is a perfectly legitimate reason to reverse the close, so I've reverted my close, restored the article, and relisted the discussion. For future reference, this sort of thing does not require a WP:ANI discussion, just a little patience to let me finish dinner and see your request. --RL0919 (talk) 03:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I've now also restored the incoming links taht were removed when I deleted the article previously, and the (unused) redirect at Conaghan, Mark. --RL0919 (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

AfD for Rogers Bank[edit]

I was kind of surprised you relisted the AfD for single sentence Rogers Bank since it had been fully one week with no objections. Since this so clearly lacks notability, can I possibly convince you to please just proceed with the deletion? It's also, I believe, already mentioned in Rogers Communications, and it would be nice to have just a clean deletion. No one would have a problem with this. Thanks. --Doug Mehus (talk) 05:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dmehus: There was no discussion at all, so a relist would be the typical next step. If you want a quick deletion with no discussion, you should try proposed deletion instead of opening an Articles for Deletion discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 05:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
RL0919, I've yet to find one I've done that hasn't been de-PRODed. Do admins, by default, almost always de-PROD deletions and/or CSD deletions, or just the latter? Doug Mehus (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
RL0919, Also, I saw some cases where other admins gave an AfD only one week and, seeing no objection, said soft delete WP:UNDELETE applies. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dmehus: I can't account for every admin, but personally I have more commonly deleted articles with either kind of tag, but also sometimes declined them if the tagging is outside guidelines or the deletion seems likely to be controversial. In contrast, I usually only soft delete from a no-discussion AFD if it has been relisted at least once. I don't know the statistics for admin activity overall, but I believe my approach is well within the norm. --RL0919 (talk) 06:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
RL0919, Oh okay, thanks for clarifying that. So, there's definitely some variance in closure approaches between admins. At any rate, when I explained my rationale, the user supported my proposal. Thanks for your reply. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Rupert Dover[edit]

User:習振英 has asked for a deletion review of Rupert Dover. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 05:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)