This is an archive of past discussions with User:Nihlus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Recently you closed this TfD. Unfortunately, your closing note does not mention which argument(s) were determining and which were discarded. Could you clarify? -DePiep (talk) 19:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Mainly that it duplicated {{ifnumber}}, and that consensus was to delete. Nihlus 19:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
I think I pointed out more than once it was *not* a duplicate. Then, skip processing arguments (content) and counting !votes may have lead to a bad result. Anyway, this way it is forbidden to make a new-feature template, which is rather strange. So I hope you don mind I'm contemplating DRV for this one. -DePiep (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I didn't skip arguments, so please read WP:DRVPURPOSE before deciding to waste people's time just because you didn't like the outcome. Just because you say it isn't a duplicate doesn't automatically not make it a duplicate. Nihlus 19:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, IMO you did not process all relevant arguments (is what I call "skipping"). Sure a DRV will clear up "don like the outcome" versus "the outcome was not well based" (That is why DRV exists). Agree, just because I say so does not make it not a duplicate. OTOH, I can claim that per source code and per TfD posts, it is not a dup. By the way, why are you so stingy re me? -DePiep (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Uh. I have nothing against you, but I do dislike wasting people's time. And I did process all the arguments, you simply do not like the result. Nihlus 21:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
I do "not like" the result forbecause of the reasons I wrote, sound argumental reasons. Not negative because of appreciation or whatever. -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Rewrote my post, hope this is more clear. -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
T-Mobile arena closing
Summarize
Perspective
I have thought about challenging your closure, not because I'm upset about where you came down. These things are always tough. But your reason to me is mind-blowing. "However, I find the arguments of the Las Vegas proponents to be insubstantial and lacking in sources to fully argue their points." I gave dozens and dozens of sources. I gave so many links my eyes were tired from viewing the hundreds of websites that all said Las Vegas. The other side pretty much gave NONE! ZERO! Only a google map link that was only visual. Unless I listed/linked every single business in a 12 block area surrounding T-Mobile arena, I couldn't give you any more sources. My question is... how many dozen more sources would it take to get above "insubstantial and lacking"? And how many less than zero does it take to get the proponents of Paradise the same "insubstantial and lacking" as the Las Vegas proponents? Very strange indeed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
You provided sources that did not address the question at hand (whether or not list it as Paradise or Las Vegas). You listed those with mailing addresses and what not, but nothing that truly spoke to the actual location. Passing mentions don't mean much nor does calling everything in the region "Las Vegas" mean anything official. The arena is very clearly in the Paradise limits, so not providing a source that speaks to that really hurt your argument. Feel free to point me to one, and I will gladly reconsider. Nihlus 10:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to re-argue things here. But when you add up the Federal Postal Service, Official State documents, we have encyclopedias list next door neighbors as Las Vegas. Next year Britanicca will probably add The Vegas Knights as being in Las Vegas too. The T-Mobile arena website only mentions Las Vegas, never Paradise. The Vegas Golden Knights website only mentions Las Vegas, never Paradise. These are all in the discussion and I think that saying those sources are "insubstantial and lacking in sources" is flat out wrong and biased. It is the common location designation for every national newspaper. You want me to list all those too? It might not be enough to sway a closer from going against longstanding use of Paradise in wikipedia articles, but to say the sources aren't there and say nothing about the lack of sources for Paradise seems very unfair to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
It's not really wrong or biased, as I meant "relevant sources" as it's clear you provided some sources, but I said, "lacking in sources to fully argue their points." That's where the distinction lies. And again, I don't think the address used has any traction in this argument. The best example I could find is the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, which is a massive event physically located in Speedway, Indiana; however, they use an Indianapolis mailing address. Should that be changed to being located in Indianapolis because they use the mailing address and the city is in its name? What about the Los Angeles Stadium at Hollywood Park which is located in Inglewood, California and not Los Angeles? I think we both know the answer is no. The confusion can be addressed in the body of the article, and the infobox can say "Paradise" until there is consensus to change it. Nihlus 23:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Try again on those points. Indianapolis Motor Speedway says on their website and in local info that they are located in Speedway, IN. Brochures in the area say the same thing. So no problem. Inglewood is its own "City" and so far all their promo, advertising and gov't documents say Inglewood, CA. So no problem there either. But T-Mobile advertises as Las Vegas, nothing else. Gov't Fight licenses for T-Mobile say Las Vegas. The airport next door only says Las Vegas. None of them say Paradise at all. Again all the sourcing says Las Vegas not Paradise. And I am not ok at all with the wording you chose to say otherwise. Had you said "regardless of the sourcing and head-count that favors Las Vegas, there is not enough consensus to change the term Paradise at this time"... then we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. But that wording is incorrect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Reading into the wording as much as you are is ignoring the spirit of the message and a battle of semantics. Saying "I agree with what you said but not how you said it" is essentially a moot point. You should notice that I didn't call consensus in favor of keeping it at Paradise, just that consensus on either side was not achieved. However, since there was no consensus, the article stays how it was before the RfC was opened. Also, please see WP:!VOTE. Nihlus 01:51, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't think it is moot. I don't agree with your verdict, but I accept the way wikpedia works and usually move on. But it is not inconceivable that this could open again in the future by another editor, and the words chosen to close previous versions will be looked at closely. Your words are not fair to the conversation that took place and I think you should reconsider them. As to !VOTE I'm not sure what your point is. If it's that RfC's are based on arguments and sourcing, I agree, though I'm sure you'll agree that it's very loosely enforced. I have seen umpteen dozens of closures that say something on the order of "count is 13-11, consensus for change is not reached." It's wrong, but wikipedia is a fickle beast. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
But please note there are TWO Curtis Macdonalds who are composers. One is Curtis S.D. Macdonald, who's page was deleted as you mentioned. The other is Curtis Robert Macdonald, who's page I was trying to create.
Hello Nihlus, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!
Outreach and Invitations:
If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.
New Year New Page Review Drive
A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.
General project update:
ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I want this submission to fall within the parameters of Wikipedia. My first submission was declined for lack of citations. Now this one seems to have too many. Please help me as I want to be thorough. I trimmed some things that could be taken as not being "neutral" (i.e. whenever the word "expert" was used though he has been recognized by many courts as an expert). Should I remove some of the citations in instances where there are multiple cites (and simply go with one citation)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharon Prokop (talk • contribs) 18:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree, considering the similarity with the other two discussions on the same page. it would be a shame to have to open a WP:DRV for this. Frietjes (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
@Woodensuperman:Done. For some reason when I closed it I inexplicably forgot that there can be no consensus on a merge request. @Frietjes: Subtle implications or veiled threats of going to DRV are as unhelpful as they are inappropriate, especially when I have yet to reply to the original inquiry. Nihlus 01:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you misread the DRN, Nihlus. I didn't put the request in to have the matter debated in the talk page to be resolved by an admin. If you read it carefully, what I requested is that the Template:POV tag be left on the page while the matter is being debated, as per WP:NPOV policy. Other than that, your statement that the avenues you have explored in the single month you have been on the wiki are highly suspect was not sufficiently clear. I'm not sure what you found suspect about it. — Wisdomtooth32 (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
DRN is to discuss content and not tags on an article, especially when the subject is already in the middle of a RfC and especially when the growing consensus is one that goes against your comments on the matter. Additionally, my comment you quoted above was very clear. I suggest you move on instead of carrying on this crusade before you end up blocked again. Nihlus 18:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
A second priority would be to identify signatures with
[[category...
{{ indicating the presence of a template, which should be checked
A third priority would be to identify signatures with prohibited
<br/> or <br />
<hr/> or <hr />
A fourth priority would be to identify signatures with markup that increases font sizes; I listed several ways users might do that. —Anomalocaris (talk) 01:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
You seem to be the most reasonable of the lot of admins involved. What do you suggest? Also: Is there yet hope for Wikipedia to devolve from the bureaucracy it has become? I've yet to count the number of policies it has, but as it stands it seems to compete with the codex of laws of a small nation. François Robere (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Dispute resolution request
Hi, i’m here to request a dispute resolution about the Al-Kindi article. I’m not sure to be at the right place for that, if i’m not, please delete my message from your talk page and just provide me a link for dispute resolution.
Thanks a lot for your help.
Best regards.
Farawahar (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC) Farawahar (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Counter Vandalism Training
Could you please consider becoming my trainer for Counter-Vandalism? I feel I would benefit very much from this type of training. Thank you. Pablothepenguin (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Pablothepenguin. Right now, I don't believe it would be a good time for you to go through training given your recent blocks and lack of focus on any counter vandalism. It would be best if you worked on fighting vandalism with what you know now with the standard tools and avoiding any problems for at least the time in which you are under an editing restriction. Once that has expired, I would be happy to look into training you. Nihlus 20:14, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Environmental Racism Discussion
Summarize
Perspective
You complain that User:GB fan prematurely closed the WP:ANI thread, although it was clear that Francois Robere wanted to talk about conduct and not about content. My opinion is that both GB fan and User:Alex Shih were right in closing the ANI thread, just as you and I were right in closing the WP:DRN thread. There wasn't and isn't a properly stated content dispute, and there wasn't and isn't a properly stated conduct dispute. What happened is that User:Kleuske made some substantial edits to the article, and Robere didn't agree, and wanted the edits rolled back to the "stable" version of the article until they could be discussed. There wasn't a conduct issue at all, and there wasn't a clearly stated content issue, although there is a content issue. The insistence of the OP that they wanted to talk about the conduct of another editor was just a complete waste. I am not saying just that Kleuske didn't do anything wrong, but that Robere didn't even allege any wrongdoing on the part of Kleuske. It could be a content issue, about whether to roll back the edits, but the OP is just making a mess of things. That is my analysis. Just because a dispute isn't properly stated for DRN doesn't meant that it should be at ANI. It could possibly be stated as a DRN issue. It isn't a properly stated content issue, and it isn't a conduct issue at all. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Respectfully, I disagree with your summary of the issue and find the ANI and DRN cases to be separate issues handled by separate people. I've stated my opposition to those involved and have no desire or time to continue discussing it further. Thanks. Nihlus 20:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
I think that you are disagreeing with what I didn't say. I didn't say it should be one case. I said that it wasn't a properly stated case at DRN or at ANI. Maybe it wasn't two cases. By the way, there is now a filing by Kleuske against FR, with which I concur, at ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year! Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate – 02:06, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
New Years new page backlog drive
Hello Nihlus, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!
Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!
We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!
The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.
Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:
The total number of reviews completed for the month.
The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.
NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.
Hello,
Thank you for having reviewed my article. I have a question.
You wrote:
"This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources."
I am confused about this as I bought and read a dozen books and then referenced them. I don't understand how these are unreliable. I do understand that I need to edit the article in general and place the references "in-line" but I don't understand how they are "unreliable."
Thanks, Ben
Benpocock (talk) 02:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
counter vandalism unit academy
greetings.
i am interested in the counter vandalism training. as a new user, i am eager to help and support the unit! thank you and please message me back on my talk page. thank you kindly.
On Wikipedia you have a bot that looks for certain malformed template calls. Any chance you could adapt it's code to search for an issue that arose on Wikispecies?
The malformed called being {{IPNI|..blah..|}} or {{IPNI|..blah..| }} which breaks the template logic.
Ideally what would be needed is a listing of affected pages, so that they can be manually checked.
I can't imagine it's very high, but having to check 20 or so pages is less time consuing that having to manually check 500 or so based on edit histories. (Quarry can't indvidually grep pages - https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/24095 being the current query I was using for manual checking.)
It would be nice to reduce the workload needed to find malformed calls of this specfic template.
many wikipedias use bots to adding articles nl wikipedia.org sv.wikipedia.org and now sr.wikipedia.org and in english wikipedia not many articles about animals but this articles in other wikipedias and more articles not english wikipedia but is in other wikipedias i want adding more articles in english wikipedia for be bether english wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.22.35.28 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Just wanted to check if u are still working on the task "Symbol parameter in Infobox former country"
I'm just wondering if u are still working on the task "Symbol parameter in Infobox former country" in Wikipedia:Bot_requests. If you are not, may I do it? Thanks!:) --Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
@Gabrielchihonglee: Feel free to take it. Nihlus 13:57, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much:) --Gabrielchihonglee (talk) 13:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Can I join cvu
I would like to get trained with the cvu Techboy145 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
@Techboy145: I would expect more general experience from someone before training them. I would work on that first. Nihlus 18:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Clean-up of Roger Federer
Please leave the tag in place until there is a consensus to remove the tag, without the tag being in place there will be no discussion of the issues or the tag in general. Please allow the discussion to conclude before removing. Also leaving the tag in place may also address the issues being raised by the tag. Sport and politics (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
In regards...
As I said on my talk page, you didn't provide a link to your edits, until now. Instead of trying to make something out of nothing, you could have simply made your edit without leaving a "edit war warning" on my talking page, seeing as I have not engage in an edit war with you (1 revert doesn't apply to edit warring). As for the link you provided, I feel the mentions about Shangela and Thorgy are rather more opinionated than fact, seeing as it is clear as day in that episode they both receive a good and bad critique. Anywho, I'm not interested in continuing this any further, just be less salty in the future towards other editors who have a different opinion with valid reasons/facts. Thank you. MSMRHurricane (talk) 08:52, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@MSMRHurricane: You have restored the information three times within a 24 hour period, thereby toeing the line of WP:3RR. Nihlus 08:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
An RfC has closed with a consensus that candidates at WP:RFA must disclose whether they have ever edited for pay and that administrators may never use administrative tools as part of any paid editing activity, except when they are acting as a Wikipedian-in-Residence or when the payment is made by the Wikimedia Foundation or an affiliate of the WMF.
Editors responding to threats of harm can now contact the Wikimedia Foundation's emergency address by using Special:EmailUser/Emergency. If you don't have email enabled on Wikipedia, directly contacting the emergency address using your own email client remains an option.
Technical news
A tagwill now be automatically applied to edits that blank a page, turn a page into a redirect, remove/replace almost all content in a page, undo an edit, or rollback an edit. These edits were previously denoted solely by automatic edit summaries.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has enacted a change to the discretionary sanctions procedure which requires administrators to add a standardizededitnotice when placing page restrictions. Editors cannot be sanctioned for violations of page restrictions if this editnotice was not in place at the time of the violation.
I am not very technical person and the user experience to submit a translation is horrendous, so please guide me by giving direct instructions such as steps by steps or giving a Youtube video?
J. Torz (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Summarize
Perspective
Hello Nihlus, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.
Backlog update:
The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
New Year Backlog Drive results:
We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!
General project update:
ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Magnitude Software
Nihlus, I really need your help. Another user, Athaenara, believes I'm a sock puppet of someone who made some edits to the page years ago. He didn't warn me or try to communicate in any way, he just proceeded directly to deleting the Magnitude Software page. What do I do? I feel powerless because I'm new to editing on this site and I just don't know how to get the page back. It's true that I work for Magnitude but I'm not paid for marketing and I am willing to put in the work to make the article adhere to Wikipedia standards. This user gave the reason "unambiguous advertising" even though what I wrote was biographical, in the same vein as articles for similar companies like Informatica, Stibo Systems, and IBM. What I wrote wasn't any more promotional than the content in these other companies' pages, so what do I have to do to restore Magnitude's page?
Hello Nihlus. I was reading through TfD and noticed that you have been closing a number of discussions as delete even though you are not an admin. While you may not be aware, NACD states "Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages". I appreciate your taking the time to read discussions and try and help out, however per our policy I must request that you not close discussions as delete and leave them for patrolling admins. Thank you, Mifter (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mifter: I am going to have to decline your request and ask you not try to revert closures because you happen to disagree with the outcome (take it to WP:DR if you must). Additionally, WP:NACD states "Exception: a non-administrator may close a TfD as orphan", which is a variant of delete and the type of close used on the one you attempted to revert despite being involved. Pinging Primefac as the administrator I've been working with for months. Nihlus 07:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Nihlus is correct, and non-admins may close TFDs as delete. If you have an issue with specific TFD(s) you're welcome to question the close itself (preferably with the closer, but via an uninvolved TFD admin such as myself otherwise). Primefac (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I guess to be fair, this bit of TfD minutiae is only codified at NAC, and nowhere else on the project as far as I'm aware, and only in the past year. (More reason we should try to move NAC toward being a guideline IMO.) GMGtalk 13:25, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
There's a link to the RFC at NACD, which (just to be specific) was closed in July 2015. Also, if we want to get really pedantic (and this is to the OP not GMG) closing a discussion as "orphan" when there are no transclusions is effectively the same as closing as "delete", so in my mind there is zero issue with doing so (if only to save time and unnecessary edits). Primefac (talk) 13:56, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I guess what I meant is that it's not on any of the more visible PGs, and not technically in any PG at all. So there are probably very many people who are not aware of it, even though it's common practice. GMGtalk 14:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I guess I was just surprised when the OP came here quoting NACD and somehow managed to not go down literally one line to see the exception listed. Primefac (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmm... as I was. Looks like it was added only a few months later, well preceding the addition to NAC. GMGtalk 15:29, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Nihlus, thank you for your reply. I note for the discussion that I did see the listed exception prior to leaving my note however I note (as you did) that the exception states "a non-administrator may close a TfD as orphan". That being said, you closed the discussion as delete which while it may have a similar end result is to my understanding (which I admit may be incorrect) not the same as an orphan template. Looking at the 2015 discussion it appears that there was a discussion about more generally allowing non-admins to work at TfD in closing however while it is alluded to in the RfC closer's rationale as a trial proposal to consider, it never made it in to the policy page. As an aside, I am happy to work to clarify the language in the policy to reflect the consensus from 2015. Further, I am concerned that you assumed I undid your closure because I "disagree with the outcome" as that is not the case (I strongly dislike citing to it, but AGF is the first thing that pops into my mind here), I undid your closure because I do not believe the exception for "orphan" closures applies and I also believe that this falls into the "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins." (also note that I did not touch the other closures you performed because I believe doing so would have be the epitome of wikilawyering and letting the rules get in the way of positive action which would simply be disruptive.) I left part of my rationale on that page however to quote a small portion, "To be fair, I personally have no attachment nor concerns if this template is eventually deleted" and again note that deletion discussions are not pure !votes. Further, I intentionally did not (nor would I) utilize my administrator tools to undo any deletion and noted immediately my actions and my involvement in the comment I left. Finally, I note that you reverted my reopening of the discussion. As deletion is an administrator area I would refer you to our policy on wheel warring and more generally WP:BRD. I said this above, and I am keenly aware that text is a highly imperfect medium for communication, but I really do appreciate your taking the time to volunteer at TfD, am certain you are working with the best of intentions, and I am more than happy to (and personally hope to) have a discussion here. Mifter (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Primefac: You offered above, but I would like your take on the discussion here (if you have not already looked at it.) If you believe DR is a better forum for discussion I am happy to move there (though spreading the discussion to three locations may be cumbersome) but am attempting to understand exactly what the guidelines for navboxes are if our policies say one thing and further how to look at a deletion discussion is leading to a separate conclusion when discussion points/questions are going unanswered even though more !votes are being placed. Nihlus, if you are so inclined/have the time I am also interested in your take. Best, Mifter (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mifter: Orphan means delete but the template still has transclusions that need to be taken care of. That was the case with your template; I just happened to take care of the transclusions myself. Regardless, your undoing of my closure was inappropriate in all aspects as you are WP:INVOLVED (it is your template that was being delete). Additionally, I ask that you familiarize yourself with WP:DRVPURPOSE before moving on. However, the fact that I must explain this is rather worrisome given the fact that you have attempted to throw your title around. Nihlus 04:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi Nihlus, thank you for the reply and clarification about how "orphan" is utilized in the non-admin closure policy (when this is all done I believe it may be prudent to leave a note on the policy's talk page to clarify the language should others agree on your definition). After reading your reply, I am concerned you are misinterpreting my intent/tone. I am not, as you put it, attempting to throw my title around, and am explicitly trying to engage in civil discussion about this matter. If you are interpreting my discussion comments in that way then I am sorry and can assure you that that is not my goal. I am also aware that the project has had issues with admins acting poorly in the past and can assure you that that is also not my goal. As I noted above, text is a highly imperfect medium and I can think of no better way to describe my intent aside from writing it out though I am open to any suggestions for improvement in that area. Additionally, I am familiar with WP:INVOLVED (though I did take a moment to re-read it after you mentioned it above) which is why I have not (nor will/would I) in any way use admin tools in this discussion and why I have taken no further action aside from my discussion comments here. I am also familiar with the purpose of Deletion Review (though in full disclosure I also refreshed myself after reading this discussion) and I believe I explained above some of my concerns with the deletion discussion. I would, if possible, prefer to avoid wikilawyering the details of policies and examine my underlying questions/concerns. I freely admit that I am human and can misinterpret/misremember policies, procedures and/or simply make mistakes and if that is the case then I will apologize and we can all move on having learned something. I hope to have a discussion, without snark, sarcasm, or other sniping; nothing more, nothing less. I hope you have an excellent day. Mifter (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. That being said, I was referring to this section of WP:NACD: Closures may only be reopened by the closer themselves, an uninvolved administrator in their individual capacity, giving their reasoning, or by consensus at deletion review. This is why I reverted your close. Your reasoning for doing so was that it was a non-admin closure, so it sort of implied you were reopening it in an admin capacity. Nihlus 06:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Nihlus, I understand your rationale and after reading everything over again and thinking about it I see how my action could be seen to have implied that. When I reskimmed the policy before taking any action, I focused on the "individual capacity" portion and did not give enough thought to the appearance it might give. I appreciate your taking the time to respond and apologize for my misunderstanding. Mifter (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Okay, first: admin or not, your reversal of the close as the template creator was improper, but I'm glad to see that it didn't turn into an edit war. If I had been the first one to come across your revert I probably would have reversed it myself. I will also note that you had plenty of opportunity to "formally" !vote "keep" in addition to your queries to the participants (though pinging them usually is best, since many people vote and then forget about it). Either way your concerns would still have been taken into consideration at the close (see third point).
Second concern, NACs: you are correct, at the moment NAC/D are the only places that specifically mention the exception to the non-admin-closing rules for templates, and maybe it should be added somewhere else (or, as suggested above, be codified into an actual guideline/policy). However, the technical language of "allowed to close as orphan" is superseded by the practical effect of such a close; if there are zero transclusions of a template, then a "close as orphan" is effectively "close as delete". Again, it probably could be clarified and/or made more explicit, but that's not a discussion to hold here (i.e. go to WT:TFD, WT:NAC, or a noticeboard).
Third, the close itself: short answer first, I would have closed the discussion the same way. TFD has always flirted with issues regarding instruction creep, whether it be too much or too little depends on which rule/template is being discussed. The "minimum number of transclusions" falls squarely into this debate, and thus has been treated on a pseudo-case-by-case basis (i.e. sometimes we link to past discussions, other times it's just a "common sense" thing). As mentioned in the discussion itself there is no hard number, and I've seen anywhere between 3 and 5 "minimum" links successfully argued as the threshold. That being said, we move on to what I feel is the most pertinent question, "is it worth having this template?" I believe Frietjes made the most valid argument for deletion in that since there are only two songs and the artist who made them, it's trivial to navigate between the three articles via the infoboxes provided. And as a minor note, one of the essays you linked says it's not ideal to have navboxes for a very small collection of articles that can be counted on the fingers of one hand for which that is the limit.
To summarize: I see nothing wrong with the close; in the future if you disagree with a close, discussing the close with the closer first is ideal, followed by DRV if necessary; a discussion about the location/promotion of NAC TFD closes should probably happen, as should a discussion about the disparity between WP:ANOEP and WP:NENAN. Please let me know if you'd like to discuss anything further (though if it's not pertinent to this particular case I don't mind shifting it to my talk page). Primefac (talk) 18:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
Primefac, thank you for taking the time to write everything out, I appreciate it. After reading it and examining how I proceeded I agree with the points you raise. In retrospect I acted based off a misrecollection of some policies (which as a side note this has served as a good refresher of) and perhaps also too hastily. I am sorry this became a bit of a commotion due to my mistake but appreciate the opportunity to discuss this. Mifter (talk) 18:51, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Aye, no worries. We've all been there. Primefac (talk) 22:05, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Request on 16:44:28, 14 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Prakashmanden
Hi Disappointed that our page on FittedCloud was rejected. None of the references were paid PR. They were references to FittedCloud technology by industry analysts, media. Dynamic Resource Optimization technology in public clouds will be a technology of interest to readers as public clouds are gaining significant popularity. FittedCloud pioneers DRO technology.
Also, it seems a bit unfair if the contents are compared with published pages such as DivvyCloud. I can't see a lot of differences. Maybe you will reconsider?
Prakashmanden (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
@Prakashmanden: It doesn't really matter what other pages have. Additionally, the "interest of readers" is irrelevant as we go off of WP:NOTABILITY, not whether people might be interested in being your client. As of Special:Permalink/825540403#References, the first reference is clearly a PR piece, the second and third references don't lead to anywhere, the fourth is a blog that seems like another PR piece and reads like a major advertisement, the fifth one is unreadable, the sixth one is the only one with a credible mention but that doesn't establish notability, and the last one is clearly another PR piece. Additionally, if you are the owner of the company, you need to declare that per WP:DISCLOSE. Thanks. Nihlus 21:16, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:DRN
Summarize
Perspective
I wanted to use the process outlined at DRN, but apparently it's not available for IPs. So please accept my request here, or copy it to the proper place.
I have two disputes with User:BilCat, and I know from experience that this user is very hostile towards IP editors. (Check AN:I for several examples.) This sadly includes a complete unwillingness to join discussions on the articles talks pages. Before things escalate, could someone please keep an eye on proceeding to keep a lid on things?
In passing, if this is what he's complaining about, he's got no business beefing, since it was a cited estimate. TREKphilerany time you're ready, Uhura 02:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
In passing, do you want to have the content discussion here? If not, why do you raise the point here? - 91.10.4.162 (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
This IP user is blatantly disrupting that page with needless nuisance edits and edit-warring. He doesn't need DRN, he needs a 3 day block. - theWOLFchild 02:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, that attempt at resolution quickly went down the drain. Thanks for your help!
@Nihlus, all I want is a peaceful discussion about the issues, without all the drama. - 91.10.4.162 (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
That's easy, pick an article, stop edit-warring, go to the article's talk page, post your concerns and... voila! You have a discussion ready to go. - theWOLFchild 02:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Wanna make a bet? - 91.10.4.162 (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm not really going to comment on the issue here, but IPs definitely can go to WP:DRN. It just is sometimes difficult given the lack of pinging and notifying. I wouldn't close it for that reason alone. Nihlus 01:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
Summarize
Perspective
For your note at CHU/USURP.On a side-note WP:CHU/A mentions Also note that requests to usurp an account that have edits on other projects, or do not have a local account on the English Wikipedia,must be made at meta:Steward requests/Username changes.I think, in that case, the underlined part needs to be re-framed in some other manner.Cheers!~ Winged BladesGodric 03:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Further, do we allow any long-standing editor to create legit-alts by usurping any user-name that fits the guideline for target-account-requirements? The last time, I talked to a steward, he said that usurpations aren't normally allowed unless it's a rename of main-account or to claim accounts that can potentially impersonate them.~ Winged BladesGodric 03:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Winged Blades of Godric: The issue here is that this account was renamed prior to the SUL finalization from back in 2015. Accounts weren't global then (the account we are talking about was in 2010), so that account was actually primarily on enwiki until it was renamed (but not globally renamed). That's why you see the leftovers at Special:CentralAuth/Wikipe-tan, where no "home" wiki is attached. You can kind of follow the history with the renames here. We do allow usurpations of accounts that could reasonably be considered doppelgangers of well-established users. For instance, Ahect was usurped as a doppelganger of Ahecht. The situation today was more of a gray area given the actual username, but I don't see anything in the policy that says legitimate alternate names can only be usurped to avoid impersonation. A lot of the renaming boils down to discretion and whether or not it makes sense for the rename to take place. It's better to leave ambiguous situations like these to the renamers as the authority to approve and decline renames lies only with global renamers and stewards. Nihlus 03:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comprehensive reply.I knew that the rename was not a global one and it (Ace of Spades) was originally an en-wiki account whose global-leftovers were visible at CAuth but thought that still Meta would be the best place.Regrets, if I caused much confusion.~ Winged BladesGodric 04:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Major thanks for helping out at WP:CHU! I've been busy with other things in real life lately which explains my absence from renaming (and editing) recently. Thanks for all the work you do on Wikimedia! —k6ka🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, K6ka! A lot of the renamers are seemingly coming out of the woods now, so we should have a lot of help. Nihlus 01:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
A question for you
Summarize
Perspective
Hello N. I was getting to work on clearing this template from the various articles after its listing at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Holding cell#Ready for deletion. The first thing I noticed is that it is on at least 999 articles. That lead me to look at the edit history of the TFD and I found that Frietjes had added the Thai template to the TFD and nine hours later you closed it as delete. My concern is that a template that is used in such a large number of articles didn't have a chance to be commented on. I understand why the Indonesia one was nominated as it was in a limited number of articles and it was the only one of its kind. OTOH, as can be seen here Boonsak_Ponsana#References there are templates for Thailand at the Summer Olympics going back to, at least, 2004. Please don't mistake what I am writing I don't think you or Frietjes did anything wrong. I think this slipped through the cracks. IMO the Thai template should have a new TFD. If either of you think I am out of line or incorrect in my assessment of the situation then please accept my apologies. If the template should go we will need your bot to remove that large of a number of templates. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 02:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
@MarnetteD: Yeah, Frietjes shouldn't have added that to an old and near closing TfD, and I should have probably noticed that before closing. That being said, it is only on 55 pages. I'll just undo my closure and relist it for an other 7 days if you think that'll suffice. Thanks for bringing it to my attention though, as I sure as hell wouldn't have caught that.:) Nihlus 02:52, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Oof I'm glad you used that search tool. When I saw the "view next 500" at the "what links here" I thought there must be more articles that the template linked to (facepalm) Thanks for teaching me about the "external tools - transclusion count" link. That fulfills my "learn something new for today" requirement:-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Well the fly in the ointment is that I have cleared the "Indonesia template" from the articles that it was used in. I can revert those edits if you want me to. MarnetteD|Talk 03:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry about undoing those since it was up for a week. I've reverted the TfD for the Thailand template since it was improperly filed and snuck in at the last second. Frietjes can create a new nomination for that template if they desire. Nihlus 03:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. Your help is much appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 03:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Might help to remove the {{being deleted}} tag from the template then... Primefac (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Your comment to me at AN
Summarize
Perspective
As you didn't comment there, and possibly didn't notice it, I thought I'd repeat what I said there, expand upon it a bit, and also give you a chance to respond here. I though your response to me: "Ah, so you're unable to answer" was rude and uncalled for. I don't remember ever having interacted with you before, and I don't think I said anything in that discussion which warranted your snarky remark. We could be friends and colleagues, but I have to say you've gotten off on the wrong foot with me. Paul August☎ 17:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
@Paul August: I didn’t respond to it because it wasn’t a comment worth responding to, but since you felt like bringing it to my talk page and doubling down on it, I will respond. I disagree that it was rude. You coming in, white-knightning, ignoring the comments of others and the community consensus previously established is what is actually rude. Users, and especially administrators, are expected to explain their reasoning for doing something instead of deflecting and responding with “meh” or something else just as obtuse. You were either unable or unwilling to answer my question; both are equally problematic. Additionally, I’m not worried about getting off on the wrong foot, as it is your comments and disregard for others that has brought you to my talk page. Nihlus 17:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't believe I ignored the comments of others or any community consensus. It seemed to me that what TPH was trying to do—informing AFD of improvements made to articles at AFD—was a good thing for the encyclopedia, and ought to be allowed (an opinion which seems to be shared by most of the editors in that discussion). And in fact, I don't believe TPH's original topic ban ought to be interpreted as prohibiting it. But if some strict "letter of the law" interpretation, was standing in the way, then it seemed to me that a work-a-round might be for TPH to inform me of any significant improvements made to articles at AFD, and I could decide if the AFD discussion ought to be informed. So that's what I offered to do for TPH. I didn't explain all this at AN since this all seemed obvious to me, and I didn't think it needed explaining. I apologize if that seemed rude to you. Paul August☎ 18:30, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Request on 09:53:33, 25 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 118.88.20.83
Thank you very much for your helpful information. Do I need to link EVERY single secondary and outside source where I and my work are mentioned? It's quite a lot of sources. Do you have a limit here on Wikipedia as to how many or how few I may link/list? Thank you.
118.88.20.83 (talk) 09:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
"Mentioned" is not good enough. Please read and understand Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline. Until sources as described there exists, a WP-article about this subject will only be declined, and be a waste of yours and others time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.
Technical news
CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
The edit filter has a new featurecontains_all that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.
Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.
You appear to be reverting IABot an inordinate number of times
You constitute 1/3 of all the false positive reports IABot has generated for as a result of reverting the bot. In every case so far, the URLs are dead. Why are you mass reverting the bot?—CYBERPOWER(Chat) 21:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh wait never mind, these are just lingering reports from the mass reverting I asked you to do a month or two ago.—CYBERPOWER(Chat) 21:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
How DARE you do what was asked of you?!? Primefac (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
You obviously noticed that I work for POPS worldwide.
My problem is that the article I submit looks more like an advertisement but It will be great if I could have more precision on that matter. Is it a formulation and/or a vocabulary issue? Do I just have to modify some sentences? Can you give me an example?
The second issue is the references: I think I tried to avoid to use internal links, all those references are from newspaper or data website. Do I need more references?
It is the first time that I am writing an article on Wikipedia, and I am struggling haha.
Thank you for your time,
Alex
Alexandre Nguyen (talk) 04:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
i would like to be trained at counter vandalism unit
hi nilhus, can you add me on counter vandalism unit/academy? newroderick895 (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
User talk:Renamed user 2560613081
Nihlus, I hope you are the right person to approach with this. I noticed that a redirect from this user's old user name still points to the linked page. I don't know if this is intentional or not but I thought I should bring it to your attention as the page mover. The user seems to have made their desire to disappear clear so having the redirect available seems to defeat the purpose. To respect that intention I am not using the redirect link but I believe you are aware of the old user name to which I am referring. Sorry for being cryptic. Thanks. Eggishorn(talk)(contrib) 23:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Asking to be trained at the CVU
Hi,
I would like to ask you if you would be willing to be my trainer for the Counter-Vandalism Unit. I was recently declined access to rollback mainly due to my inexperience and my lack of mainspace edits. I would gladly accept your help to be better equipped to couteract vandalism and gain more experience. Regards. RafaelS1979 (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
New Page Review Newsletter No.10
Summarize
Perspective
Hello Nihlus, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
ACTRIAL:
ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.
Paid editing
Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.
News
The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
Administrators who have been desysopped due to inactivity are now required to have performed at least one (logged) administrative action in the past 5 years in order to qualify for a resysop without going through a new RfA.
Editors who have been found to have engaged in sockpuppetry on at least two occasions after an initial indefinite block, for whatever reason, are now automatically considered banned by the community without the need to start a ban discussion.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee is considering a change to the discretionary sanctions procedures which would require an editor to appeal a sanction to the community at WP:AE or WP:AN prior to appealing directly to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.
Miscellaneous
A discussion has closed which concluded that administrators are not required to enable email, though many editors suggested doing so as a matter of best practice.
The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team has released the Interaction Timeline. This shows a chronologic history for two users on pages where they have both made edits, which may be helpful in identifying sockpuppetry and investigating editing disputes.
Hi Nihlus. I have obtained a decent amount of edits (825) and I try to combat vandalism. However, I was declined rollback permission because I didn't have enough experience/too inactive. It would be great if you could train me in the CVU! Thanks. Regards, Heptanitrocubane (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Some baklava for you!
Thank You for doing what you do! LithiumBoride (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Asking to be trained
I am a new user and would like to be trained Commie cat164 (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Due to your inactivity for over one month, I have placed you as an inactive trainer on the CVUA page (as ratified in old talk page discussions), in order to not mislead potential new students to keep asking you. When you return, you can simply remove the inactive comment. Thanks, Hummerrocket(talk) 20:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
A proposal is being discussed which would create a new "event coordinator" right that would allow users to temporarily add the "confirmed" flag to new user accounts and to create many new user accounts without being hindered by a rate limit.
Technical news
AbuseFilter has received numerous improvements, including an OOUI overhaul, syntax highlighting, ability to search existing filters, and a few new functions. In particular, the search feature can be used to ensure there aren't existing filters for what you need, and the new equals_to_any function can be used when checking multiple namespaces. One major upcoming change is the ability to see which filters are the slowest. This information is currently only available to those with access to Logstash.
When blocking anonymous users, a cookie will be applied that reloads the block if the user changes their IP. 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. This currently only occurs when hard-blocking accounts.
The block notice shown on mobile will soon be more informative and point users to a help page on how to request an unblock, just as it currently does on desktop.
There will soon be a calendar widget at Special:Block, making it easier to set expiries for a specific date and time.
Lankiveil (Craig Franklin) passed away in mid-April. Lankiveil joined Wikipedia on 12 August 2004 and became an administrator on 31 August 2008. During his time with the Wikimedia community, Lankiveil served as an oversighter for the English Wikipedia and as president of Wikimedia Australia.
I do appreciate all you did for me, so I wanted to say thanks, just in case I can't say it later. I apologies that when my emotions are up, I do not slow down and read through things well, one of my many faults. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
Summarize
Perspective
Hello Nihlus, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
ACTRIAL:
WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.
Backlog drive:
A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
Editathons
There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
Paid editing - new policy
Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Not English
A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
News
Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
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.
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.
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.
Hello Nihlus, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: . Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: , , , .
Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.
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.
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.
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)
Hello Nihlus, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
June backlog drive
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers. Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
New technology, new rules
New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.
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.
For your mature and civil conduct here while being continuously hounded and harassed by , lets just say some experienced users. Razer(talk) 07:56, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Razer2115. It highlights one of the worst things about being in a vocal-but-still-large-enough minority on this site. I'm glad to see that others saw the verbal abuse thrown my way as well and that I wasn't making it up in my head. Nihlus 16:18, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
"Vicious"
Summarize
Perspective
I didn't mention the "vicious terms" to suggest all opposers of that RfA were vicious. I did it to try to emphasize that I was speaking about only a very small minority of opposers. I disagreed with the opposing rationales, but that doesn't mean they weren't valid opinions to hold. I did feel that there were a few opposes that crossed the line into attacking a valued contributor when they characterized the candidate in terms more often reserved for editors about to face a WP:NOTHERE block. I saw no particular problems with your opposition, though very mildly, I would probably prefer if you qualified "unsuitable" with "at this time". I'm sorry if that wasn't clear in my message, and further sorry that my comments became an invitation for others to go after you. ~ Rob13Talk 11:01, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: That's fair. At that point I was becoming rather exhausted by all the nonsense some of your fellow administrators were tossing my way, so I may have been a tad sensitive at that point. Also, I don't fault you for the misbehavior of other admins; they should know when their comments are appropriate or not. I should clarify though, that my oppose was an oppose "for now". I think Jbh has what it takes to eventually be an administrator, there are just some things that need to be worked on before I feel comfortable supporting (the demonstrated need being my biggest concern). Nihlus 16:25, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
That's certainly good to hear. I used to place emphasis on "demonstrated need", but my weird path through administrative tasks has convinced me to provide it with less weight in my voting patterns. When we get more admins at places with many to go around, some of the more experienced admins tend to move onto more complicated areas. For instance, when Primefac effectively took over for me at WP:TFD, I moved on to working on file backlogs, something I had never done before. Hopping all around the project has certainly helped me stave off burnout, and an influx of admins into areas I previously worked has allowed me to remain fresh and productive in the more difficult areas of the project. Throwing one more admin at AIV may not seem that important by itself, but maybe it means one more admin moves over to working on files. Just some food for thought. ~ Rob13Talk 06:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Thanks for the very nice barnstar! Enterprisey(talk!) 06:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
DYK preps
I think I owe you an apology, because I thought you were an admin, and hence I was suggesting that doing some work on DYK preps and queues might be an interesting exercise; but you can't move stuff to queue if you're not an admin. The next prep to move to queue is P3, but I can't really move it as it's got one of my hooks in it. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:46, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Ritchie333, I'd be more than willing to help out in more areas if I were to have the bit; however, as you said, I am not an admin (to many other's delight). Nihlus 17:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For remaining civil and vigilant, thank you. ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, JeffyP. Nihlus 03:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Deletion review for Kane Tanaka
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kane Tanaka. 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. 100.40.125.198 (talk) 20:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
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.
JJMC89, thank you. Nihlus 21:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
User talk:73.223.15.78
Hi. Are you an admin. I figured with all the rights listed on your user page that you were. User:73.223.15.78, to whom you gave a final warning on August 17 for repeatedly adding uncited material, has continued their violations. He/she garnered another warning on August 28, and added another bit of uncited info on September 10. Can you enact a block? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
User talk:itsmenewmarx1818
Hey please delete all the revision history of user itsmenewmarx1818, it shall be thankful to you. User:itsmenewmarx1818, —Preceding undated comment added 11:41, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
@Itsmenewmarx1818: Please see WP:RFO if you are concerned about your real name being on the wiki. Nihlus 11:50, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Personal opinion prevails over facts and unacceptable communication style
Hi Nihlus, I am reaching out to you as a motivated contributor to this platform but, as others, am losing my appetite to continue to do su based on recent 'encounters' with user FOX52 regarding the edits and information published recently on sites such as The Royal Netherlands Air Force & Belgian Air Component as an example.
Hope you are willing to have 'independent look' at this and provide some coaching to resolve or intervene as this is becoming unacceptable.
Regards, EDV1969 —Preceding unsigned comment added by EDV1969 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
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.
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.
I see you moved the user/talk page to Claire9876. Does this mean that her account was changed? A bit surprised and confused. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
More information Enough of these thinly veiled insults and pompous attitude. Nihlus 16:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC) ...
Enough of these thinly veiled insults and pompous attitude. Nihlus 16:27, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
One of us is missing something major. a reader wrote to Wikimedia noting that List of World Series champions listed Boston as the winner of the 2018 World Series. As you presumably know not only is the series not over it hasn't started. Maybe someone's trying to include the teams as placeholders because we know who is playing but we don't know who will win (yet). For that obvious reason, I removed the entry. you reverted it with the curious edit summary that "the game exists and is being played". Well, yes, the "game" (I call it a series) is going to be played but it hasn't yet been played.
What you think I'm missing?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Can you specify where the error is? – S. Rich (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) I think the error is in someone putting information into an article about something that hasn't happened yet: See CRYSTAL. ——SerialNumber54129 14:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Srich32977, I feel like I woke up in the land of Kafka. I honestly expected the reaction to my edit would be "whoops, I can't believe we blew it". This is a featured article. I can't believe it contained a table identifying Boston as the winner of the 2018 World Series. I removed it and more than one of you are trying to edit war to restore incorrect information. This is mind-boggling. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, please read WP:EW:An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense.Nihlus 15:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Nihlus, I was trying to let this go, because although you've made an obvious error, you don't seem willing to acknowledge it and I thought it be best to just drop it and maybe it would eventually sink in. I've read WP:EW. Perhaps you need to read the section that talks about reverting vandalism. Adding the winner of the World Series which hasn't even started is arguably vandalism. it was added by an editor with all of three edits. I guess I should AGF that they are simply clueless, but it isn't a case of I'm right and you're wrong, it's a case of vandalism. They would be vandalism in any article but this is a featured article for heaven sake. S Philbrick(Talk) 16:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, you've gone too far. From edit warring to calling other editor's edits vandalism simply because you disagree with them, your behavior is deplorable. Stay off of my talk page. You are not welcome here at all at any time. Nihlus 16:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, I'm not sure why you are edit warring. Most readers will be looking for a placeholder of some sorts so I am not sure why you are so keen at removing anything from that spot. Do as I said: make it neutral or discuss it. I'll be implementing a different change and hope you don't continue your edit war. Nihlus 14:28, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Nihlus, I'm not edit warring. I removed an obvious error. Do you honestly not see this? There may be value in the inclusion of a placeholder for the 2018 World Series which identifies the participants, but you can't do that by listing one of them in the winner's column. Figure out a better way of doing it, but please do not reinstate clearly incorrect information. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Nihlus, By the way, you are not a newbie. The directive "do as I said" is not the way Wikipedians talk to one another. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, I'm not interested in lectures on how to speak with other people. Additionally, edit warring is edit warring, regardless of whether or not you (think) you are right. I'm surprised that needs explaining. You'll notice I was proactive in making a positive change to the article instead of just blindly reverting it three times. Nihlus 15:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Nihlus, I did notice that you made a change. I've already sent thanks but I'll thank you again. S Philbrick(Talk) 15:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Hello Nihlus: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween! –ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.
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.
Done. For some reason when I closed it I inexplicably forgot that there can be no consensus on a merge request. @Frietjes: Subtle implications or veiled threats of going to DRV are as unhelpful as they are inappropriate, especially when I have yet to reply to the original inquiry. Nihlus 01:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
Administrator changes
Muboshgu
Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
None
Bureaucrat changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Obituaries
. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 
, 
, 
, 
.
) 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.
Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam
Interface administrator changes
Oversight changes
wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.