This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dreamy Jazz. 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.
EncMstr, I cannot remember, but I presume it was due to the multiple tags on the article. However, the article does not necessarily need immediate attention and the article is already included in specific categories for improvement, so feel free to remove it if you don't think it needs marked as needing attention. Thanks, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions19:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi there, I asked another mentor for adoption but I don’t think they will adopt me so is it fine if you can become my mentor? I’m from the UK so timing should be fine! Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 10:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Willbb234, although I can help you, I would prefer to have one adoptee "on the books" (due to time constraints). That being said, I will be open to questions you may have (which you can ask on my talk page). You may be interested to read what I have written at User talk:Slarky says no#The start of your adoption. I have also left a further welcome notice on your talk page with several links which can help you explore Wikipedia. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions15:55, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Willbb234, no problem. It is a turn of phrase. If something is "on the books" it means that it is official. The way I intended to use it was that I would be happy to answer questions etc., but wouldn't want to adopt more than one person. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions17:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thank you. Are you currently adopting somebody else because I’m sure it said your available to become a mentor? Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
WP:CEN came about as an idea I explored through a request for comment that closed last March. Recen research has re-opened the debate on Wikipedia's role in a changing faster-paced internet. Questions of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:Recentism are still floating around. That being said, there are still plenty of articles to write and hopefully this noticeboard can positively contribute to that critical process.
More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.
QUALITY of REVIEWING
Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors.
The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.
Backlog
The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.
Move to draft
NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.
Notifying users
Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.
PERM
Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.
Other news
School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.
Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
As I have been dealing with the current 'inactive' project tag on talk pages - for a significant number of islands of western australia - they (the articles) are not assessable - it would be great to revert the inactive aspect so there can be active assessment carried out - thanks - it would be really appreciated - thanks JarrahTree13:40, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
I didn't hear anything back, so I thought I might send a note. I think I fixed the citations so that they would be appropriately referenced. Please let me know if there is anything else you need from me so that I can publish this page for our dean.
@Carlapple: hello. I have been busy recently and I also don't usually look back at submissions I have declined, so I haven't noticed you have resubmitted the draft. Submissions take time to review and although we aim to review submitted drafts in 8 weeks, there is no guarantee. I am still busy currently and so won't be able to look at your submission. All the best, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions07:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Friends?
Hey Dreamy Jazz want to be friends? I want to be because I saw the message you left on my old account which I forgot the password for. So, friends? Arthurfan828 (talk) 00:37, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello Dreamy Jazz, I've left a reply to my article rejection on my user page. I think the rejection reason is wrong (because the source I cited is more-than-extremely reliable: a very influential scientific paper by Google), but I acknowledge that there could be more citations as in the comment on the Draft:Sequence_to_Sequence. Could you hint me to how I could make the article be accepted? My goal here is to create the article at least so that it exists to lower the barrier to other contributors on that topic, because this topic will definitively need to exist in the future because of its importance, but I won't write a long Wikipedia article as my first one. Thank you. Guillaume Chevalier, 2019, 26th August
@GChe: Hello. I have not been active on Wikipedia in a while, so did not see your message. Currently the draft does not have enough sources to be moved to the mainspace, as articles on Wikipedia should have multiple indepedent and reliable sources (so that it meets the general notability guideline). If the sources exist, you should add them to the page and from a quick google search (https://www.google.com/search?q=sequence+to+sequence) I can find multiple sources to use. Once the draft has enough sources and has been expanded to a reasonable size (so it covers the main points on the topic) it should be ready for mainspace. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions12:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019
Hello Dreamy Jazz,
Backlog
Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 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.
Coordinator
A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.
This month's refresher course
Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.
Deletion tags
Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.
Paid editing
Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
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, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools
Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.
Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.
Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.
DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
multiple entries declined - new editor seeking advice
hello DJ
I'm new to wikipedia, was dismayed to find you declined a great many of my first entries. These were all professional associations in my Canadian Province. I'm determined to get them each on wikipedia because I feel it's important the public be able to find them all and the Canadian agency responsible for disseminating information about Colleges (and educational institutions generally) has failed to do this. I do appreciate that the entries were very short, but did make sure to add a definitive secondary source, the provincial laws under which each of the associations is constituted. How much more do you think i'll need to add to get these approved? Can you recommend any particular sorts of references, or particular pieces of information you think editors would like to see?
Hello. Although I understand that a Wikipedia page may be helpful to the public, it needs to have things to talk about. Currently most of the drafts for these associations just say they exist, are authorised by certain acts, and manage their respective fields. Finding a wide range of independent sources (i.e. just not the acts they are authorised by) will help to expand the article and also allow it to meet the notability guidelines.
In answer to the question on how many sources needed, it varies. Usually what the sources are and contain matters more than just a simple count, however, having just one or two useful sources won't necessarily make it notable enough. If you can find around different 5 sources which are independent, reliable, secondary and talk about said association in detail (i.e. they are the primary focus of the source and/or are talked about at length in the source) then it is likely that the articles would be accepted.
There is no particular kinds of references which would be more useful than others. However, finding a good mix of sources can help you to find a good mix of information. This good mix of information helps to ensure that the article covers everything about the said association.
You may want to, if there is not already, create a page which is a list of these associations. This will be able to list the ones not notable enough and if ones are notable enough, then also allow you to link to them from the list. I have tried to find if this list existed, but I couldn't find if it did. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions22:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Home Lander, thanks. I'm opening an SPI into this, as this has been happening a couple of times recently from different throwaway accounts, but it's usually been worse than "stupid". I should have probably labelled it as attack in the first place. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions00:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
For drafts like Draft:Oscar Carberry, with no content besides an introductory sentence about the user or one of their friends, what we now usually do is speedy delete, I use G2, test page; some other admins use G11 or G3. For ones that are insulting jokes, some people use G10, but I think this is making too much of a fuss about it. If you think there's any question, send them to MfD, because there is no point whatever in letting them stay around 6 months and make work for people who check them. The reason this is not a separate speedy criterion isthat it ha proved too hard to actually define it. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
DGG, ok thanks for the note. I had noticed that there was not a clear criterion that drafts which are not unsourced and negative fall under. I wasn't sure on what to do, so I left it after declining. Thanks for the information and I'll deal with these via G2 if I see more. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions21:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
I just edited the page created for Anita Olatunji, I hope it's improved? I am incredibly greatful for any advice as I am new to this and not sure if I got it right.
Many thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wunmihead (talk • contribs) 11:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Wunmihead, my advice is that you look at our guide on references. For example you could write <ref>https://pulpfictioncine.com/contenido/3781/the-witcher-se-suma-una-actriz-al-elenco-de-la-serie-para-netflix</ref> after the line saying she will be in The Witcher.
If you want, you can also use VisualEditor, which can be enabled by clicking the "Visual editing" option in the drop down menu with the pencil image in the top right of the edit box while editing the draft. This allows you to add references easily and shows you what the draft will look like before you submit your edit. If you need a guide on how to use visual editor it can be found at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:VisualEditor/User_guide. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions12:06, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
You asked that my recent (and first) contribution be 'speedy deleted'.
When I see the reason/s, they include:
'should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed'
I certainly included a huge range of references that 'the creator of the the subject being discussed' had nothing to do with. Please can you give a more comprehensive answer as to why it is not fit for Wikipedia?
The company was ahead of its time in its industry and has achieved some really notable things.
Ok, I tried to do this and the article seems to have gone
"If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:WiGroup and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window."
There is no option to "edit" it - or am I missing something?
Uhleka, that information which was in the first message is out of date, as the draft has since been deleted. You will need to start the draft again by creating the page. To do this, just go to Draft:WiGroup and make your first edit in the edit box on the page. After you create the page, the edit tab will appear. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions16:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi again,
Thanks for your last message, and I appreciate the time you are taking; I am well aware you volunteer your time.
It's still unclear to me how to get my first draft back. I took over an hour to write it, and add the 11 references. It would be incredibly helpful to regain the draft, and format it to be more neutral and see if I can get it to a place that Wikipedia is happy with it.
I did try and go into the draft again, type in some words, and try edit it - but to no avail. It's really not clear to me at all how to retrieve this document.
This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.
Getting the queue to 0
There are now 824 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.
Coordinator
Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.
This month's refresher course
Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.
Tools
It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback
Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.
Second set of eyes
Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee
The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.
Community Wish list
There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.
To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here
Hi,
Please, i write this message on behalf of my account User:PLEGCentre , it got deleted, and I understand the reason being that it appears to be sound like a company name but please how about the Article I created about Tony Okpanchi, I actually have no affiliation with him or his organization, it only that Tony he has helped make contribution to small business and has helped them grow in Nigeria, so I think he deserves to be on Wikipedia.
Please, how will I make an article about him that will be accepted by Wikipedia? and as for my account PLEGCentre that was deleted, please should I use this new account User:Olajoshua to create, cause sometimes it says there is already a duplicate of Tony Okpanachi which is also waiting to be reviewed.
Thanks for your input "Dreamy Jazz". But, I have found the editorial comments made so far concerning my added information on Johann Bessler's wheels to be particularly offensive. The assertion is that I have a "conflict of interest" and only added my material to the Johann Bessler article to promote my recent book. Well, I can happily inform you and others that I do not need Wikipedia to do that because my book is selling quite wheel, thank you, without it being mentioned in Wikipedia! My goal was to try to elevate the Johann Bessler article from leaving a researcher seeking information on Bessler with the erroneous impression that his "self-moving" wheels were all hoaxed because that opinion is some sort of "scientific consensus". LOL! Nothing could be further from the truth. Also, it's been stated that "without proof that the source [I] made is reliable, it shouldn't be used." My "proof" is that the instructions which Bessler left in his 1719 book for future reverse enginners of his wheels and which are described in detail in my book, when used to construct computer wheel models as I did, lead to simulations that show the design works.
So, I will in the coming days attempt to, once again, restore my one paragraph of additional information to the article on Johann Bessler, but, this time, I will make NO reference to my book. That should eliminate the erroneous charge of "conflict of interest". But, I fully expect that paragraph to be deemed unacceptable for some other reason and again deleted. You see, the real problem, imo, is that everyone automatically assumes that Bessler's wheels were "perpetual motion machines" and as such were physically impossible and must have been hoaxed and, of course, Wikipedia does not want to look like it is promoting pseudoscience and hoaxes. The reality of his wheels, however, is that they were NOT perpetual motion machines in any way although they could run for extremely long time periods while continously outputting mechanical energy NOR were they hoaxes. Bessler just managed to stumble upon a simple, yet quite unique mechanical arrangement of weighted levers, cords, and springs which managed to keep the center of gravity of the weighted levers on the descending side of the wheel despite its rotation. That design appears in the youtube video to which the first external link in my added material directs readers.
Ken Behrendt, I would recommend that you talk on the talk page first. If you do make edits without talking, its likely to be reverted without the edit being supported by sources which are independent, reliable, and not self-published (unless the author is considered an expert in their field by others). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions15:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
These are news/reliable references too. Why is it deleted?
I have prepared new content for this after you delete it. Kindly respond.
Regards
weakdealer Weakdealer 08:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weakdealer (talk • contribs)
Weakdealer the draft is not, and has never been, deleted. Nor can I mark it for deletion, as there is no reason for the draft to be deleted. Because the draft still exists, you can edit and improve the draft. When you feel it is ready you can resubmit the draft for review. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions15:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
other possible criteria
I've been arguing for 12 years now that Wikipedia should cover the candidate of major parties for elections at a level of national importance. ; I was thinking in terms of my own country , the US, and I meant the candidates of the 2 major parties (after they win the primaries), and the House of Representatives, Senate, and the governors of each state, possibly also the mayors of the most politically important 5 or 10 cities. (The last two years has confirmed my view of the importance of the governors--governor campaigns are covered quite intensely). I was justifying this on the basic unfairness of covering the incumbents as contrasted to the challengers--except for the challengers who have not held major political office are or otherwise notable. There is generally a good deal of news for both parties during the election campaign, but the incumbent/prior office holder has had a great deal more in the past. Sometimes in discussing what counts as a reliable source for notability , the local sources that cover the actual campaign are discounted.
I know the UK is structured differently in many ways, so I don't want to conclude anything about the relevance of this to the specifics for this individual., for I am insufficiently informed about the importance of the offices being discussed. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
DGG, to give you a bit of background, she is the candidate for usually the 2nd largest party in the UK (The Labour Party). She is a candidate for the role of a MP, which equates in terms of responsibility to a member of the United States House of Representatives. They are the first stage for bills in the UK, but have more control over the process than in the US.
I have only been able to find two sources which cover her significantly [1], [2]. The Bristol Post one I mentioned above talks about the candidate who resigned as its main focus, but does talk about her reaction to it. I have been unable to read the Telegraph source I mentioned above, as most of it is behind a paywall, however, from the title they don't cover her as the main point in the article (instead labour denying anti-Semitism and the poppy appeal). The Sun and Daily Mail have articles on her for the comments she made about the poppy appeal, but they are considered unreliable and so are banned on Wikipedia (personally I wouldn't use the sources anyway). Furthermore, from what I have read this comment was cherry picked by The Sun and Daily Mail (she said this in a Facebook post around 5 years ago, and only now that she is going for an election is this brought up when she is a remainer and these newspapers are highly supportive of leaving the EU. It is possible that they picked the right moment that benefits them to drop this information). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions17:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dreamy Jazz,
Sorry about the no references, I published the page before I was completed (sometimes i just dont think) Im adding references in now, How long after I submit for a review do you think it will be approved. Hope things are well over your side of the world. Thanks Jessica Jjeffreys99 (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello. I've been flitting about touching this and that and came upon File:2dayfm 90s logo.gif in the context of Category:Images_which_should_be_in_PNG_format; in the history, you are noted as the uploader. I went looking for an original image which could be sampled to PNG, but did not find one in a quick search. Do you have access to an original source of the image, or is the uploaded copy a faithful copy of the original image? The Source in the metadata is mentioned as "Mumbrella"; I'm wondering what that refers to. Thanks for the info. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Ceyockey, hello. Back in December 2017 I had thought that a SVG converter made realistic SVGs, but what the website actually did was just wrap the image in a SVG element (thus not an true SVG). I reverted my changes, but because the previous files were deleted, I just reuploaded the images I had converted (because I had downloaded the images to convert them). I should have requested undeletion at WP:RFUD, but I had not realised that this process existed. The original uploader is Daylen according to the log for that image. It might be worth, seeing as I was never the original uploader on these files, to delete my versions and restore the original uploaders versions (as long as they are the same). I say this as I would say that proper attribution would be achieved. I presume that the original files would still be undeletable. I will make a list of the images that I reuploaded. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions14:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
The list of images is below. There is not too many, and the first image in the list has had a new version uploaded by a different user. If any admin wants to deal with my mistake, feel free to (and take this as an acceptance for all the files below to be G7d as long as the original version is then uploaded). I will also add this to WP:RFUD. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions15:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Images which should have their original versions undeleted and my reuploading deleted
File:1 de Dezembro.png - a better version has since been uploaded by a different user, so it might be worth leaving it (or undeleting the original revision, but I am not sure if/how it would work)
File:1 FC Kleve.png - new version was uploaded, but it was only to reduce the file size. The original file could be restored, as the reducing was only a bot edit
Thank you for reviewing, I do appreciate it. I'm just trying to understand about Mhairi "not been elected yet", or being notable in another way. At the moment she has been elected to the Bristol City Council, and has very similar qualification as Mark Wright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig.francis (talk • contribs) 22:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Craig.francis, as this person's articles for deletion discussion 2 years ago says she fails our notability guidelines for politicians as she is a only a local councillor. If she is elected as a MP, she will meet the first bullet point in that notability guideline and thus be presumed to be notable. Because of this, until she is elected, you need to show that she meets the general notability guideline so that the article can be accepted. This means finding significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Currently this is not met, as most of the sources cover the city council significantly and those which focus on her are not independent.
Dreamy Jazz, thanks for the followup. I wasn't aware of the original deletion discussion for Mhairi (thanks for that). This is the first page I've created (starting as a draft only), where I read the notability guidelines for politicians, and while I wasn't sure Mhairi should have a page, she is a member of a "sub-national" office (Bristol City Council), where I used Mark Wright as an example to myself that this qualification matched (I assumed it had been properly approved). I had also found other examples, like Louise Bloom (I wasn't too sure on that, as it implies she is somewhere in "Who's Who 2008"), but I only mention that to explain why I think (thought?) that Mhairi should have a page as well. Am I wrong to assume that "sub-national" does not apply here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig.francis (talk • contribs)
Craig.francis you are correct to assume that sub-national does not apply here, as in the UK members of parliament hold sub-national positions. Local/city councillors are below MPs and so are below sub-national. Furthermore, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Local politicians says that City councillors and other major municipal officers are not automatically notable, although precedent has tended to favor keeping members of the main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan areas such as Toronto, Chicago, Tokyo, or London. Eastville, Bristol is not a internationally famous metropolitan area and thus her position as a councillor is does not make her notable enough. If she is elected as the MP for Filton and Bradley Stoke, then she will be notable enough for Wikipedia. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions16:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Dreamy Jazz, thanks again for your feedback. I've just found the Candidates and elections page, which does a good job of explaining why there shouldn't be single page for every candidate (too many would be created, most of which would need to be deleted afterwards). But it also confirms my view that information on the candidates should be somewhere (good and bad), so voters (such as myself) can make an informed choice. The suggestion is to make a page for all candidates of a party (e.g. "Green Party candidates, British Columbia legislative election, 2005"), but that would be a page of 650 candidates per national party (far too long). So I'm wondering, should I create a page for the candidates in this constituency, or add it as a separate section on the existing Filton and Bradley Stoke page, or put it somewhere else? I should note that Mhairi is the only 2019 candidate without any information about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig.francis (talk • contribs)
Craig.francis I would note that the page you found, although it is possible it reflects community consensus, has been marked as "inactive" and so is considered "no longer relevant". In fact, this was a failed proposal because discussion on its suitability never gave a yes or no answer (you can see the page being marked as such in this edit in the edit history of the page in 2007). I would be wary using it to say that she should have a section on a separate page or on the constituency page, as this does not necessarily reflect community consensus. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions18:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Dreamy Jazz, sorry, I didn't notice the message at the top. So I'm getting a bit lost now; are you saying there is no place for information on election candidates? I find that a bit odd, as my first thought when trying to find out about my candidates is to use Wikipedia - their own literature tends to be a bit biased, and misses some fairly important (negative) details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig.francis (talk • contribs)
Dreamy Jazz, thanks, I'm just finding this a bit odd. Historically I've always tried to find neutral information on my candidates (I feel like I should make an informed choice), and I was always a little disappointed that Wikiedia didn't provide that information. It's only now, after trying to find that neutral information, like how Mhairi is a Councillor for Eastville, and trying to start a page that should be useful to others, that I realise it's more complicated. Out of interest, and perhaps more of a discussion about general Wikipedia policy, would it help to allow candidate pages, but they need to be marked as such (maybe a tag that says they are a candidate, and identifies which election they are for), where an automated process could go though and delete all of the pages that are no longer required a few months after the election? Alternatively, could the candidates name on the constituency page be allowed to be an external link to their website (I know this gets tricky with promotion), but I still feel that it's fairer that information on every candidate is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craig.francis (talk • contribs)
Craig.francis, I do agree that it is fairer to cover all the candidates (and not just the notable ones), and thus having pages for all election candidates could be an idea. I have some reservations, mainly that there might not be enough sources for the less the popular parties candidates to ensure that the information is verifiable. However, I do think the idea is one worth exploring. I would be wary of auto-deleting candidate pages after the election, as candidates may have become notable in that time under a different notability guideline. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions21:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Please can you tell me how a new band can create a page when the only sources are the members themselves. Reliable sources will prove difficult for the foreseeable future as we are our only sources.
There are currently no published musical works for us but will be within the next week.
Martincterry, hello. Articles on Wikipedia must meet notable and also be verified by reliable sources. Currently your band does not meet the notability guideline for bands and so cannot yet be published. Multiple reliable sources need to be found before any draft can be published, so your draft won't be published until it has multiple reliable (and independent) sources to establish notability and to ensure that any information in the draft is verifiable. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions22:53, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!
Hello,
Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.
I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!
From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.
If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.
I hope you are doing well. I've submitted an encyclopedia article about healthway Medical and it is currently in under review. Kinldy Review as soon as possible and please let me know if anything change required. Looking forward to hearing from you.
Muhammad Bilal Memon, I have re-reviewed the draft. I declined it again, as there are several pieces of information which are unsourced. The information that needs to be sourced has a "Citation needed" at the end of the sentence that needs to be sourced. Furthermore, the table is entirely unsourced too. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions19:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed: when I drilled down on what the opposes were arguing there was not much there. However if we need your help and find you have self blocked yourself we will not be happy...LOL. Every good wish and blessing as you carry out your duties. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Advanced admin bit congratulations
My dear dreamy, this is to give you advanced congratulations on your about-to-be successful RfA. I would be on a flight and might not be able to leave a note later if the flight wifi doesn't work. Do reach out for any assistance. Once again congratulations. Lourdes 16:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Info about Rater assessment tool, WP Biography articles
Greetings, WHile doing WP Bio assessments, I noticed your tagging many of these articles. Don't know if you are aware of Rater assessment tool so I thought to let you know how helpful it is. Years back when the WP Bio backlog was 100,000 plus, I found out about Rater. It's been upgraded with a great GUI. For example, when adding WP Bio, it autofills the "Listas"; for "Needs-photo" just type "ph" & it fills in both the parameter & the "yes" value. The Call for Volunteers here explains a bit more. Over time a number of WP users have signed up to work various parts of the alphabet (I'm working on the "Hs"). Any questions, feel free to ask. Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 23:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
JoeHebda, thanks for the note. I do use rater when rating articles using my browser, but I have been using AWB to tag lots of pages. I find the living autofill doesn't always work for me. I'll take a look at doing some assessment. I might do some on W. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions23:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Reaching out to you as the closer of the move request of Orbital ATK -> NGIS in August 2018
The Article as currently written is factually incorrect:
the "Key People" listed in the box were relevant only to Orbital ATK and not to the Northrop Grumman NGIS sector
Article states that NGIS was the "aviation division of parent company Northrop Grumman" . This is absolutely false. NG had aviation in other sectors (see B2 and B21 bombers). NGIS did more than aviation (rockets, satellites, munitions)
The three groups listed in the article were named as "groups" only under Orbital ATK and got renamed to divisions under Northrop Grumman
The article as written is really about Orbital ATK and was attempted to be retrofitted into an NGIS article. None of the other divisions (or sectors) of Northrop Grumman have standalone articles. Conversely other companies that were absorbed into Northrop Grumman retained their original article (see Grumman). Further complicating matters, as the article states NGIS ceased to exist in 2020 due to a company reorganization.
Since the article really is about Orbital ATK, the historical company, and not about NGIS, the now defunct sector of Northrop Grumman. Recommend renaming back to Orbital ATK and retaining the historical focus of the old company, especially as the NGIS division existed for even less time than the original company.
Spaceman13 (talk) 21:32, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Spaceman13, if you want to propose that the page is moved back you can open a new requested moves discussion. You can do this by placing the text below at the bottom of the article's talk page replacing the text after "|reason=" to "}}" with your reasoning:
{{subst:requested move|Orbital ATK|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Do not sign this.}}
Dreamy JazzThe same editing pattern matched when I looked at the history, that is given on the Harvey Carter page. I came across them when Binksternet closed their comment on the Stalin talk page and it looked like it was a match .Driverofknowledge (talk) 15:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Driverofknowledge, thanks for this. The different IP range and different geolocation made me question myself over whether this was indeed a sock, but the LTA page and evidence presented by yourself and others was enough to counteract the different IP. Happy editing, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions15:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Good block on the disruptive person but I don't think they are HarveyCarter. The behavior is different as is the location. Binksternet (talk) 15:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Behavioural evidences are overwhelming. This is a duck. One of the evidences is his way of writing edit summaries when reverting, he doesn't leave a space between the default edit summary that appears when the editor undo an edit. Here are some reverts from different socks [4][5](this one in the same article)[6][7][8][9] and more, this is literally the same for all of Harvey sockpuppets reverts. And also pushing pro-axis POV [10]. Also, sockpuppets of Harvey seems to be interested in Ireland-UK issues like DannySvens and 86.176.67.46 and the IP has edited the page of Robert Tressell who is related to Irish nationalism [11]. Also, Harvey's location doesn't seem to be the same in many of his IP socks e.g 92.11.171.135(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) (region: Durham| City: Durham| Organization TalkTalk) (also note the IP edit undo summary pattern [12]) 92.7.16.149(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·filter log·WHOIS·RDNS·RBLs·http·block user·block log) (region: East Sussex| City: Eastbourne| Organization: TalkTalk) This IP (region: Wrexham| City: Wrexham| Organization: TalkTalk). As I said it's duck.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:47, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For bringing so many biographies incorrectly marked as dead back to life. As Mark Twain said, "reports of my death are greatly exaggerated". ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Dreamy Jazz. Thanks for handling this SPI. In this case I think we should avoid adding sock tags on the user pages of the accounts. Tags are helpful in many cases because they provide information to future editors about who the sockmaster behind an account is—however, we have to balance this usefulness against WP:DENY. Sometimes it can actually be counterproductive to tag accounts because it can give the troll the recognition they seek. This is a case where I think we should avoid tagging per DENY because the usernames are quite inappropriate and the overall behavior of the accounts makes it obvious why they are blocked (so the informational value of the tags isn't that great). Mz7 (talk) 08:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Mz7, thanks for the message. I get what you mean about usefulness of the tag vs the troll getting recognition, I'll make sure I take this into account going forward. Should these accounts have their tags removed or left as is now? Thanks and happy editing, Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions08:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
In order to block accounts for sock puppetry, there needs to be abuse of multiple accounts. Simply having an alternative account is not sufficient. Note also that WP:CLEANSTART exists, and connecting the new account to the old account when there has been no abuse is, at best, rude.
Being a clerk does not grant you special status above other editors. (Neither does being an admin or a checkuser.)
There's an SPI script you can add to your user .js to assist you in clerking if you want to use it: importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/spihelper.js'); importScript('User:Timotheus Canens/SPIW.js'); It basically just makes archiving cases, flagging cases, and blocking socks quicker.
If a checkuser request violates the checkuser policy or the privacy policy or is unnecessary, you can decline the checkuser request. You can take administrative action on the case and/or close it too.
I'm glad to see you training for this DJ. Clerks are so valuable at SPI's. Go slow and know that there are good people like RE who can answer your questions. Best regards and stay safe. MarnetteD|Talk16:17, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice
Hi Dreamy Jazz, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.
Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.
To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!
This is a bit of a long shot on my part. If you take a look at User talk:EddieHugh, you will then see at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Jazz that I placed a note for a 'Requested article' on Michael J. Thomas (jazz musician). The latter page appears to receive little traffic, and I do not know any other jazz inclined editors, before spotting your bot's edit on Talk:Tom Delaney (songwriter). Which led me to you... phew. Do you have any suggestions - apart from telling me to bugger off - as to where else I could explore this case. It is almost a month now since Mr Thomas contacted me by e-mail, and if the bottom line answer is either a) no editor wants to take this on, or b) the general consensus it that he is not notable enough, then I feel honour bound to inform Mr Thomas and move on.
I have done my best, as I always try to do for many music related articles, but jazz is really not my thing. Many thanks,
Derek R Bullamore, hi. I have found these newspaper reports. Unfortunately they are all behind subscription services, however, I have access to these and could use these to expand a draft / article if wanted. Take these how you want, as I was just searching for his name and did not fully vet the reports in the newspaper. You may be able to find a open access url for these newspapers, but I have not looked:
I don't have any particular suggestions, other than googling key words. I was able to find through googling "Michael J. Thomas (jazz musician) Destin": [13] (blocked for me presumably because of GDPR), [14] (maybe?), [15] (same GDPR blocking again so don't know), [16] (again GDPR...). Perhaps more google searching might help. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions23:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your efforts. I appreciate the time you have taken on this one. The 'hidden references' included at Wikipedia:Requested articles/music/Jazz should still be largely viable. Given what has occurred since my postings, I suspect you will not have any competition ! Regards - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
There is a new beta version of the Wikimedia Commons app for Android. It has a new zoom function when you look at images. It can also suggest places when you upload geotagged photos. [17]
Problems
There was a problem with the Commons database on 27 May. Commons could not be edited for eight minutes. Because of this problem the database was moved. This caused another short read-only time on 29 May. [18][19][20]
The Vector skin had a problem where you couldn't add links to the article in other languages. You couldn't see the section if there were no links to other languages already. It also removed content translation links and links to language settings. This has now been fixed. [21]
Changes later this week
You can get a notification when someone links to a page you created. You can turn these notifications off for individual pages. You can soon turn them off also in the notifications you get. [22]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 June. It will be on all wikis from 4 June (calendar).
Hello, Jazz my contributions is a request of all directors of fleet support service and I work for this service so I have an internal relationship with this public organizacion (french navy).
Thanks to confirm.
These Terms of Use prohibit engaging in deceptive activities, including misrepresentation of affiliation, impersonation, and fraud. As part of these obligations, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. You must make that disclosure in at least one of the following ways:
• a statement on your user page,
• a statement on the talk page accompanying any paid contributions, or
• a statement in the edit summary accompanying any paid contributions.
Greetings! I'm currently dealing with a few suspected sockpuppets over an article COI. My previous investigation got rejected for insufficient evidence (it was my first time attempting an SPI application, sorry!). Here is my second attempt since the socks returned. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind checking it over to see if I've done it correctly this time?! :P LoofNeZorf (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
LoofNeZorf, unless I am mistaken and there is another account, the person behind these IP addresses has only been soft blocked. This means that they are allowed to create a new account / edit as an IP. Therefore, they have not violated the sockpuppetry policy because they are explicitly allowed to continue editing under a different account name / as an IP.
Based on geolocation of the IP addresses they are from different broadband providers but in the same area. This could mean the IP addresses are different people (i.e. different members of the band) or that it is the same person who connected to different WiFi networks. I am hesitant to say whether I think the IPs are the same or different people, but will assume good faith and say these are the same person (i.e. no meatpuppetry took place).
Because of the above, I am closing the SPI report without action. The evidence you did provide was perfectly acceptable and the only reason the report was closed without action was because the account was soft blocked. If the IPs make disruptive edits, I suggest you ask that the article be semi-protected at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions23:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Some articles have tables that can be sorted in different ways. For example a list of countries can be sorted alphabetically but you can click on the size column to sort them by size. If you clicked on the column a second time it would sort the countries from the bottom to the top instead. A third click will now take you back to the original sorting. [23]
Self-closed tags now work as in the HTML5 specifications. This means you should stop using some of them. <b/> is an example of a self-closed tag that won't work. area, base, br, col, embed, hr, img, input, keygen, link, meta, param, source, track, wbr can be self-closed. Pages with tags that should not be self-closed have been listed in a tracking category since 2016. They will be listed in Special:LintErrors/self-closed-tag. This doesn't affect <references /> or <ref />. [24]
There is a banner called WikidataPageBanner. It is for example used by the Wikivoyages, Wikimedia Russia and the Catalan, Basque, Galician and Turkish Wikipedias. It will now been seen by mobile visitors too. Before this it was only seen on desktop. The wikis should update instructions on MediaWiki:Sitenotice so that editors know to test and style for mobile too. [25][26]
Changes later this week
You can now edit MassMessage descriptions through the API. This is useful for tools and gadgets. [27]
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 June. It will be on all wikis from 11 June (calendar).
Future changes
A temporary fix helped wikis make their main pages more mobile friendly. This was in 2012. It has not been recommended since 2017. It will not work after 13 July. Wikis should use TemplateStyles instead. 118 wikis need to fix this. You can read more and see if your wiki is affected. [28]
Could you add the "|listas=" parameter to the default WikiProject Biography template produced by the bot? I am a member of a group that works on reducing the backlog in "Category:Unassessed biography articles". Many of those need "listas" added, in addition to rating them. Of course, the actual value would still have to be entered individually, but if the bot could produce the parameter that would save a little time when a person is trying to rate a number of articles. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually, the Rater script that I use adds the class parameter when it does the rating. It would be useful, though, for editors who rate manually, rather than using the script. I appreciate your help. Eddie Blick (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the parameters! I've been away from working on this project for a couple of days and just found a talk page on which you added "listas" and "class". I appreciate the help. Eddie Blick (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
Toolforge hosts several tools created by the Wikimedia community like edit counters or enhanced editors. It is changing the domain from tools.wmflabs.org to toolforge.org. The routing scheme is moving from tools.wmflabs.org/toolname to toolname.toolforge.org. You can read the details. Tools that use OAuth will have to be updated to keep working. You can ask for help.
Problems
There is a Wikidata item link in the sidebar on many pages. This disappeared for a couple of days for users who have the Monobook skin. This was because of a bug. It has now been fixed. [29]
Editing, logging in and logging out didn't work properly for a short period of time last week. It was soon fixed. [30]
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 June. It will be on all wikis from 18 June (calendar).
Future changes
Pywikibot is a Python library to automate work on wikis. It will not support Python 2 after the new version in July. Support for Python 3.4 and MediaWiki below 1.19 will also be dropped. You should migrate to Python 3. You can ask for help. [31]
The selectors .menu and .vectorMenu will no longer work in the Vector skin. This can affect gadgets and user scripts. .menu should be replaced by ul. .vectorMenu should be replaced by .vector-menu. [32]
NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.
Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate
In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.
Discussions and Resources
A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
Hi. I'm seeking some clarification an what's allowed with regards to an interaction-ban. Another user and I are currently subjected to a two-way interaction ban, following an arbitration case you were a clerk for. I was wondering wether I'm allowed to give my thoughts on the subject of a discussion or even RFC the other editor started, without any form of direct engagement being present in my comments. I'm not sure because I think that wen the other user starts a discussion, even a general comment of mine there could be seen as an interaction. So I decided to query you for some clarification before actually doing anything.Tvx1 11:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Tvx1, I am not completely sure, however, I will give my interpretation. I suggest emailing the arbitration committee about this if you haven't already, as the arbitration committee is the group that placed the interaction ban and will be able to give you a better answer than I can give. They are the last place of appeal for blocks placed by an administrator enforcing a IBAN authorised by the committee, so their interpretation is the one that matters.
Taking from WP:IBAN, it says that you can't make reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly and can't reply to each other in discussions. My interpretation of this is that by commenting on only the subject of the discussion you are not necessarily directly replying to them, nor are you making reference or commenting on them. However, you still are still replying to their subject. I would be wary as your comment might very easily look like an answer to both the subject and them. For example the question / subject might be "Should this image be in the article?" and the answer you might have given in this situation is "no it shouldn't because ...". This does comment on the subject, but can be easily seen as a reply to them. Therefore I suggest that it is better to not comment. If your comments are shared by others, they would likely make those comments anyway.
In summary, I suggest contacting the committee via email. If they don't answer, then I would suggest not commenting. If they do answer, their answer is the correct one. Of course, is the answer is "you can comment on the subject", you will need to be very careful how you comment. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions15:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Well, then I have a problem. For safety reasons, I do not use email for my Wikipedia activities and have no intention to start doing so. Are there any on-wiki alternatives to have this clarified with the arbitration committee?Tvx1 20:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Tvx1, yes. You could ask an arbitrator directly via their talk page (the list of arbitrators is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Members) (this is less formal and quicker, however, unless other arbitrators discuss this the answer would be the personal opinion of an arbitrator), file a clarification request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment (this is more formal, allows all arbitrators to weigh in and is on-wiki, but is generally a longer process), or I can ask via email on your behalf. I suggest either filing a clarification request or that I email, as this ensures that all the active arbitrators see your question. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions20:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Will, then maybe it would be best if you email on my behalf as that appears to be quickest way to achieve this clarification.Tvx1 22:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Do you have any idea how long it would take for this process to complete? I certainly don't intend to put any pressure whatsoever on you. I was just wondering roughly when I could expect an answer from the committee.Tvx1 20:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Tvx1, I've got two replies to my email. One from a clerk, who said that they recommend staying away from discussion / RFC started by a user you have a IBAN with. An arbitrator asked for the RFC in question, I replied saying that it was a general case question. There have been no further replies. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions21:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
To clarify this was an email to the clerks mailing list as I am subscribed to that and so are all current arbitrators. It is possible the arbitrators are discussing this on their mailing list. I don't know if this is the case as clerks are not subscribed. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions21:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Tvx1, I have had a response from an arbitrator. They say that beyond the advice at WP:IBAN there is not much that the arbitration committee can say. Because enforcement of decisions is done by individual administrators, the arbitration committee cannot "privately grant any sort of exemption or authorisation". The arbitrator advises that if there is uncertainty about something being a ban violation, then it is best to avoid it. The arbitrator said that going to WP:ARCA for a formal answer is a good idea, but advised that you would likely get the same answer of staying away in this situation.
A admin who works at WP:AE, which is where requests for and appeals of administrative actions against editors who violate remedies in arbitration decisions (i.e. your IBAN) take place, said that they would look poorly on an editor "walking up to the line". Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Tvx1, Dreamy Jazz has captured my comments accurately. If any part of that isn't clear or if you have any other questions, I'm happy to try to answer them here as well. I know IBANs can be a pain to navigate around, but it's usually best to give them a wide berth so everyone can move on from the dispute. I hope this helps. – bradv🍁15:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. I must say to I have no felt any "pain" with regards to deciding whether to contribute somewhere while minding my IBAN. Though disappointingly, as I feared from the beginning, it has all but locked my out from contributing to WT:RALLY. And another thing, I have now been confronted with quite a bizarre situation. A while ago I nominated a F1 article for deletion. That discussion ended with no consensus. It was then recently renominated by the user whom I am banned from interacting with. I have so far not contributed to the second AFD, though I have even been pinged by one of the participants. My arguuments would be in favor of deletion, so I don't really think it would create any sort of controversy with the user I'm banned from interacting with. Any advice?Tvx1 16:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
I would say that it is best for you to stay away. The AfD itself seems to include many different and strongly held opinions, including people saying STOP and Do you feel that because the consensus is "stupid", that makes it OK to keep relisting til the article is deleted?. This AfD is controversial due to the controversial nature of the AfD being started while a DRV is still open for the same article. It is started by the editor you have an IBAN with and other editors are going to notice this. Furthermore, from WP:IBAN, Although the interaction-banned users are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions so long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other. This sentence places your situation in a "grey area" as users are generally allowed suggests a level of discretion for an uninvolved administrator to what constitutes a violation of the IBAN when editors edit the same pages or discussions. This is also reaffirmed by comments from arbitrators and clerks on the mailing list, suggesting that it best to stay away if you are uncertain if a situation is a violation of your IBAN.
These points suggest to me that one uninvolved administrator's opinion will differ to another on whether you violated your IBAN if you comment at the AfD, especially as this AfD is controversial. Therefore, I suggest staying away. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions23:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
Help to keep an article
Hi Dreamy Jazz, I'm an editor, mainly at Wikipedia in Spanish. I have written this article Camilo Prieto Valderrama about a Colombian environmentalist with publications and awards, as well as being an outstanding activist. I wish you could support me in keeping the article. Thank you very much.--3erres (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC) --3erres (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Improvement suggestion
Hi Dreamy Jazz! Your bot has correctly identified Douglas of Mains as a biography, so that's good. However, because it has been featured as a DYK article, few editors would agree that this is a WP:Stub. Perhaps you could alter the bot code so that is won't rate any article as a stub (despite what other tags are on it) if it exceeds a certain word count, or if it has been a DYK article? Admittedly, the article could probably do with a bit of a rewrite, but it's of low importance, so C-class would seem appropriate. Wikiwayman (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Wikiwayman, I could certainly do a word count limit. What I'll do is make the bot log the page and add the template without a class, as if the page is large in size, then it would also likely need the stub template removed. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions12:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, my friend, @Dreamy Jazz: I can´t understand now why Fountains of Bryn Mawr wants to delete the new article. There are plenty of articles as this one. It´s not a journalistic article is about an animal with a long life... What shall we do? The article was reviewed by you and also by Miniapolis, both editors administrators...
And the reason why the editor is proposing the article be deleted is because they say that the elephant is only notable for one event. I disagree with the deletion rationale of WP:1E as the article is not about a person, but is about an elephant (so does not apply here as elephants are not persons). However, WP:NOTNEWS does seem to apply. Dreamy Jazztalk to me | my contributions12:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
3erres, because notability is based on sources, and the sources all primarily are about Mara's move from Argentina to Brazil, it can be debated over whether she has enduring notability (from WP:NOTNEWS). The deletion processes are designed so that this can be discussed.
The removal of a PROD template is not counterproductive, as it shows that the proposed deletion is opposed by an editor. The proposed deletion process is designed for articles where deletion is uncontroversial and where the strictly defined speedy deletion criteria have not been met. Because the process is for uncontroversial and unopposed deletion, by removing the template you are expressing opposition and so this process cannot be used. Often the article is then nominated for deletion at articles for deletion, but this gives more time and space for policy based arguments to take place.
