This is an archive of past discussions with User:Patar knight. 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.
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 1 September 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.
my page was deleted because I copy and pasted the information from a website that I wrote the information for my boss. Is there a way to retrieve this page and repost it for me? The information was not plagerized as I am the one that wrote it on the original website. I am trying to create the wikipedia page with my boss, SoccerSam. SoccerSam prevelant member of the Rochester, NY community and business man.
@Kmk01188: The text on the website is copyrighted, and that copyright is owned by your boss/company since you wrote it during the course of your work. If I restored it, that would mean that Wikipedia and I would be violating your company's copyrights, which we do not want to do. Since Wikipedia only allows hosting content released under a suitably free license, the only way to restore that page as it was would be to get your boss/company to follow the steps at WP:DONATETEXT and give up most of the privileges associated with their ownership of the copyright. However, you are always free to rewrite the article in a way that would not make Wikipedia violate your company's copyright. However, it would still have to meet relevant guidelines such as the general notability guideline through in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Also, if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, you must declare that or you will be blocked from editing (see WP:PAID). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions06:54, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Patar knight. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crescent Electric Supply Co., only one editor commented after I cited multiple sources including a 1957 profile in BusinessWeek that called Crescent Electric Supply "the midwest's largest electrical distributor". That editor did not address why the sources I provided were insufficient to establish notability. Please reconsider your close as "delete". Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
While I think you often do good work in digging up sources and trying to rescue articles, I think I must decline to revisit the close in this case. The other !voters and the nom all indicated that they had also done a survey of the available sources and found them unconvincing. There was also nearly three days for those editors to change their minds between when you posted the sources and the AFD close. Instead, during that time, another !voter thought that the available sources were lacking. Of the five best sources that you found, only the BusinessWeek article seems to truly cover the company in-depth, and none of the others seem to spend more than two paragraphs on the subject. This assessment seems borne out by the state of the article. While it's certainly better than how it was before you worked on it, the material is utterly mundane, except for the stuff sourced from the BusinessWeek article. I appreciate that it's frustrating to work on an article during AfD and have it deleted, but in this case you'll have to go to DRV. Sorry, ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions06:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Zchrykng. Patar knight, thanks for creating Canadaland!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It is helpful when the lead contains information about why the subject is important/notable. Cheers!
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Oops, sorry about that. I think it just auto sends it... will have to check. I only got the perm/tools in the last day or so. {{u|zchrykng}} {T|C}08:35, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
Back in January of 2017 you participated in a discussion about a deletion proposal for an article about Maximilian von Götzen-Iturbide. Someone has added a similar article again and there is, again, a deletion proposal. It doesn't appear that the subject has become any more notable since he was a year and a half ago, but there it is. You were good with helping us to reach a decision last time so I just thought I should let you know it's come up again. Flyte35 (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Deliberations regarding a deleted page that you locked, to reinstate it
Hello Patar knight,
(Note: I have already emailed you the same message, but am also posting it here in case you can't read it. I thought it a good way to reach you since deliberations about reinstating a deleted page are under way.)
I was recently trying to reinstate the Janhvi Kapoor page in good-faith, because I believe that she has reasonably Notability to have her own page, yet I saw that her page was blocked.
...that you were the principal person who made the decision to lock it after deliberation with an Articles for Deletion committee, and that I would need your approval to unlock it again.
For the past day or so, the topic has since come under discussion again- as I have been talking with User:GSS and User:User:Winged Blades of Godric about reinstating it- with each providing seemingly valid arguments for both cases. See here:
In the interim, and as per Amorymeltzer's suggestion, I have created a draft/subpage for any further discussion on the issue. I have requested all 3 users mentioned above to go to that page's talk page for further deliberation. Here is the page below:
Please go and discuss on it with the others so we can discuss whether Janhvi can have a valid page again. And also, as I am a relative newcomer, can you explain the deliberation process to me? I am unsure when or how long it takes to arrive at a consensus. Thanks.
I think any admin would be happy to unprotect it if there was some consensus that it should return to mainspace. You could also try submiting it through the articles for creation process, that allows someone uninvolved to review it, and if successful would be restored barring some egregious error in the AFC review. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions22:57, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Patar Knight, You are 100% wrong on your speedy deletion of the article I just created. Please speedy restore it. There was no time to contest or explain before it was immediately erased. The information was taken from another wikipedia article College and university rankings. This is not advertisement. I do not work for this ranking. It is an empirical global ranking cited by many universities across the world and many wikis. That is also how the wiki page College and university rankings described the text, it was not from the site you sourced as criteria for speedy deletion or for advertisement purposes as cited. We needed the article to add it to the college and university ranking template where a discussion was happening. Please speedy restore it IMMEDIATELY. I will be contacting wikipedia if it is not restored as the reasons for speedy deleting this article was just wrong. I did not use the article you cited for speedy deletion and never even read it. PLEASE SPEEDY RESTORE IT NOW! This was bull to speedy erase it. This should not be done after people work hard to create an article by synthesizing wiki content from other pages to create an article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikecurry1 (talk • contribs) 23:46, September 26, 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for this comment; I was able to remove some problematic copyright violations from the college and university rankings page. So while you copied from a Wikipedia article in good faith, it was unfortunately form a page that was itself compromised by copyright violations. Copyright violations must be deleted promptly and cannot be restored for legal reasons. You'll have to rewrite the article from scratch (though I tried to produce a copyvio-free version of the content myself which you might want to use).---- Patar knight - chat/contributions01:56, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Patar knight, How would I use your version that does not have copyright violations. Yes, I used the information from another wiki page, which apparently had copyright violations, but not my work. How would I restore your version of the copyvio-free version.Mikecurry1 (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
I see the reasons listed why JT's page was deleted, however, I fail to see how he is less credible or notable than the thousands of other CEOs, keynote speakers and professionally published authors that do have a Wikipedia page. At a glance, I can see why someone wouldn't think just being a CEO of a startup is worthy of a Wikipedia entry; but I would have thought being an author and speaker would have made that distinction.
Please let me know if there's any resolution to this, as we'd like to see his page returned to a live state, or let me know what other citations/sources you would need to make it worthy.
Sorry, I had a response typed out to this last month, but apparently never saved it.
I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands, of similarly notable individuals who have Wikipedia articles that should be deleted. However, each individual Articles for Deletion discussion only focuses on the page in question, and cannot possibly try to review every single analogous page (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). There is no inherent notability for being a startup CEO, author, or speaker. Any person must meet the general notability guidelines or a specific notability guideline, in this case the notability guideline for authors. This was how JT McCormick was assessed at the deletion discussion.
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.
Hi. Regarding your comment re Pelas, "Obviously it is common to refer to people by surname only"—sure, after first mention by their full name. But most people aren't Shakespeare or Picasso or Gandhi, who can by referenced solely by their surnames in the expectation that others already familiar with these individuals will know exactly who's being spoken of. See MOS:DABNAME, "Persons who have the ambiguous term as surname or given name should be listed in the main disambiguation list of the disambiguation page only if they are frequently referred to simply by the single name (e.g., Elvis, Shakespeare)." So you've turned Pelas into a non-conformant disambiguation page. Largoplazo (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
The phrasing "main disambiguation page" means that MOS:DABNAME would not apply in cases where the DAB page is not long enough to have a main section followed by topic-specific sections. The rest of the MOS:DABNAME backs this up, since it only lists two ways to add people who are not referred to mononymously: adding a section at the DAB page titled "People with the given name/surname X" or creating an anthroponymy articles at "X (given name/surname)". Neither would make sense for short DAB pages since the first would be unnecessary bloat and the second would be unnecessarily cumbersome for readers. This interpretation is backed by long-standing practice on DAB pages, where individuals are often only split out once the DAB page becomes longer. So while DABNAME doesn't apply here, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies regardless of length, and I think there's a good case that neither entry would be the primary topic. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions16:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Your administrative point taken, I would say that a disambiguation page that has only one item in its main list and then only one item in a naming list is still rather suspect. Also taking your point about primary subject, it seems to me that this title is currently misbegotten and we'd be best served by having it deleted. What do you think? Largoplazo (talk) 19:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
It would be suspect, which is why MOS:DABNAME doesn't apply to short DAB pages with no sections. Per MOS:DABORDER, only long DAB pages – and two entries is certainly not long – need to have sections. A DAB page with two valid entries – a transliteration and a surname – neither of which is the primary topic is okay per WP:NOPRIMARY. There is also additional value to being able to add a "see also" link to Pela (disambiguation) as well as the wiktionary box. While neither topic is particularly prominent, that's not a reason to delete a valid DAB page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions21:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I was reading up on the case and inevitably stumbled onto his Wikipedia page. Should he really be labeled as a criminal? Couldn’t it be (criminal case) or something similar? Thank you!
75.70.232.193 (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
It's a bit of weird case. Normally it would be titled something like "Death of [dead person's name]", but Michael Peterson has achieved prominence as an individual for how he was treated during the case. Given that he used an Alford plea, it's not really a BLP violation, since legally he is a criminal, and it's not a more loaded term like "murderer". Criminal case wouldn't work as a parenthetical disambiguator, since those are supposed to be descriptive of the person. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions17:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Question about uploading resource about CAN BUS Shield
Hi Dear,
I got the message said : 13:31, 25 September 2018 Patar knight (talk | contribs) deleted page Draft:CAN BUS Shield (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://wiki.seeedstudio.com/CAN-BUS_Shield_V1.2/)
Actually I am owner of the content from http://wiki.seeedstudio.com/CAN-BUS_Shield_V1.2/, I created the content from http://wiki.seeedstudio.com, so is there any way I can still upload the content of CAN BUS Shield so that I can help more people to learn about what is CAN BUS Shield and how it could better help their projects?
Hi, that page, although under a free license, is under CC-BY-SA 4.0 (although the copyright tag at the bottom confusingly says "all rights reserved"), which is not a compatible license with Wikipedia. [1] So you would either have to re-license the content, but going back a Creative Commons version may not be legally possible, or rewrite it so you don't violate your own copyright. However, even if the text is copyright-compliant, for it to stay on Wikipedia, it would have to meet our general notability guidelines through multiple, in-depth coverage in independent, third-party reliable sources. Also, if you are being paid to promote this content on wikipedia, you must disclose that. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions13:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
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.
Not sure why you have just deleted Dominic Brigstocke, when I specifically asked at the outset of the discussion for the process to be delayed until the end of November, to allow me to search out various (non-online) articles about him (the deletion discussion was related to WP:BIO). If this matter is so super-urgent - despite the page having been more-or-less stable for some ten years - it might have been nice of you to drop me a note to my Talk page first.
But perhaps you didn't read what I wrote on the page and just followed some mechanical process. In which case I would be grateful if you could revert this page and wait until I produce the evidence, should I find enough by the end of November. If it can't be reverted, where is the text of the article, so that I - or perhaps someone without my potential COI issues - can replace it?
Sorry for the late reply, I've been away for the past week. While requests for extensions at Articles for Deletion are sometimes granted, they are entirely discretionary. Here, a request to extend a discussion opened in mid-October to the end of November would mean a six week discussion, twice the recommended maximum discussion length. During the course of the discussion three other editors did their own survey of the available sources and found that our notability criteria were not met. The single source you provided in support of an extension was insufficient to tiself rebut the findings of the other editors, and given the declared COI found that there was clear consensus to delete. However, if you do find the sources, please contact me and I'll see about a possible undeletion. Thanks, ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions14:40, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Patar knight. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
Administrators and bureaucrats can no longer unblock themselves unless they placed the block initially. This change has been implemented globally. See also this ongoing village pump discussion (permalink).
To complement the aforementioned change, blocked administrators will soon have the ability to block the administrator that placed their block to mitigate the possibility of a compromised administrator account blocking all other active administrators.
In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (Raymond Arritt) passed away on 14 November 2018. Boris joined Wikipedia as Raymond arritt on 8 May 2006 and was an administrator from 30 July 2007 to 2 June 2008.
Is there a way to recover the contents of an article so that I can post it to another website. Unfortunately, I lost the backup I had on my computer, and I hope not to have to recreate all my work. I would have expected it to remain in my sandbox, but it appears that content was also deleted when the post was deleted.
@Sardonyx47: Sorry for the late reply, I've been on break for the last month. All edits to Wikipedia are subject to the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, which means that they are subject to a free license. Since the license Wikipedia uses has a Sharealike provision, if you post the information to another website, it must also be licensed under an appropriately free license. If this is possible, feel free to email me and I can send you a copy of the deleted text. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions23:21, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
I have edited one of your entries. It was incorrect but based on a globe and mail article. The correction was made today and just wanted to let you know.
Cheers
egkainizo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Egkainizo (talk • contribs) 09:47, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
@Egkainizo: Sorry, I've been on break for the last month. I've just removed any numerical reference, since that seemed to have been an assumption I made based on the implied meaning of the Globe and Mail article. If there is a source for Rosemary being the third wife, please add it! Thanks, ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions23:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.
Members of the Bot Approvals Group (BAG) are now subject to an activity requirement. After two years without any bot-related activity (e.g. operating a bot, posting on a bot-related talk page), BAG members will be retired from BAG following a one-week notice.
Technical news
Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
{{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.
Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Requesting Undeletion of "List of GameCube games with alternate display modes"
I am requesting the restoration of the page List of GameCube games with alternate display modes. This page provided useful information for anyone looking for a deeper understanding of the GameCube's video output capabilities, including what requirements must be met for alternative output methods such as GameCube model, A/V cable, and television requirements. The most vital information on the page beyond this is the list of software that is actually capable of supporting alternate display modes, and what action the user must perform to achieve these alternate modes when the hardware requirements are met.
The main GameCube article does not provide this information, and the page surely must have been made with the intention of not weighing down that article with this abundance of additional information.
Please note that similar articles for the PS2 and Xbox also existed and were recently deleted as well by users RoySmith and TheSandDoctor respectively, and I am making restoration requests for those articles on their respective talk pages as well.
Since the AfD discussion resulted in a strong consensus to delete, it would be inappropriate for me to unilaterally undelete it. It any case, it is Sandstein who actually assessed the consensus, I merely deleted after he overlooked the actual deletion of the article. However, I imagine his response would be the same. If he also doesn't agree to restore, than you can try and argue your case for why the consensus was incorrectly interpreted at deletion review. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions23:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the article should not be undeleted because the IP editor does not indicate what has changed since the AfD closure. Sandstein 08:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.
Technical news
A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.
A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Dear Admin, I only want to ask if the possibility exists to restore the article. The reason of my request is, that after all the involved editors had voted, the editor "ThatMontrealIP" did a hard work to improve the article. So the voting and consensus was not about the final form of the article. Thank you in advance. 4evayoung77 (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
This is a pretty disingenuous request, which I won't action. ThatMontrealIP clearly !voted to delete the article in the AFD citing a lack of reliable sources demonstrating notability and the only work they did on the article was to remove unreliable sources from the article. Since they didn't add any reliable sources during that work, it's safe to conclude that none were discovered, or at least an insufficient amount to change their mind. If the work on the article shows a change in heart, they were always free to return to the AFD and change their vote. In any case, even if they did change their !vote on the AFD, the consensus would still have been to delete the article. I've pinged them here to give their side of the story, but I suspect my deductions above are correct. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions02:26, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Patar knight, thanks for the ping. You are correct. I can't see the deleted article, but I recall that I worked on the article and couldn't come up with good sources. I voted !delete on that basis and see no reason to revisit that.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Following discussions at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:Administrators, an earlier change to the restoration of adminship policy was reverted. If requested, bureaucrats will not restore administrator permissions removed due to inactivity if there have been five years without a logged administrator action; this "five year rule" does not apply to permissions removed voluntarily.
Technical news
A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.
Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
paid-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
checkuser-en-wpwikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.
We are trying to standardize the names of search terms to include non-tropical storms, which involves changing the name of the redirect. I hope you realize that the name Zack has been used more than one time. Our goal is to remove all the main name space redirects so we don't have to worry about it whenever a storm name gets retired or a storm worthy of taking it occurs. Besides, the redirect you made is not needed as one already exists for "Typhoon Zack (1995)". NoahTalk01:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Search terms do not need to be standardized, since redirects exist and many redirects can point to the same target, so I'm not exactly sure what your first sentence means. A pointer to a relevant discussion would be helpful. As far as I can tell, based on the former target of the redirect, there is only Typhoon Zack that's substantially covered by Wikipedia, so it's appropriate to redirect the term to that content. Typhoon Zack (1995) is a {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. If there is more than one Typhoon Zack covered on Wikipedia, then in the absence of a primary topic, it should redirect to List_of_named_storms_(Z)#Zack. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions01:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The base topic is still an entry that can be disambiguated. WP:G14 only applies to pages that only have one valid dab entry or zero valid dab entries, since these are unambiguously unneeded DAB pages. 2DABs are much more likely to fall within a grey zone that makes it unsuitable for CSD, whether it's because the page at the base name doesn't qualify primary topic (e.g. when it's there just because it got created first) or because there are additional entries that were overlooked or have been created since the DAB was last updated. In my experience, SOP for 2DABs where there is already a primary topic at the base name is to PROD them so it shows up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Article_alerts, where editors who work with DABs can try and see if there are additional entries to add. Then when the PROD expires after a week, they'll be deleted as necessary. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions15:55, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure I agree with the move, seems like recentism. AFAIK G6 never allowed deletion of 2DABs with a primary topic even before the G14 split, but I'll have to look at the page history. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions19:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Restoring redirects
Hi. I've noticed you are restoring a number of redirects that I tagged for deletion as WP:G5. You are noting in the log that not a G5 violation - can you explain why this isn't a violation? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:40, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about the late reply, I wanted to post my reasoning on your talk page after going through all the restorations, but was caught up in other things so I never finished that task before you posted on my talk page.
I've always taken the second bullet point at G5: To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban" (emphasis added) to mean that pages created by a sockpuppet of a blocked user who was not originally blocked for sockpuppetry to fall outside the scope of G5 unless it is in violation of the original block. If all pages regardless of connection to the original block fell into the scope of G5, then this bullet point would be completely redundant to first sentence of G5 (This applies to pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block). All users who use another account to edit pages while blocked under the original account would be socking and editing in violation of that block, so if G5 applied to all pages created by sockpuppets of blocked users, it would be unnecessary to specify that it only applies to violations of specific blocks.
In this case, the original user, User:Niqabu, was indeffed for racial insults, so IMO, any pages User:Openlydialectic created should only be deleted under G5 if they are racially charged in any way. For example, one redirect I won't be restoring is Nagorno-Karabakh cuisine, which was redirected to Armenian cuisine despite the region being internationally recognized as part of (though not controlled by) Azerbaijan. Compounded with Niqabu calling other editors Turkoroaches (Azerbaijanis are a Turkic ethnicity), this would be a justified G5 deletion.
Also, in the case of redirects, the need to resort to G5 is also lessened, since it's very quick to check if the redirect is valid compared to even the shortest articles, for which you would have to look at things like bias, sources, tone, etc. For example, having Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment of Thailand redirect to Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (Thailand) is obviously not an issue, and should be endorsed as a useful redirect. Also, as far as I know there are no aggravating factors like undisclosed paid editing, BLP, or other similar concerns that might militate in favour of using G5 here. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions21:14, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Patar knight: I guess I interpreted it differently - looking at the second part of the second bullet point (Pages created by a topic-banned user may be deleted if they come under that particular topic, but not if they are legitimately about some other topic), I assumed this meant that if a user is blocked from the entire site, then all page creations were eligible, and that the first part was to make it clear that topic banned users can contribute to other topics. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
There's no need to ping me on my own talk page, that happens by default whenever anyone posts here. If the second bullet point was only meant to clarify restrictions on topic banned users, then it would have been written without the first sentence to lead-in, since it would be redundant, and just start with the bit about topic-banned users. Looking at the history of the G5's wording, it was changed without discussion in 2015 to remove "For example" from the second bullet point, which had almost always been there since it was added after a discussion on the talk page. [2][3] This edit added ambiguity to the second bullet point as to if it only applied to topic banned users or if it only used topic banned users as an example, so I'll revert the change. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions16:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually you suggested both and didn't really indicate a strong preference for either besides a mild dislike of how clunky the full name is. [4] On the other hand, two other editors at the AFD showed a preference for the full name. Since the old name is obsolete, and redirects are cheap, I decided to move the page. I did a quick comparison of usage after the name change, and didn't see a strong preference for the full or short name, so I went with the official name used on the product website's more legal pages (e.g. the Subscription Agreement). You are always free to start a WP:RM if you think it should be at a different title. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions21:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
My view is I indicated there were two candidate and a discussion was required outside of AfD which was a poor place for the discussion. Yes I could start a WP:RM .... I have a life and as the closer your puts weight against the move. It forces me to raise the WP:RM. I'm spitting feathers. The nom. decided 6 days ago it shouldn't have been at AfD. I'm livid Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
If that was your view, it was not at all clearly communicated in the AFD. Moves and renames are proposed at AFDs all the time to address issues brought up during the discussion. It's entirely within administrative discretion to find that there was a consensus to move the page in addition to keeping the page, which is what I did in this instance. The nominator could have withdrawn the AFD at any time, but chose not to do so, and the subsequent commentators indicated a clear preference for updating the name.
My role in closing the AFD doesn't give some sort of extra weight in any RM, since my arguments would have to stand on their own and the article title is not a longstanding one. I was simply solving the immediate issue identified at the AFD that the name was outdated, and choosing the option that had more support. If you disagree with the precise wording of the article title, you should start an RM. Doing so is easy and should take at the very most 15-ish minutes if you want to make a longer initial statement. Otherwise, you can start a deletion review that I interpreted consensus incorrectly. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions15:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Thankyou for your response. WP:DRV is possible but that is for technical reasons(ie not personal), one of which is Wikidata was not updated and is to a degree part of the move (thought frankly I've done moves and not thought about it). I have done the necessary here. I've also given the article a quick makeover with respect to the name change. There is also a redirect that needs to become a DAB to prevent a weir DAB hatnote. Quite frankly its an AfD that should have been withdrawn after day one instead of being allowed to roll for a merge/move discussion ... AfD is a bad place for that. Being an obvious keep the article didn't need a WP:RESCUE. I suppose I'm lucky the nom. didn't take me to WP:AN ... Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 923#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Microsoft Imagine ... but there we have it. I've kind of had enough of RM to drag this one there Talk:Manjaro Linux#Requested move 17 March 2019 which possibly is giving support for WP:COMMONNAME vs official name. Because there are a number of (Microsoft) Azure SaaS products its really worth deserving of a neutral discussion with that focus. Things are not currently good for that. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Another thing that was mostly ignored was that both "Georgian Armenia" and "Armenia within the Kingdom of Georgia" fail all the naming conventions of WP:TITLE. They both fail WP:VER and WP:OR because no reliable sources of either of these titles being used exist; Georgiano made them both up. They are both also not WP:NPOV because it is a biased interpretation (academics sources were provided that considered Zakarid Armenia to be largely independent). So both of these titles should be deleted and not turned into redirects.
With all of this in mind, I'd like to ask you to review the points I brought up in the discussion and consider changing the result to delete. Hopefully there will be no need to start a deletion review.
@Diannaa:, as the one who repeatedly warned and ultimately blocked Georgiano for copyright violations, this might interest you. As shown in this discussion, Georgiano created an article that has multiple copyright violations and is a duplicate of an existing article, meeting two criteria for deletion (WP:G12 and WP:A10). The article still contains copyright violations on every edit revision and has been up for over two weeks. Étienne Dolet (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
oh sorry I just saw your comment at the beginning of the afd and I thought it was the first comment by the proposal sorry. SharabSalam (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Dreamy Jazz has several times agreed all their portals can be deleted. Everytime we nominated one at MfD they tagged it A7. This is X3 lite. You should not unilaterally reverse my tagging. Legacypac (talk) 16:18, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The only pages I'm restoring are redirects to valid, non-Dreamy Jazz portals that were not at MFD. I was then going to batch delete the rest of them, but someone just deleted them all. Not everything in the portal namespace is a portal, and his statement only mentioned deleting his portals, not other pages in the portal namespace such as redirects, so it would have been an invalid G7 deletion anyway. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions17:24, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Everything that starts with Portal: is a portal page. I'm sending them to RfD where they will be deleted. Portal to portal redirects are useless. Legacypac (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, been inactive for the last few months, and only semi-active before, so I didn't get back to you. As far as I can tell the bulk of the non-fluffy content is there, though there are sources in the deleted articles that aren't in the new article. The RSs that I could identify by name in the deleted article are either used in the other article or are just short mentions of the article subject. Didn't do in-depth examination of other sources. If you want, I can send you the deleted version if you want to take a look yourself. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions13:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Patar knight. I had almost forgotten about it. Glad that you replied. How can u send the deleted version ? Yes, if possible I would want to take a look. My intention is to beef up the Altnews article. thank you. --DBigXrayᗙ13:48, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Please see meta:Community health initiative/User reporting system consultation 2019 to provide your input on this idea.
Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Hey, I tagged this article for CSD G13, but you declined it, saying that it didn't meet the criteria. Why is that? It is a userspace draft, and the only edit within the past 6th months was an AWB edit. Thanks! CalOtter (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Any human edit (i.e. not by a bot) within in the last three months means that WP:G13 doesn't apply. In any case, even if the staleness threshold was met, it still doesn't meet any of the remaining three criteria at WP:G13. It is in userspace, not draftspace. It does not have an AFC submission template. It also has more than just placeholder text from the Article Wizard. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions22:31, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account.
What do I need to do?
Only to follow the instructions in this message.
Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites).
Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable).
Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers.
How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)?
Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.
Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.
We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.
XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.
Arbitration
In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.
Been inactive for the last few months, and only semi-active before that. I had a response to your post above that I never finished. While I disagree with your take on this, I can see that people in the AFD did not step up and resolve some of the issues identified. I'm okay with the current state, since the redirect is a valid one referring to historical power dynamics, similar to stuff like Russian Poland, Austrian Poland. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions13:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.
Miscellaneous
The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.
The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.
Miscellaneous
In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.
Hi Patar,
Re: A proposed entry for DESOMBRE, Michael, that you opposed publication of.
This individual is now nominated to be the US ambassador to Thailand.
As such, a Wikipedia page would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magahk2020 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legendary Bird Trio until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ZXCVBNM (TALK)16:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.
A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.
Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.
Technical news
As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.
I noticed you participated in a previous deletion discussion for Slipstream (science fiction), and had useful points you'd made. In fact, I initially voted to merge and rename the article in this 3rd nomination, but changed my vote, in part, on your points. The admin has relisted the discussion to try and suss out a broader and deeper consensus, thought I'd ping you to look into the discussion and see if you want to participate again. ---Doug Mehus (talk) 21:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Patar knight. 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.
.jpg)
