User talk:Nabla/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives[edit]

  1. August 2004 - February 2007
  2. April 2007 - May 2008
  3. May 2008 - December 2011
  4. January 2012 - January 2015

Kadia (community)[edit]

Olá, I just found that you deleted [1] page Kadia (community) - as - A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic: Kadia Kumbhar - I think there was an error of judgement - as the page was not recently created bu several years old - and it was sourced and served as just like as disambiguation page for several communities.

I shall be highly obliged if you can userfy page as I have lost some of the sources. Thanks. Jethwarp (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jethwarp. The version I deleted was a one liner with no info that was not already at Kadia Kumbhar. I did miss the fact that it was not a recent page, and that it had more content a couple years ago. It cites a single source, and the couple of previous versions I looked at (now) have that one and only source too. Anyway, I presume there is nothing wrong in userfying it, maybe you can make use of some of it. I note that I know nothing about India's groups/clans/castes/communities (except that there seems to be lots of them :-) So a page with this name may be useful, possibly as disambiguation as you say. Page userfyed to User:Jethwarp/Kadia (community). - Nabla (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I also would like to build it as disambiguation page and recreate it - but after some research - I hope it will be okay. :-). Jethwarp (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A thank-you note[edit]

Thank you Nabla for saving my page from speedy deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetfighterace212 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hutchison effect page missing[edit]

Hi. There seems to have been a page called John Hutchison that was deleted and you said - move to Hutchison effect (currently a redirect to "John Hutchison"), and copyedit accordingly. The effect is mildly notable, the man not really. - Nabla (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC) - But i cant seem to find the other page, the hutchison effect page..all the info is lost, nothing was edited, but completely deleted. 82.26.253.190 (talk)

  • Hi, 82.26.253.190. I do not recall something from back in 2011... but as far as the records show, both pages, the Hutchison effect and John Hutchison were deleted after a deletion discussion about the John Hutchison article, in August 2011. I have not deleted any of them, on the contrary, I suggested to keep the article on the effect. Currently you may find a article about other people named John Hutchison, and nothing (except a note about the deletion) on the effect. Just follow the links above. What exactly do you want? To improve the article about the Hutchison effect? - Nabla (talk) 11:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi. I know you deidnt delete it. i quoted you move to Hutchison effect (currently a redirect to "John Hutchison"), and copyedit accordingly. The effect is mildly notable, the man not really. . I'm wondering if there is any copy of it remaining about the guy or the effect. Or once its deleted its gone forever? Cause the effect might have had some interesting info on his equipment and materials/samples etc. Is there any way to get it back for editing ? 82.26.253.190 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Sorry for the delay) No, the content is not lost forever(*), the deleted version is kept on the database and may be undeleted. I think the best place to get that done is asking at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. Tell me about it, if you do, I might help. - Nabla (talk) 12:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC) (*) It may be deleted from the database, there is no guarantees about that, but I have never noticed any such case.[reply]

En1206[edit]

List of Miss World countries
Hi! I'm user En1206 can you put back the wikipedia of List of Miss World countries. Please! And I have a quesion, Why did you delete the List of Miss World countries page in wikipedia? Hope you read this mesage and Please, don't forget to put back the page in wikipedia of List of Miss World countries.

Nice Greetings! -User:En1206 En1206 (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@En1206: If you click on the redlink - List of Miss World countries - the page shows you a log of the deletions. It was deleted on the 18th after a deletion discussion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Miss World countries. Then it was deleted, by me, on wp:CSD request, on the 23rd, because there is nothing there that is not on the main article. Actually it barely had any content - it had a plain text alphabetical list of countries, only from Afghanistan to Brazil. You are free to recreate an article under that title. Please create it with coherent content that addresses the questions raised on the deletion discussion, otherwise it will most likely be quickly deleted again. - Nabla (talk) 12:30, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 1950 Atlético Mineiro European tour for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1950 Atlético Mineiro European tour is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1950 Atlético Mineiro European tour until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. – PeeJay 11:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay2K3:. Thank you - Nabla (talk) 20:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break...[edit]

You logged a TfD into the holding cell with the wrong discussion date, and redirected the template to be deleted to another template where the parameters didn't match up (so the subst just bollixed up). Time for a break and some more caffeine? Bazj (talk) 16:47, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bazj, help is always appreciated, thank you for that. Snarky remarks are not appreciated, please, we all do mistakes, don't we? Also, if the subject is a mistake, the subject is the mistake, not "Take a break" - Nabla (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't intended to be snarky. I'm sorry if it came across that way. Bazj (talk) 08:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...the more I read it the more I see scope for misinterpreting what I meant. Really sorry. Bazj (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Bazj. No problem. I was probably a bit harsh too. Too many people play 'shoot-down-the-admin', one gets a little defensive over time; plus I *did* made a few silly mistakes lately (see below... :-) so I was more sensitive than average, but I think I may need *more* practice, not less. Again, tks and sorry - Nabla (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfD[edit]

Template:R from incorrect capitalisation and Template:R from incorrect capitalization still have RfD in them, although the RfD was closed as keep. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, GeoffreyT2000. If I recall it well, it took me a while to read it out and decide and when I did I was pressed on time to move on - out of WP - and forgot to clean up, sorry. I hope it is OK now. - Nabla (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Rozen Page[edit]

Hi,Why did you delete "Laura Rozen" Page?Have you ever read its talk page??Rezameyqani (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rezameyqani. The reasons are stated in the deletion log, namely, there is nothing in the article telling us that she is considered notable by others and the only reference is apparently a text copy pasted from her profile in one of the newspapers sites; and yes I did read the talk page, but you only provided one instance of a blog/opinion written by her. That is very far from enough for inclusion on WP. There are many many journalist around the globe, you'd need wp:Reliable sources that talk about her, not simply to show texts that she has written. Please see: wp:JOURNALIST.
The one most interesting thing about the talk page though, is that it showed a deletion discussion from 2006 which was closed as a "keep", nevertheless it was deleted soon after by @David.Monniaux:. That is unexpected, but the 2006 article completely lacked sources.
So, while we wait a little while to see if David.Monniaux has some input to give us on the old deletion, my opinion is that if you provide some third party reliable sources - that is, sources where other people write about Laura Rozen's work importance - then I'll undelete the whole thing, including the 2006 version, so that you can improve on it. - Nabla (talk) 11:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nabla (talk) What kinda sources you need to be provided?Sorry but I couldn't get what kind of resources is acceptable to you!if you explain a bit more it would be helpful.Rezameyqani (talk) 12:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rezameyqani, I mean something *about* Laura Rozen - Did she earn some prizes? Do some other journalists reference her has influencial? Has she published some book? (and are there reviews of it?)
Picking a couple of random examples from Category:American_women_journalists: Michelle Bernard, has an award, was nominated for another, and was invited to speak in a prestigious university; Elizabeth Bisland made a notable trip around the world, and wrote a few books (and was a female journalist in the 19th century...). What about Laura Rozen? I don't mean she is not a good journalist (I have no idea, but she may well be good) but what makes her stand out from the crowd?
(side note) You do not need to link my username in my talk page. I linked your's (and David's) so that the wp:Notifications work and warn you about my reply, but we are automatically warned of any new message on our own talk page so you do not need to (but I thank you anyway, and you may, if you wish, of course) - Nabla (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beaumont children disappearance[edit]

I believe that is it important that the Beaumont children disappearance article is in the best shape possible for the 50th anniversary in January as there will be a lot of media attention on the Beaumonts and there will be a lot of people being sent to the Wikipedia article. I'd like to see it as an FA or OTD candidate Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 11:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

El Marino (online newspaper)[edit]

See WP:COIN#Diego Grez-Cañete, this user is endlessly gaming the system. This article, along with other similar conflict of interest articles (like Pichilemunews, PichilemuNews.cl, Pichilemu News, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pichilemunews, have been deleted under multiple incarnations. The MO is the user creates a redirect which they later turn into an article, then it gets deleted, then they create a redirect which later gets turned into an article, etc.... The AFD's closed as delete, not redirect. Pichilemunews was speedy deleted G4 this morning by a different admin, a consistent response to this gaming would be beneficial. Regards, Vrac (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Vrac! For a consistent response you could also ask the other admin to revert their deletion, no?... :-) OK, seriously now. I thank you for your information, I was not aware of the pattern. Anyway, wp:CSD#G4 applies to recreation of *similar* content but a redirect is not an article; so I would go for a wp:RfD of the whole group of redirects (tell me if you do that, please, so I'll comment there). I guess we'd then have a stronger case against redirects that we probably do not need, as a search should point to the same pages. Note that I will not object if you renominate it for speedy deletion, though I think RfD is the best way to go. - Nabla (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Thank you for closing the discussion. Now I feel a lot safer to continue working on the draft. I appreciate you!

jdxzhu 17:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, jdxzhu. Please allow me to suggest that it is best that your wp:Signature includes some link to your user / talk page, so that other editors may find it easier to contact you. I use the standard one, since ever, like this: - Nabla (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 12 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UEFA national champions[edit]

Template:UEFA national champions - your updates are not visible on other pages, I do not know why, for example here : List of East German football champions. Anyhow thank you for updating it.--Fanatic of Football (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fanatic of Football: Thank you. As for the update not showing up, wp:transcluded templates may take some time to show up the updated version. That is because the page's content is cached and the template changes do not trigger a cache update. It will usually happen not too late, minutes probably, for sure when someone edits the target page, certainly no more than days. No reason to worry; yet for how to force an update, see Wikipedia:Purge. - Nabla (talk) 15:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment at this RfC[edit]

RfC on the 'Veganism' article

  • User:Martin Hogbin, what...? Why would I comment on that RfC? You do not tell what the RfC is about, you do not tell why ask me, you do not even sign... I sure will not comment. Please do not post "random" request on my talk page. - Nabla (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your name is listed under the feedback service. Sorry that I forgot to sign but maybe it is better that way. I am not supposed to influence you decision. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Martin Hogbin, the feedback service is such that "A bot will randomly select users to notify.". A bot. Not you, or any editor. That is what I have signed for. Again, please do not do it. - Nabla (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Hmmm... It also says users can request manually... (!!!) I do not recall that at all... And it makes no sense, as then the limit can not be enforced at all. Anyway, it means that you did nothing wrong. So, User:Martin Hogbin, my apologies for implying otherwise. - Nabla (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I intentionally did not give any details of the RfC to ensure that I did not influence you in any way. I did intend to sign my request but forgot. As it happens that may be a good thing as I have already been accused of canvassing. Your independent input would still be appreciated. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Hogbin, I see you acted according to what is stated in a couple pages (the RfC and the feedback service pages), when asking users from the feedback list. I think that is a very bad isea on a couple of reasons. One, I signed assuming I will get a *limited* number of request (there is a limit parameter there) randomly chosen within certain categories. I do not what more and I do not want to be hand picked. And two, because when you (or anyone) pick a few users, you will almost inevitably be accused, nevermind how good was the intention and the randomization. For myself, I am pretty sure you are not canvassing me. I do not have any predefined opinion about exactly what veganism is, nor I recall stating one over here; so you could hardly guess if I would be for or against your opinion. (On a side note, I have removed myself from the feedback request, I do not want to be "pulled in" more than a small number of times) - Nabla (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Menelik II[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Menelik II. Legobot (talk) 04:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Hello, Nabla. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Mandhir Singh (Chahal)[edit]

Hello Nabla, I just notice you deleted the article and left message on Samdeepsinghone talk page. I want to request you if you can also have a look at this SPI related to this article and user. Thank you – GSS (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS-1987: Noted. I'll keep an eye at it but it is not something I usually take care of, so I'll likely take no action. Thanks. - Nabla (talk) 05:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you – GSS (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mandhir Singh (Chahal)[edit]

Hello Nabla, I just noticed that you have deleted the article under G4 reason i.e. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. I have seen and read about the subject of the article at here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandhir Singh Chahal, and i agree with all the things said over there. But as i mentioned earlier also on the deletion contest page of the article that at that time, the primary network of this Punjabi reality television show, which is PTC Punjabi was not having solid hold over reliable sources and medias for this show. That was why it was turned as not notable on Wikipedia. And also, the subject of the article was not having much reliable sources for the big things said for him. That was why those previous articles were deleted. You quoted, I deleted the article, because it adds nothing to the one that was previously deleted. I have tried to add references and reliable sources which states that the subject has won as first runner up of PTC Punjabi Mr. Punjab in 2015. I agree with your point further more because I have quoted only that much about the subject of the article which I have found sources for. I have seen in the earlier deleted articles on the same subject, those were appearing like a bluff written about the subject and that too without any reliable source. I have written short, precise; but, with proper citations of sources and media. Back to the reason for deletion of this article i.e. G4. does it mean that once an article gets deleted from Wikipedia, will it never can be created again, even if it is being improved and worked upon ? I have put my earnest efforts to cite the reliable sources for this article found on Internet. And i could say that whatever was written in article was cited by a reference, a reliable source etc. It was not like the previous articles which were almost appearing like a bluff written about the subject and that too without any reliable source. I wrote less, but whatever was written was provided with a reference and a source. Even if after doing all this, the article gets deleted directly; no chance to improve upon its quality and references, then it is a great drawback and a cause for a great setback for users like me who are new to editing on Wikipedia and people who are new and putting their efforts to contribute to Wikipedia. Please check about whatever I have said. Hoping for your reply soon. Samdeepsinghone (talk) 20:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Samdeepsinghone, The article's content are nearly identical. The first deleted article - Mandhir Singh Chahal - had 7 references, while the one speedy deleted - Mandhir Singh (Chahal) - had 3 references. 2 were the same, the 3rd one adds nothing as much as I can understand it. Anyone may recreate a article that has been previously deleted, provided it is a substantially different article that addresses the issues of wp:Notability raised on the deletion discussion, that means more information about the subject, or much better sources, or, more unlikely but possible in the long run, if the notability criteria changes. wp:G4 "applies to sufficiently identical copies" which I believe to be the case, you may ask for more opinions at wp:Deletion Review. - Nabla (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Mandhir Singh (Chahal)[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mandhir Singh (Chahal). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Samdeepsinghone (talk) 15:01, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Wurdi Youang[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Wurdi Youang. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Nabla.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Nabla. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Čučići[edit]

Hi! You deleted an article (Čučići) as WP:G5, but that criteria does not apply. The author was not blocked nor banned at the time the article was created. Please, restore the article. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Vanjagenije. I checked it was a confirmed "sock" but forgot to check the date when the "master" got banned. My bad, will restore now. Again, thank you - Nabla (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Legobot (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greek super cup[edit]

A page you started (2019 Special Olympics World Summer Games) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating 2019 Special Olympics World Summer Games, Nabla!

Wikipedia editor PRehse just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Still think this is premature but .....

To reply, leave a comment on PRehse's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

  • Hi PRehse. Thanks...? :-) I presume this is a automated warning, from what I've read on how review works, and I am not knowledgeable on this review process (though it is one I might try one day, I think it is important and interesting) but warning the creator of a 4 year old page may not be that much useful. yet, again, It is good to see these processes from "the editor side", so thanks! (forgive me for commenting here and not on your talk page as requested on the message, but breaking conversation flow does not make any sense to me - if anything the message should invite to comment on the article's talk page, oh well, I might comment that somewhere else, please forgive for thinking out loud :-)- Nabla (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
  • Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
  • The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

Obituaries

  • JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.
Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Laps[edit]

You have one too?? Ain't it nice? Thank you for this edit! KDS4444 (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes. Well, KDS4444, I am not sure I have a cat or if she has a human :-) As the saying goes: dogs have owners, cats have staff. Nabla (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2017).

Administrator changes

Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A recent query shows that only 16% of administrators on the English Wikipedia have enabled two-factor authentication. If you haven't already enabled it please consider doing so.
  • Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
  • A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Robert Plant[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Plant. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2017).

Administrator changes

added TheDJ
removed Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
  • The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
  • An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
  • After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

  • After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
  • Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About a protection discussion of my editnotice[edit]

(I hope it is not too weird that I start talking in my own talk page, good thing the notifications work great :)

About a protection discussion of my editnotice (those things get archived fast! good thing, indeed, the notifications work great). To Mr. Guye, thanks for the concern, but I think Oshwah's response was correct. I am usually a very low profile admin, and I do not recall any case of vandalism in my pages (maybe some swearing once loooong ago...?), so I guess it is not needed; still I'll watch it more closely. To Oshwah, thank you, again; and it is a he, not a she. No problem, at all, just so that you know. And I wonder how many of the - fortunately few - times I got contemptuous replies were aimed at Nabla girlie :-) There was one that insisted on calling me something like "little daughter" (in Portuguese) even after I told him... - Nabla (talk) 10:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2017).

Administrator changes

added Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim
removed Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy decline...[edit]

May you explain this removal of a CSD tag?Winged Blades Godric 03:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Winged Blades of Godric. I did, in the edit summary. As it got deleted, and thus you can not see it, I repeat it here: «decline speedy nomination - there was already a "slow" deletion discussion going on, let's see what gets decided there». - Nabla (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that! IMHO:--If an AfD disc. is going on a subject--that meets a CSD criterion (as I believe was the case here); that should be speedied irrespective of the progress of the del. discussion.And more so when an discussant has supported the speedy!(From my faint memory, I don't think he was the one to speedy it!).Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 10:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if something is a clear speedy deletion case, it should be speedy deleted regardless of a ongoing AfD discussion. But, if someone started out by opening a AfD discussion, instead of tagging as a speedy deletion, it is a hint that it may not fit the criteria. The editor voting for speedy deletion also mentions that the subject could be notable. I also thought that the term might have some interest, so maybe a longer discussion would bring someone in saying something like, "the current text is useless, but I replaced it by <that>" and maybe we ended up with a good stub instead of a fast deletion. Waiting a while would not hurt much I presume.
Finally, if you knew my explanation and instead wanted to comment on it or ask for clarification on some point, why didn't you do so in the first place? and, is your green text quoting from somewhere? - Nabla (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

added Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn
removed ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

for the deletions. StellarDrift (talk) 23:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi StellarDrift. No problem. I note that when you move a page, you may deselect the checkbox saying "Leave a redirect behind" and, as it says, there will be no redirect in need of deletion. Useful in this cases, when moving a user sub-page to the mainspace. - Nabla (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

added Happyme22 • Dragons flight
removed Zad68

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

  • A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
  • A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
  • Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfA[edit]

It would be rare for me to even consider criticising a fellow admin - even if they've completely messed up, I don't even comment on Arbcom cases against them because it's really none of my business. Nevertheless, I have to say that your vote on Cullen's RfA is probably the meanest thing I've ever seen coming from from a sysop, anywhere - and I'm certainly not saying that as nominator, I vote on all RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Congratulations, Nabla. You've cast the most arbitrary, vapid, petty, and absurd oppose vote I've ever seen at RfA. That comment you linked to should not be a reason to oppose anyone's RfA. But doing so 5½ years later is actually nothing short of outrageous and constitutes conduct unbecoming an administrator. Today, RfA is a challenging and serious gauntlet of extreme vetting, and yet your ridiculous oppose stands out as the only one. You earned your privileges at a time when RfA was not very serious or difficult to pass, which might explain such shockingly careless conduct coming from an administrator, but we are still held to a higher standard of professional behavior. It's apparent that you are no longer willing to adhere to that, and when you publicly do something that stupid, make all other admins look terrible and reflects badly on the community and the project as a whole. You should immediately resign your tools at WP:BN if you don't intend to behave like an administrator. Otherwise, you owe Cullen an apology. Swarm ♠ 19:52, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, User:Kudpung and User:Swarm. I striked my vote. As I said there, I lost track of time, I thought it was more recent. I am sorry that you, also admins, immediately resort to hyperbole, innuendo and attack, instead of trying to defuse a situation. - Nabla (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just stuck to documented facts with diffs supplied. I am glad you did the right thing in the end. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:55, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Nabla, that was a gracious thing to do - it's always good to see someone who is prepared to re-examine their thoughts and change their mind. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your apology, Nabla, and accept it without reservation. Thank you. Let's move on, everyone. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you - Nabla (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

added Nakon • Scott
removed Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
  • Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
  • In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

  • Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

added Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem
removed Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
  • A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nabla/Archive_5&oldid=1076843540"