User talk:Nosebagbear/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipe-tan in Santa Costume
Wikipe-tan in Santa Costume
I Voted in ACE 2019

Checking on Measures for Justice article creation[edit]

I see that on January 30 2019 you removed a Requested Article idea in the Business and economics/Organizations section under M, with the note "Removal of idea - selected for work." Am I right in thinking this was the suggestion for an article on Measures for Justice? And if so, do you know when this article might be posted? Thank you so much for taking up the suggestion.

Egallo25 (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Egallo25: - hi there. It's tricky for me to say - my biggest article I did in 3 days when I had nothing to do, others took a fair while. If you want to work on it then go ahead, I can always feed in any content I've made - just let me know if you move it into mainspace (article space). It can also be put back in the requested articles if you want, though if you spot someone else take it, let me know. I'll take it off if I get close to finishing my version. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Thank you for the update. Since I work for the organization as a freelancer, I think I'm not supposed to create the article and that it instead should be written by an established Wikipedia editor. We're just eagerly awaiting it. If it went back into requested articles I'd worry that it would take a while for someone else to notice it, so I think it's best in your hands. Thank you
@Nosebagbear: If you don't think you will complete the Measures for Justice article soon, could you put it back into the Requested Article section, in hopes someone else might do it? It's been seven months, and nine months since the idea was suggested, so we're just hopeful that we can get it done somehow soon. Thanks so much!
@Egallo25: - sorry, I missed this, (for future note, to "ping" someone, you need to add the ~~~~ at the end of your whole message). You are of course right to do so. I'll only take it off the RA if I've made major progress in writing it (which I only do if I'm going to finish it). Nosebagbear (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WES[edit]

Good to meet at the WES LSE event. Andrew D. (talk) 15:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrew Davidson: - and you! Had a look at your userpage post-event and realised I missed a chance to talk about article creation. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the last week, I've created: Beach cleaning; Davies White; Elizabeth Georgeson; Harold George Jerrard; Mordaunt Cohen; Political Achievements of the Earl of Dalkeith. I now realise that that's not quite one a day so I should increase my pace to match the prodigious Jess Wade. So, while I'm in this mood, it's still a good time to discuss article creation. What's on your mind? Andrew D. (talk) 08:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC>

you havent seen anything[edit]

unless you have seen {{welcome-menu}} JarrahTree 12:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: - I feel that I'm missing a joke (unless this is just a very specific wiki-advertising piece), but can't remember what it was in reference for - apologies for any humour foiled. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- the sheer volume of links via that template outdoes any concern about links -(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UniKoln&oldid=898561534) -I dont think many people take much notice of guidelines anymore never apologise - see my user page on that - we all are terribly serious here... JarrahTree 00:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC>

Draft:Eugene Maynard Freedman[edit]

I notice you put Draft:Eugene Maynard Freedman under review. I was also digging into it, and would strongly recommend declining it because it cherry picks from the available sources to memorialise him rather than being a neutral profile. It whitewashes by giving undue weight to positive things while ignoring those that are negative. I'll elaborate in a concurring (or dissenting) opinion when you finish your review. --Worldbruce (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: - I passed it as I felt it wasn't so drastic as that it would fail AfD - however my reading of the two good sources (plus a little bit in a couple of books I found when looking for an additional source) do indeed indicate significant hostility towards the man. I planned on cutting the gordian knot by just adding a paragraph myself Nosebagbear (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ,I have corrected errors and removed all the external links on the main text of my article . I would like to know if there are other parts i should correct or add as well Rumbidzainokutenda (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2017 Stockholm truck attack[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017 Stockholm truck attack. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that answers your questions[edit]

Hope that answers your questions. If you have any others, feel free to ask. Buffs (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Response[edit]

Hi , i have 

all unnecessary links in the main text . please can you advice if there are other part I should correct as well

Rumbidzainokutenda (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Translation from Russian to English the article about The LitRes company[edit]

Thank you for your answer here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk

1. > Firstly, you need to fix the copyright, as you've declare it's a translation of another wikipedia version. Please make a blank edit and in the summary add a URL link to the view history of the article you've duplicated this from

- Can you please explain to me what the "blank edit" is? And if it's not difficult for you to provide me more details how I can do it?

2. > While this comes from another Wikipedia, that doesn't mean it meets our rules. Wikipedias can set different rules, and en-wiki has strict notability rules for companies, so better sourcing is needed.

- But what if sources are in Russian not in English?

3. > While it's not extreme promotionalism, it reads more like what they'd say on their website, listing all the good things they do/offer. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:03, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

- Can you please explain what the article should be about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashashko (talk • contribs)

Firstly, please make sure to sign your comment with ~~~~ - I do lots of AFC stuff so helps me track do who I'm talking to :)
1) A blank edit is just an edit where you don't make any substantive change, in order to put something in the edit summary. You have to change something so people often fix a typo or add a space somewhere. You edit in the same way you would normally add content. You want to add the URL of the history of the article. (e.g. if you were duplicating content from Politics of Asia you would cite https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Politics_of_Asia&action=history )
2) Sources in Russian (or any other language) are fine.
3) For this I'd suggest having a look at some other company articles. You should find a few yourself - you don't want to look at massive pages like Google, but smaller ones like AWB Limited, which you'll see gives a more balanced summary both about the company generally but also good and bad representation in the news. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Fairness Project[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fairness Project you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I've seen you mention your distaste for the oversighter icon in a couple places and I'm curious what about it you find so "creepy"? I'd say the pending changes icon is far more unsettling, and what I thought you meant at first. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually quite like how creepy the oversight logo is - I just find it entertainingly Orwellian - the logo gives the idea that there are bits and pieces of the encyclopedia being taken out without anyone knowing (I realise on a very literal, minimalist sense, this is accurate).
I find the pending changes logo a bit odd, but without the well crafted sinisterness Nosebagbear (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I misread then. I always thought the symbolism was kind of clever, but now that you put it like that I agree that it is kinda creepy to think about! Best, Wug·a·po·des​ 23:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have said you misread - creepy isn't generally a positive description to give something! It definitely is clever symbolism, and it's interesting to see how it gets interpreted (perhaps I have too much paranoia). Cheers Nosebagbear (talk)

Please comment on Talk:Southern strategy[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Southern strategy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New evidence regarding the notability of ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player[edit]

I am respectfully requesting that you change your "Delete" vote regarding ADSR_Online_Midi_Editor_and_Player, in consideration of the following new information that has just surfaced:

I just discovered that Classical_Archives (the largest classical music site in the world), has endorsed the product that this article describes, for the past two years. The following website contains the statement "MidiPro.org is the ONLY Online Midi Editor": https://www.classicalarchives.com/midi.html

Considering the following facts, I can't imagine a stronger indication of notability:

  • Classicalarchives.com does not accept any advertising or user-entered editorial .
  • Their website does not mention any other Midi Editors, so they are not a "Midi Directory" website.
  • I have no relationship whatsoever with Classicalarchives.com

The following webpage shows that this endorsement has been prominently displayed on their website since at least April 26 2017 https://web.archive.org/web/20170426053227/https://www.classicalarchives.com/midi.html.

The reason you gave for your Delete vote was "I still don't think sufficient sourcing is available". I hope you agree that that reason no longer stands.

Thank you for your consideration. MySonLikesTrump (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Betty Cantor-Jackson at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eva_Dichand[edit]

Hi There i don't know if this is the right place to ask you about the submission process of our article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Eva_Dichand But i though might as well give it a try here?

So i was wondering about your comment: "The first source is interesting, it's in effect an indirect circular reference to ourselves (or our German siblings) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)" What does this mean exactly. I could not make sense of it. Do you mean we are referencing wrong or that the resource needs to be removed. Also i don't know why the article was rejected as it is a translation from a german Wikipedia article that is already published in the german Wikipedia.

Please help us understand what to do here.

Thanks (Heute marko (talk) 08:29, 26 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

@Heute marko: - hi there.
So you can't cite to Wikipedia (either ours or the German version). This source seems to specifically duplicate what is in wiki, though I can't tell if it does a check of what it says. As such, I was wondering whether it "picked up" the unreliability of wikipedia or not. It wouldn't need to be removed, but it won't add to notability, which leads us to -
The draft was declined (not rejected, which is more final), for not showing sufficient notability about the individual. This is a judgement on there being enough reliable, in-depth, independent, secondary coverage. Most of your sources are "primary" (rather than secondary media like newspapers, books etc), so can't show notability. Your last source is good.
It may be suitable for de-wiki: different wikipedias have different rules.
Generally, if you want to ask your reviewer why you were declined in more detail (often worth doing), go to their talk page User talk:Theroadislong. If you think that reviewer was wrong (I don't believe so), then go to the AFC Help Desk. That's only if it should have passed as it was, rather than if you make some changes. If you find some more sources, resubmit with the blue button in the red box. Good luck. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TBack[edit]

over Signpost comments. ∯WBGconverse 11:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding page Draft: Shripad Vaidya[edit]

Respected Sir, As per your valuable guidance on the Afc help desk dated 5 August, 2019, I have selected 4 best sources which are as follows. I hope these justify the notability of the subject but your suggestions are welcome. If your authority feels that the topic is notable then I will move forward to reduce the references as per your previous advice. I have always made the changes as per the suggestions of previous reviewers. You may check accordingly. Please do the needful and kindly inform the changes required. The above mentioned references are as follows: 1) https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/Environmentalist-poet-eyes-Guinness-record/articleshow/6042329.cms 2) http://d18vwzocbrcup1.cloudfront.net/encyc/6/2017/05/06/NCpage_7.pdf 3) https://www.ehitavada.com/index.php?edition=NCpage&date=2019-09-01&page=1 4) http://epaperlokmat.in/lokmattimes/sub-editions/Nagpur%20First/-1/6#Article/LOKTIME_CPLS_20190903_6_5/224px Please Guide. Thanks. MA$HRVA (Talk) Write Right!! 17:46, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MA$HRVA: - thank you for getting back to me. I would say those references probably make him notable. Notable enough that at least the community as a whole should judge on the matter. The other issues, named both by me and the other article reviewers, remain. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Thanks a lot. I do not know how to proceed further because the page review button of the page has disappeared. So, as per the guidance of your authority I will make the changes in the number of references. After making the changes I will again contact with your authority. Meanwhile, if anything in addition which I can do, please inform. Thanks.MA$HRVA (Talk) Write Right!! 17:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As per the instructions of your authority, I have re-written the article and have removed many references. Kindly go through it. As per my understanding, I have tried my level best to follow the instructions by you and previous reviewers. But, your valuable guidance is always welcome to make this article more correct. Please inform about how I should now proceed further. The guidance from your side will be highly appreciated. MA$HRVA (Talk) Write Right!! 10:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have read the comment left by your authority. I will wait for the review. As you feel that the references should be somewhat less, I will try to minimize them. It is a pleasure to get your valuable guidance for writing the article (This is the first article I am trying to write). With regards. MA$HRVA (Talk) Write Right!! 09:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I have made the changes as per the review instructions received. I have removed number of references and also made the article readable. Kindly go through it. Your suggestions will be highly appreciated. Can you please help me to edit the article? I am thinking of resubmitting it for review after making satisfactory changes by following the wikipedia article guidelines. With regards. Thank you. MA$HRVA (Talk) Write Right!! 18:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MA$HRVA: - while I can see that you have removed some sources, you still have an absolutely unnecessary 50 sources after the career paragraph. Do 50 indicate that 5 couldn't? Nosebagbear (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the guidance. I will try to make the improvements accordingly. MA$HRVA (Talk) Write Right!! 13:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: As per your guidance, I have tried to make the changes as far as possible. I feel that if further I reduce the references, it may appear as lack of references. But if your authority feels the requirement of any change, then please inform. If it is okay, then can I submit it for review? Please oblige. With regards. MA$HRVA (Talk) Write Right!! 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MA$HRVA:, that's definitely an improvement - I don't know whether the other concerns editors raised still apply, but you're welcome to submit it and see what people think. If nothing else it will get the ball rolling which is worthwhile with the current backlog Nosebagbear (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Thanks a lot. I will proceed accordingly. MA$HRVA (Talk)Write Right!! 17:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission[edit]

Hello sir, I hope you are doing well in life. I writing this message because I saw that you are an active user in the AfC helpdesk. I wrote there but I did not get any answer yet. So, I writing directly to you hoping that you can answer my questions. The draft (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Plastiq) that I am working on was declined but I updated some of the references, can you lighten me aboute on the notability issue? what kind of sources would you consider reliable and independent? or what part of the article is poorly referenced and should be cut out? are Articles from Techcrunch, yahoo finance and business insider considered unsuitable? I have seen articles from other finance companies that use them such as venmo and BitPay, btw, the undisclosed template that was added to the article is not right because the former editor and me both have disclosed payment. Thanks. JamesRodir (talk) 22:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesRodir: - you might have more luck contacting your reviewers directly, but my looking over your sources points out the following: the BI (is it worth it) one mainly talks about how to use it, but more importantly, has a huge number of quotes and indirect quotes. This means there's not that much secondary content about Plastiq itself, though it's still a possible source. The Yahoo source is a duplication of a PR release, so doesn't count. The other BI source, once you've taken out the quote, definitely doesn't meet Significant coverage. Forbes has proven time and again to only be reliable if created by a staff writer, not a contributor, so won't qualify as reliable. CNBC's is also heavily about usage, but might have enough on the company. Sources almost entirely about raising capital are routine, so don't aid notability. I personally don't think it warrants its rejection, but corporate notability is high enough that it probably doesn't meet that level. It having been heavily created by an undisclosed paid editor may be making 50-50 calls go against it. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me. I messaged my reviewer but I got nothing. I just updated the product capabilities section and the references taking in consideration what you said. I am thinking of resubmitting. I am afraid that the connection with its former editor its going to harm the article, It shouldn't because he had disclosed his connection with plastiq team and I think he was blocked for other reasons apart from this draft which he started before he got involved in a shady business. JamesRodir (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the article would be better if I remove the 'funding rounds' section?
@JamesRodir: - the funding rounds section is nice and short, it's fine as is. There is another former reviewer of your article you could contact on their talk page. It's worth leaving 2-3 days, not everyone checks wiki daily. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I am going to let this rest for the weekend. JamesRodir (talk) 19:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Hello! following up, I added new sources. And in fact, Plastiq is a company with many clients, press, great partnerships, and there are more than 70 results of Plastiq in google news, this has to count for something. Do you think the company is notable enough and its worth it to resubmit to AfC? JamesRodir (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesRodir: - I've resubmitted on your behalf. I'm not sure if it passes NCORP, but it's improved enough that it's no longer clear. The number of clients and partnerships is irrelevant, and high google news numbers can be forced fairly easily. I would suggest removing a couple of poorer/marginal sources (those with only a few lines, especially if only about the venture capitalism). We'll see how it goes Nosebagbear (talk) 10:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: Thanks I think I am going to be lucky this time, I cleaned up product capabilities section to have a more neutral tone because someone might have found it a bit promotional before. Do you think is okay if I remove COI and notability templates? JamesRodir (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confused[edit]

Thank you for your reply and input. I guess I'll be paying someone to figure this out for us. I cant understand how the person I'm writing about is mentioned several times on his bandmates page, he is a founding member, linked to references proving this and other facts is decliend when some people are on wikipedia with incorrect infomration... I give up:( Thank you anyway. TVaughanSoCal — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVaughanSoCal (talk • contribs) 18:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Newb SPA COI takes his shot[edit]

I alert you to this ANI incident claim.

As you may know, waves of SPAs have whitewashed this page since 2015. Most have very similar and consistent goals. Should I write a diff-heavy walkthrough of the whole history in COIN? Did I use the term "boomerang" right? The BLP subject also has a similar long pattern of whitewashing on one key claim (which the SPAs target with increasingly slick spin): https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/karen-peterson/article31240583.html

The latest SPA is meaner and quite determined. I will write incredibly clear and meticulously researched talk sections, and hope that's enough. Many suffered because it is true, but did it get in the Kirkus Review? Mcfnord (talk) 00:47, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your help desk question[edit]

You didn't get an answer to this question. You already said you didn't think the talk page related to the information would be satisfactory. I'm out of options because I don't know anything about the subject, but maybe there's something else you could try.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019[edit]

Hello Nosebagbear,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran. Legobot (talk) 04:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Silence Day Deletion for second time.[edit]

You may wish to be aware that Winged Blades of Godrick has renominated Silence Day with an Afd. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Silence_Day_(2nd_nomination). As part of your comments on the original, you discussed the notability of an article added as a reference from The Telegraph of 10 July 2011. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/8625404/Sandi-Toksvig-Sssh-its-Silence-Day.html Winged Blades of Godric removed that reference as citing ROS. I intend to re-include it. I feel that Winged Blades of Godric has a POV agenda, and is pushing into making a point with his AFDs. WP:POINT. I appreciate the comments you made on the earlier AFD. Please have a look at the current state. Thanks. --Nemonoman (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

/* Amit Ramani */[edit]

Thank you for your feedback. We have added more reliable links to support the content.

Thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chirag-Behre (talk • contribs) 10:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

what's in a name?[edit]

I was wondering if you would share the reason for your name. It wouldn't change my vote either way - just wondering, it is unusual. — Ched (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched:, hi there. Don't mind at all, but since another user has since asked the question in the RfA I thought I should answer it there (it's Q9).
If you want to ask me anything more specific just let me know here (or indeed, anywhere else) and I'd be happy to clarify. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:42, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Nosebagbear. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Right-wing populism[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Right-wing populism. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strange[edit]

Hi, if you have time, can you check the User talk:103.200.134.148 page - claiming to be a wiki administrator? Thanks Denisarona (talk) 14:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Denisarona: - definitely odd. Obviously admins are not prohibited to edit when logged-out (if in line with the normal rules). It is, however, prohibited to claim permissions that one doesn't have - which since we can't verify, this would probably be a case of.
Even if they are an admin, that's irrelevant - you were completely right to warn them from their unpleasant behaviour. Their "defence" would really concern me if they were an admin, as it seems to suggest that they shouldn't be being judged for it; when they should be judged more severely.
I can drop a neutral concerned message on their (that is, the IP's) talk page if you'd like. Alternatively we can leave it for the moment and see what happens - they've not edited from that address in a few hours. Let me know your preferences Nosebagbear (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see what happens. Many thanks for your help. Denisarona (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A request to consider[edit]

Now that GS's RfA is over I want to note that I let out a rather large sigh when I saw your question and then ultimately it made me smile as I realized the absurdity. First that it's obviously not so traditional as several recent RfAs didn't include the question including one you might be familiar with and if that's not enough that the question has mutated from one weakness, to two weaknesses, to two weaknesess with a whole bunch of framing caveats. Girth is a going to be a great sysop and he answered it like a pro, so it wasn't really about him and I am on recent record as suggesting (as you seem to be) that questions aren't a deterrent to people running. But I also think that despite writing that people should have answers ready to questions - including that one - before running that it's not actually a useful question. To me the question is trying to get whether the person answering is self-reflective and willing to admit fault and that there are better ways - including from other questions during RfA. It's mutation to some level of absurdity (at least for me) is showing this very thing - that it has proven not so useful in what was attempting to be assessed. I'm not sure what your motivation in asking it was (especially after having already supported) - I have no doubt it was well meaning. But I hope the recent trend of not asking that question at RfA becomes even clearer and we put the question to rest and would ask you to consider joining this trend by not perpetuating this question at future RfAs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49:, in terms of a general purpose to assess self-reflectiveness you are of course right that there are better ways of assessing it. This is probably how I interpreted the question and answer in the earlier RfAs I either viewed or participated in. More recently, the question is frequently pointless (or at least, duplicative), but can end up giving bits of other helpful knowledge, such as genuine potential relevant weaknesses. I actually think it would make more sense to ask something along the lines of "what area are you poor at now but might actually want to involve yourself in the future", which GS's answer actually touched on. There's also been some other relevant info. So in the sense that I could do away with the question (and close variants), you may well be right and I will consider it. I do think there is benefit in some style(s) of self-directed competence query, but I'll have to put a bit more thought into that field.
In terms of asking questions when I've already !voted support, that's usually down to me either thinking the question will be primarily helpful to others (undecided or opposing), which was less the case here, or knowledge that I felt was worthwhile despite it being unlikely to change my !vote, which was this case. Obviously I could just email the candidate, but I'm generally concerned that that risks being an evasion of question oversight and mean on the candidate - in many cases I'd be unhappy about others asking questions in that style, so I avoid doing so myself.
There is one other aspect that the question would/does provide (which is pointless to ask in an RfA) but would be useful as a general admin survey would be to find out what fields active admins felt they were a) Interested and expert in, b) interested and competent, c) competent but not interested and d) lacking skill in - but that's a consideration for a different discussion. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your new best LTA friend[edit]

Since you recently (and WP:AGFing correctly) declined an RFPP request regarding Charles X of France and as a rather belated welcome to the admin ranks, it's my privilege to introduce you to an LTA, tentatively and maliciously code named the "Louisville Loon" – not to be confused with the Denver Dodo. Some day I'll find the time (and diplomacy) to write up a proper LTA file. This specimen specializes in articles about French and American potentates, hurricanes, and Matthew McConaughey. Truly a person of catholic tastes. The pattern of disruption is exactly what was seen on the reported article, and once they get going they don't stop until the article is protected. Originally, they used IPs from the Louisville area, but now they have diversified into using proxies – possibly because of the substantial number of range blocks bestowed on the Bluegrass State. Editing is almost exclusively with IPs, but one "good hand" account, ThanToBe, has been eliminated. So, in the hope that I haven't completely ruined your faith in Wikipedia's slice of mankind, I wish you happy admining! Best regards, Favonian (talk) 16:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Favonian: - wikipedians bring me the nicest presents! Obviously with the new IP this sunny Sunday afternoon (I'd ask if they have anything better to do...but here we are! ;)) protection became clearly necessary. I don't suppose there's any consistency with which proxies they're using? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Proxying has come as a recent revelation to this one, but it's all the rage among their kindred spirits, so we should expect more. Something better to do? Guess Mom's basement offers few alternatives. Favonian (talk) 17:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet[edit]

Hello N. Excellent edit summary!! Thanks for the smle. MarnetteD|Talk 19:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD:, thanks! I couldn't help but chuckle when I saw it on the RFPP list. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Latest auto-protection on cloud article[edit]

I see you've place a new albeit temporary level of protection on the cloud article because of recent excessive vandalism. On the edit page, it says that auto-confirmed users can still edit the article without interruption, but this doesn't appear to be the case. I've been auto-confirmed ever since it was first introduced and never had an edit blocked for review until now, not even during periods of temporary enhanced protection. My edit has now been accepted, but I still have to wonder if I have lost my status as an auto-confirmed user. Do you know anything about that? Many thanks!~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31:, there is something odd going on here. The article is currently both semi-protected and on pending changes, which is quite common - in effect, it gives the same results as being just semi-protected.
However, you are not just autoconfirmed but Extended-confirmed, so I am at a loss as to what is going on. Could you edit a few other pending changes articles and see if you're having issues there and get back to me? At that point I'll probably ask someone with more experience in user permissions Nosebagbear (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Nosebagbear: I've been looking around for other pending changes articles but not found any for which I can do any constructive edits. Obviously I'm reluctant to do what would amount to purely "test" editing as this is usually treated as vandalism if it doesn't produce any constructive results for an article. I appreciate you taking an interest in the incident, but this elevated level of screening/blocking edits is only for a few more days during which I don't expect to be making any further edits to the cloud article. I'm not taking this incident personally, just treating it as an accident/error for now, but you can be sure I'll raise it again if it happens again!~~ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31 (talk) 22:56, 02 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisCarss Former24.108.99.31: - no problem, that seems like a good route to take. If it does show up again I'll need to pause doing it until I've settled the issue, so it would be of some significant concern. Cheers Nosebagbear (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

trick or treat?[edit]

Suggested edit to talk header. Of course feel free to revert, tweak etc. –xenotalk 12:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeno: that's fine, thanks for the edit Nosebagbear (talk) 13:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

copy of deleted article[edit]

Hi. Would you kindly send a copy of Places in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy on my email please? —usernamekiran(talk) 09:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: - just letting you know that I'd seen this - it'll be a short while before I get the opportunity to handle it, but please pester remind me if I've not got back in touch by Thursday Nosebagbear (talk) 10:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter November 2019[edit]

Hello Nosebagbear,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 818 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

📧[edit]

....Atsme Talk 📧 09:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: - thank you for your message. I've read it but I guarantee you that I'll give it and the links a more thorough going over and make a more final decision in the last 24 hours. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, NBB - I know you will. It's heartbreaking to see what's happening to such a kind and generous person. He does not deserve that kind of treatment. Atsme Talk 📧 14:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lina caceres[edit]

Why would you delete Lina Caceres I was still updating it? There are a lot of other articles that have less sources or information and you guys dont delete it!

Topmartz (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Topmartz: - I deleted it because that was the consensus at Articles for Deletion - they key bit being not just that there weren't enough sources atm, but there weren't enough reliable secondary sources available elsewhere to show notability. It did run for a full week to give a chance to add extra sources. The status of other articles is somewhat irrelevant - they may well warrant deletion as well, in which case anyone (including yourself) can recommend them for deletion: but it would be impossible to work our way bottom-up. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe is not relevant enough I can ffix it but please transfere it to draft I spent months writting the article and now is all lost.

Topmartz (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DRAFT Rika Ishige[edit]

Hello,

Thank you for responding to my comment about Rika Ishige Draft.

Is there any way I can get in touch with the editor who rejected my page?

I did not refer to Rika as a mixed martial artist. So how can my article be declined for not meeting mixed martial arts requirements?

And the editor's comments are vague. It would make sense for me to talk directly with that editor.

Best,

John

JohnWolcott (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JohnWolcott: - you can go to their talk page here. Just hit new section to ask a question Nosebagbear (talk) 11:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfD stats[edit]

You mention them at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/EvergreenFir. How to find one's AfD stats? TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: - there's a direct link here. Put the username of the editor you're reviewing in the top box and (usually) 500 in the 2nd. In RfAs, there's also a little box with links to things like this directly above the support !vote section. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

A rep for Centurion Ministries will be updating information to the Wiki page. Please do not undo these edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LShareefW (talk • contribs) 16:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Centurion[edit]

Hi there, I'm a volunteer for Centurion and I'm trying to help them build a more comprehensive wiki page by adding additional information to what was previously a sparse and (in many cases) completely inaccurate page. I think their work should be more accurately represented. I will be linking out references - please do not revert my work as I will be adding sources and references in the coming days. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.218.90 (talk) 19:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LShareefW and 71.168.218.90: - I would not suggest massive changes and saying to add refs later, as we have no idea what timescale to work off and it still would be breaking the sourcing rules for anyone who saw it in the interim. A larger number of small, referenced, changes is advisable. Given the page has been heading to an edit war and there's a clear COI, I suggest working via the talk page. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mark Levin[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mark Levin. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFC[edit]

Just as a note (since you were the one that started the conversation), and in case you (or you) aren't watching WT:AFC, I split the "Very old" AFC category into the relevant months. It should give some better handling of how old things really are. Primefac (talk) 21:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case Opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 20:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019[edit]

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

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

This is possibly the most meaningful compliment anyone has paid me over the last 15 years of participating in a lot of different roles in the Wikimedia movement. I am honoured that you hold me in such esteem. Realistically, I'm not sure how much of an influence that I or any other individual will have in the final outcome - to be honest, I have no idea what it's going to look like, but I am pretty sure that there is the core of a workable long-range strategy in amongst all the "recommendations" that were made. Risker (talk) 04:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Risker: You are more than welcome, I did think you were a braver soul than I - it just seemed that very few of the controversial proposals had any significant support and after the (comparative) efficacy of the talk page style discussions it was sad to see that we might be heading back towards the days where changing the direction took derailing the train. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gambo[edit]

You previously participated in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gambo and mentioned sources in a different language than English.  The article is back at AFD again at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gambo (carcass).  If there are reliable sources, please link to them and say what they are. Dream Focus 10:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Dove[edit]

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension. Happy Holidays to you and yours. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year![edit]

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)

Atsme Talk 📧 18:42, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Time To Spread A Little
Happy Holiday Cheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree
in the spirit of the season.

 What's especially nice about
this digitized version:
*it doesn't need water
*won't catch fire
*and batteries aren't required.
Have a very Merry Christmas - Happy Hanukkah‼️

and a prosperous New Year!!

🍸🎁 🎉

Please comment on Talk:Call-out culture[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Call-out culture. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers[edit]

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well N. MarnetteD|Talk 20:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays[edit]


Interstellarity (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

New Page Review newsletter December 2019[edit]

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!
⛄ 🎅 🎄

Hope you enjoy the Christmas eve with the ones you love and step into the new year with lots of happiness and good health. Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year!CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays[edit]

Thank you for continuing to make Wikipedia the greatest project in the world. I hope you have an excellent holiday season. Lightburst (talk) 23:15, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays![edit]

Hi NBB! All the warmest wishes for this seasonal occasion, whichever you celebrate - or don't, while I swelter at 27℃ (80.6℉), and peace and prosperity for 2020. Hoping that you'll join me for a cool beer in Bangkok in August when it will be even hotter!
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung: - oof, 27 degrees at Christmas sounds unpleasant - what's the winter food of choice? Nosebagbear (talk) 12:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be surprised, but when you've lived in the tropics for a long time, you actually feel quite cool at this time of the year and we even stop using our pools because it's so 'cold'. Ironically, it's still far warmer - even hotter - than it generally ever gets in most parts of Europe above the 45 meridian! Our winter is very short though and the temperature will start rising steeply by the end of February to hit it peak at over 40℃ (104℉) in April. Now that 'is' hot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy holidays![edit]

Hello Nosebagbear: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 14:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Good luck[edit]

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはNosebagbearたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Season's Greetings[edit]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Nosebagbear, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
Donner60 (talk) 07:10, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas![edit]

TheSandDoctor Talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Seasons greetings from Australia![edit]

Hello Nosebagbear: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:37, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Adapted from Template:Season's Greetings1)

Precious anniversary[edit]

A year ago ...
sarcasm fair play
... you were recipient
no. 2102 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: - thanks again! And I hope you've had/are having a Merry Christmas! :) Nosebagbear (talk) 22:39, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, see User:Gerda Arendt/Images 2020, - hope you too, and best wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyokotalk 03:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

Happy New Year!
Nosebagbear,
Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – 2020 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2020}} to user talk pages.

– Utopes (talk) 08:58, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Administrators' newsletter – January 2020[edit]

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

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kiranraj K[edit]

Hi Nosebagbear

Can u please review the article Draft:Kiranraj K.

Thank you ShramanJain (talk) 11:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ShramanJain: - hi there, unless I've said otherwise, I review AfC drafts from the oldest on the list, so as to not be unfair to those who have been waiting the longest Nosebagbear (talk) 12:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Do you have any opposition to me draftifying this? It's clear the creator is either paid or Maldonado himself (the username is DAVICAS, which is also the album name) Praxidicae (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Praxidicae: - no objection to you draftifying it, that would have been a good additional action for me to take. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind protecting the title? I have a feeling he might be notable but I think it really needs to go through AFC first. Praxidicae (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've EC salted it, and watchlisted Nosebagbear (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD for Kent Tate[edit]

Hello! The voting there has swung clearly keep, so you might want to have a look. The three delete votes are the article subject (Kent tate), someone from his family (LorriBrown) and myself. I made an IAR decision to vote delete as I find the amount of time dealing with the family dispute to be a net loss to Wikipedia. True, but not a great AFD reason. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: hi there. There !votes following on have been somewhat mixed, but it's definitely gone to a full out IAR argument set (including a little by some Keep !votes), but the IARs aren't unreasonable arguments, nor are they really being set against policy-based arguments (in the sense of not policy being wrong in this use-case, but here is an argument from outside the policy sphere to consider). Assuming it stays in its current form, I want to think this through in a bit more detail, but as I'm about to extracted from my house for an involuntary fancy dress party, I'll have to delay it to tomorrow afternoon, I'm afraid! Nosebagbear (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the party was good! Thanks for taking care of Kent Tate. I decided in the end that he was notable, and scraped the university databases for evidence. Your close summed things up well.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keech Hospice Care[edit]

Hi Nosebagbear. I'm not sure I agree with your decision to move this article - while the company may have rebranded itself recently, the overwhelming majority of sources used in the article (all of them, actually, or at least all the ones that still work) refer to it as either Keech Cottage or Keech Cottage Children's Hospice. WP:COMMONNAME, which you cited as the policy supporting the move, specifically says: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). That would seem to suggest we shoudl be using Keech Cottage or Keech Cottage Children's Hospice, but definitely not Keech Hospice Care, which none of the sources use. Yunshui 雲水 15:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: - a large majority of recent sources (which take precedence in name changes) call it Keech Hospice Care 1, 2, 3, 4. I went for just adding a Watford observer that specifically targeted the name change aspect so I didn't need to add various secondary sources that weren't otherwise relevant. Obviously that does mean there is a current majority of all sources 0 I'm happy to add a couple more of the above in (there wasn't anything that seemed particularly warranting inclusion, but there's probably something to act as an anchor for a couple of sources) - please let me know? Cheers Nosebagbear (talk) 22:20, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well, fair enough then. Would be worth popping the more up-to-date sources in the article (to save others the same confusion I experienced!), but if that's what sources call them now, then that's what we should call them too. Yunshui 雲水 08:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested[edit]

at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Community view before Friday.

Only 100 or so words. It should be fun and serious at the same time.

All the best,

Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refund to userspace of SQR Ilyas[edit]

Please WP:REFUND to my userspace SQR Ilyas. I have been looking at the related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welfare Party of India and sm interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SQR Ilyas for a number of reasons. One issue on the nomination of the latter Non notable Islamist politician. was use of Islamist politician rather than simply politician which was probably unintentional but may be ill-advised as Islamist should have nothing to do with notability. In the search for Welfare Party of India I'm also coming across sources such as [1]. [2]. Possibly insufficient for an article but perhaps more than a delete with minimal discussion and perhaps a re-direct to the party is reasonable? Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Djm-leighpark:, I've userfied it to User:Djm-leighpark/SQR Ilyas. It's quite common to add some additional modifier in regards to non-notable politicians, however "non-notable Indian politician" would indeed have been more suitable, but I can't imagine it made any difference in my decision (certainly it doesn't now). Your additional sources don't make me inherently think that a redirect is beneficial, but it's certainly not impossible. I've not salted the page, so you could insert a redirect, but I would advise immediately adding your reasoning and references on the Talk Page - I'll revert if it gets immediately deleted, as I feel that it would make more sense to take to WP:RfD.
It would probably make more sense to wait until after the AfD for the Welfare party, but I leave that to you. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly quite happy to see the outcome AfD for the Welfare party, in fact waiting to see how that goes. Normally I would simply go with a politician (or even party) that is simply up for election or have a seat doesn't get an article doesn't get an article but there are exceptions Official Monster Raving Loony Party from the UK immediately came to my head though I wouldn't expect the many copycat "parties" to follow". The Welfare Party of India may have done enough to scrape notability ... it passes my basic test that if a reputable publication of India mentions 'X' is from that party I'd like to be able to see what that party is about by looking it up on wikipedia. Thankyou for refund.Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Mad Ghost Productions[edit]

User:DisneyMetalhead has asked for a deletion review of Mad Ghost Productions. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 20:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhoopali Sudhakar Nisal[edit]

Hi Nosebagbear -- Did you intend to move this into mainspace? It doesn't look ready. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Espresso Addict: - hi there, it wasn't an AfC move, but me doing an emergency fix of a copy & paste mainspace creation of a draft, since if another edit was made a hist-merge would be needed instead. I wasn't in a position at the point to do a full review (though a brief look made me suspect it would probably fail), so I did a quick check to identify whether the really egregious CSDs weren't breached, and de-ticked it so it would be reviewed. As I noted in the edit summary, it wasn't a case that I supported its existence, which I do for almost all AfC reviews I pass.
I see now it has been speedy deleted for promotionalism - personally I think there would have been just enough content after an axe-chopping for a minimally sustainable article, but given the likely notability failure that probably wasn't felt as worthwhile. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nosebagbear -- I was worried it had been accidentally moved into mainspace without the editor being ready. (I occasionally forget or misclick in the spaces dropdown when moving an article.) It seemed to me to fall into that grey area of promotion where it would be hard but possible to construct an article, but it still might fail on notability at AfD. I'm not surprised it got deleted. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [3]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Garcia - AfD[edit]

Hi - I just noticed the AfD for Andrew Garcia from last month, which you closed as a redirect. Only three people voted in the AfD - two of the votes were for redirecting the article, and one of the votes was for keeping the article. Had I been aware of the AfD at the time, I would have been a strong vote for keeping the article.

Is it possible to have the AfD reopened? I haven't been very active on Wikipedia lately and would like to avoid getting involved in any long, drawn out process, but I'd very much like to see the article restored if possible. Thanks! --Jpcase (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpcase: - unfortunately it's not possible to have the AfD reopened at this point - if nothing else, the AfD had already been open 3 weeks, but I'd also be concerned about it popping back into being. You said you were hoping to avoid the drawn out process (presumably DRV), so you could grab a copy of the content from the redirect from your sandbox (please make sure to cite the history in your first edit for the copyright link) and see if you could find some sourcing that was missed in the original discussion.
I realise that you think it was Keep as it is, but I'm not comfortable reopening an AfD purely on my own basis of my own assessment of a changing consensus (on the same facts), though obviously that can happen. It's not one of DRV's listed purposes, but certainly they'd be the logical body if, at some stage, you do have the time. Perhaps their Talk page could be used to ask about this type of situation? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fast response! I don't have the time to make any major expansions to the article myself, but enough sources exist that the article could be expanded considerably, if someone else ever wanted to make the effort. And generally, I believe that if an article has the potential to be expanded and well-sourced, then the article should be kept. I realize that only a few of those sources existed in the article at the time of the AfD. I'd be willing to toss a few more sources in, if doing so would allow me to restore the article. But otherwise, I'm willing to open a discussion at DRV, if you think that would be the best route.
I'll go ahead and ask about this at the DRV talk page. Thanks! --Jpcase (talk) 15:31, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, per WP:Deletion policy#Deletion review, it seems like anyone is welcome to restore a redirected article if improvements are made. Like I said, I'm not interested in making any large-scale edits to the article, but I'm certainly willing to toss in a few additional sources.
I can add a 2016 New York Times source [4] that briefly mentions Garcia both in relation to his Idol-fame and his pre-Idol YouTube fame, a 2015 Rappler source [5] that briefly mentions Garcia's collaboration with Ryan Higa, and 2014 articles from USA Today [6] and The Wrap [7] that each mention Garcia's Streamy Award nomination. None of these new sources discuss Garcia in great depth, but at the time of the AfD, Garcia's article already had several sources, including a pretty substantial one published by Billboard in 2017. Taken together, I feel like all of these sources should be enough to warrant restoring the article.
WP:Deletion policy seems to give me the go ahead to restore the article on my own, as long as I add those new sources, but I want to make sure I'm not overstepping. Do you think it's appropriate for me to restore the article, if I add those sources I just mentioned? Or should I still go ahead and ask about this at the Deletion Review talk page? --Jpcase (talk) 00:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpcase: You certainly can restore the redirect, the issue is that anyone can speedy it if they think it looks too similar to the deleted version (because it went through AfD, rather than just being "blank and redirected"), so if you take this route, you'll need to make a substantive edit to the references. If you do take this route, it can be worth adding a couple of lines to the talk page setting out your reasoning for why it's improved. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks - the policy you're referring to is WP:G4, right? Even though the sources I'm adding don't go into a great amount of detail about Garcia, I do feel that they should be enough to prevent the restored article from being "substantially identical to the deleted [or in this case, redirected] version" of the article. The version of the article that was AfDed failed to make any mention of Garcia's pre-Idol YouTube fame or his Streamy Award nomination, which is information that I can add with these new sources. So I don't think that speedy deletion would be appropriate in this case, although I certainly recognize that the article could potentially be nominated for AfD again. --Jpcase (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpcase: - that's fine then, I still generally find it worth adding something to the talk page in risk cases (that is, the risk someone else might speedy it because they don't know all your thinking) - usually in edge cases I promote from AfC for me. It helps reduce the problem of someone speedying it when I'm offline. Best of luck! Nosebagbear (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for discussing! I left a note on the article's talk page explaining my additions. Also, in the process of adding those aforementioned sources, I found that Garcia was a featured artist on a Billboard-charting single; that, on top of everything else, should hopefully prevent Garcia's article from being redirected again. --Jpcase (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, shoot. I left a detailed note on the article's talk page, explaining my improvements to the article, but someone went ahead and redirected the article anyway...I have a very hard time understanding how an artist who has been featured on a Billboard-charting single (and has received coverage from Billboard for an EP release) could still be considered to have insufficient notability...
Originally, DRV didn't seem like the proper channel for this, but Purposse #3 for DRV is "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". I believe that I've added significant new information to the Garcia article. Should I go ahead and open a discussion about this at DRV, or would it still be best for me to ask about this at the DRV talk page instead? --Jpcase (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpcase: - DRV is probably best, though they might always disagree I suppose, but I think it's reasonable. If you want two bites at the cherry, you could query the person who redirected to make sure they actually read your reasoning, but that's your choice as to how many steps you're willing to go through. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I spoke with the person who redirected the article, and they were willing to restore the article - so no DRV necessary! :) Thanks for taking the time to discuss all of this with me! --Jpcase (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. A. Siddique Hassan (2nd nomination)[edit]

Passer-by question about the AfD: I only just noticed the deletion of K. A. Siddique Hassan and I seem to have missed that it was up for AfD; since I can’t check now, can you confirm if the nominator put an AfD notice on the article? Maybe I missed it on my watchlist...

Kind of a surprising result given the GNG sources in the first AfD only a few months ago. — MarkH21talk 23:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarkH21: - hi, yes it had a notification added to it on the 4th, Nosebagbear (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I must have missed it! — MarkH21talk 23:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

site-banned editor[edit]

Regarding this edit: the editor is still site-banned though, right? Given that Adolphus79 is engaging with the editor, I'm not sure what is the appropriate step to take, though. isaacl (talk) 18:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: - so strictly speaking, the user has currently only been mooted as being a sock, so I just went ahead and confirmed the ID case without going beyond that. However, this is less DUCK and more someone formally requesitng to be confirmed as a sockpuppet. So I've just gone ahead and blocked him as a sockpuppet. Pinging @Adolphus79:, though I know he noted him as a banned account in his most recent edit in the discussion. If you feel the discussion warrants continuing, obviously it can be carried out on his Talk Page. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Y'all done did this while I was actively opening a sock case... lol - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up so rapidly! isaacl (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way you could submit his draft article into the mainspace for me? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adolphus79: - you could just move it yourself from User:Iorio.Lorenzo/sandbox. As a warning, it looks pretty similar (though with the numbers updated) from the deleted version in the past. I'm not in a position to confirm clearly whether it is or isn't notable, but if you want to take it forwards I'd suggest looking it over carefully.
OK, thank you, I thought the mainspace title had been blocked... it appears that he passes WP:PROF #'s 1 and/or 8 now... I'm not sure of the original content, I'm assuming he has done something significant in the last 10 years... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adolphus79: Sorry, you're right of course (the list of deletions was so long it had knocked the salting below my screen length). I'm not comfortable about removing the protection. If you think it stands up, I'd suggest turning it into a draft, then making a request at either RFPP or DRV Nosebagbear (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was my intention with the user until I realized he was already banned, to help him build the article in his draft space and then submit it for review for re-creation... as I delve deeper into this decade old situation though, I am happy to leave the decision up to you... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020[edit]

Hello Nosebagbear,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Nosebagbear. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Doug Weller talk 19:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?[edit]

my cactus would like to tender a complaint about me, because I am subjecting it to the language I would like to use for certain individuals and one organisation involved in this field. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'm stumped, what on earth does this mean? — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wugapodes: It's a relatively literal phrase, if meant vaguely humourously - I've been taken out my anger with opindia for doxxing DBX (and a few of the ruder emails seen through OTRS) by directing some frutier language at my desktop cactus. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2020

Successful RfA[edit]

Congrats..The admins' T-shirt for you. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:41, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, I shall wear it with my xkcd tie and be dressed for all occasions. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for making yourself available and of course congratulations. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nosebagbear/Archive_5&oldid=1079199825"