User talk:Juliancolton/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Your GA nomination of 1842 Atlantic hurricane season

The article 1842 Atlantic hurricane season you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1842 Atlantic hurricane season for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TropicalAnalystwx13 -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Sweeney (2nd nomination)‎

Please reopen this discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Why? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Did you look at the AfD?  Unscintillating (talk) 05:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not very helpful. You posted, "WP:DEL8 is not an argument for deletion", but failure to meet notability requirements is always a valid argument for deletion of BLPs. What new evidence do you have that would necessitate a relist? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

What you are saying is, "I decline to allow your !vote to be posted."  "It was posted more than seven days after the start of the discussion, so you shouldn't be surprised that your !vote edit-conflicted with my close."  Unscintillating (talk) 16:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The AfD was open for 11 days, and you first commented nearly a week ago... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Denying RFF requests

Thanks for the message! I asked for the edits because we have an indefinitely-banned editor, Dung247, who has come back under IP addresses & continues to add what information he would add before he was blocked: he violates WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE & WP:NOTTVGUIDE by adding program schedules, mainly for all-news radio & T.V. stations. We have pointed this out many times before, & he continues to persist. He's not listening, but I figures if the pages were blocked from IP editors, then he couldn't continue his violations. The block isn't working, sadly. Anyway, thank you for taking the time to write me & good editing to you!Stereorock (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Ahh, I see, thanks for the info. It still looks manageable from where I'm sitting, but if there's more activity in the near future, send me a message and I'll be happy to take another look. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! We will continue to follow the normal procedures of posting to said user's IP userpage that such edits are in violation, so everything will be on the up-and-up. Thank you again; you've been a pleasure to converse with!Stereorock (talk)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at three recent works Op-ed: TomStar81 on a curious episode of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Recently deleted article

Hello Juliancolton. I don't believe I've communicated with you on Wikipedia before, so it's nice to 'meet' you :). Anyway, I'm curious as to why a certain article was deleted by you, when the discussion warranted four deletes, three keeps, and one neutral. I was hoping we could have perhaps gotten a clearer consensus before deleting the page, but the decision isn't mine. Thoughts? Thank you. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 04:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC).

Hi Carbrera, nice to "meet" you as well! I hope the new year has treated you well so far. Regarding the AfD, I thought consensus was fairly well established, actually. As you know, deletion discussions aren't a straight vote (and even if they were, the nominator's statement would count as an additional 'delete'), and most participants agreed that the album was lacking in significant RS coverage. One 'delete' vote was struck on the condition that more sources be added (which never came to fruition), and I'd gotten the impression that your "speedy keep" was effectively withdrawn when you indicated that coverage was nowhere near as extensive as you initially believed. Combine all that with the fact that no efforts had been made in a couple weeks to address the concerns presented, and you have reasonably clear consensus to delete. Hope this helps, and if you have any further questions, feel free to ask. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

GA review mentorship

Hi, saw your username in the list of GA review mentorship volunteers. I'm going to do my first GA review in Talk:Al-Muktafi/GA1, would you mind watching the review to make sure I'm doing what I'm supposed to do? HaEr48 (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi HaEr48, your review looks good so far - I don't think you need my help at all. :) Nonetheless, I've added the review page to my watchlist and will be ready to offer guidance or a second opinion as needed. Best of luck! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent block on IP

This IP [[1]] that you blocked for vandalism is back as this IP [[2]] effectively evading their block. I've left them a warning, but I'm not sure if the protocol is just to block to new IP as well. I'll defer to your judgement, thanks. Valeince (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

School IP blocked for disruption. Thanks for the note. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Re:Your file mover request

Dear User:Juliancolton, thanks for noticing and alerting me! I will correct that right away! With regards, Anupam^Talk 23:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Question about usernames

I just wanted to clarify my understanding of UAA policy. You've "declined" some of my UAA reports since the editors in question haven't edited, but I was under the impression that misleading/offensive usernames don't need to have been used in order to be blocked. If the editors I'm reporting just don't fall under UAA-worthy criteria, then I must be in the wrong here. Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Zupotachyon. Per the instructions at the top of UAA, "Wait until the user edits. Do not report a user that hasn't edited unless they are clearly a vandal." There are some obvious exceptions, but in most cases, it's better to just ignore misleading, promotional, or inappropriate usernames until the accounts actually become active. Instead of simply appearing once in the user creation log, never to be seen again, the problematic usernames get plastered across multiple logs, noticeboards, edit summaries, and edit and contribution histories—thereby exponentially increasing the number of users who could be offended or mislead by them. See the Streisand effect for something similar. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I think I understand now – only blatantly UAA-worthy usernames without edits should be reported. However, and I hate to do this, since it tends to get overly case-specific, but the ones I reported seem to me pretty obvious – "BOTEDIT" and "JuggaloKiller999" are pretty self-explanatory. I understand that cases like "Mahboobe3537" aren't blatantly obvious, though, so I'm just trying to clear up my understanding. Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As a rule, usernames shouldn't be reported until the accounts become active. The exception is obviously defamatory or vulgar usernames. There's simply no need to block "BOTEDIT" and "JuggaloKiller999" before they edit. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see that the reported usernames weren't blatant – I just had to look at them in a different way. My apologies. Zupotachyon _{Ping me} (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Your username-related block of Worldinc.

I'm not objecting, but I want to make sure you are aware that Worldinc was renamed less than three hours before your "username implies shared use" block pursuant to an approved global rename request. I'm not suggesting that a global renamer's imprimatur overrides local policy, but it seems harsh to me to have one's username request accepted only to be blocked a short while later on account of that new name. Thank you. Rebbing 02:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rebbing, thanks for the note. I wasn't aware of the rename, and I agree that it's unfortunate, but I'm afraid there's not much I can do at this point. The user began promoting their organization with the same name as their account. That said, I did note their previous good-faith edits, and applied a soft block so they can create a new local account. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah! I wasn't aware of his (deleted) promotional edits; given that, I don't see anything jarring about the block. Thanks for clarifying. Rebbing 03:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Re:Question

Thanks! There are still two left from Kazakhstan here [3]. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Think I got the last of 'em. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:05, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Ping

Thanks for the ping regarding your close of the cycling event-by nation-by year AfD - i'll begin to merge the articles now, leaving those by year pages as redirects. Thanks, XyZAn (talk) 18:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sounds great! Thanks for volunteering to make this happen. Best, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Right Stuff (blog)

Hi, I was surprised to be warned on this [4]? I understand if this is merely a content dispute, or if I was mistakenly restoring something that failed NPOV; my concern was that someone was whitewashing the text. Vandalism was clearly not my intent. Thank you, 2601:188:1:AEA0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

European Athletics Championships

You deleted the European Athletics Championships, which I believe is a master page for a major championships. That appears to be the now missing page that links to the championship organization. This major article has nothing to do with the Country's at Speed Skating RFC you quote. Please restore that page, or at the least take it to my sandbox so I can see what you deleted and restore the proper information. Trackinfo (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, restored now. Thanks for the note Trackinfo. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

What about the deleted redirects for the restored article ? Best regards Migrant (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

European Speed Skating Championship for Men

Hi, Juliancolton!

Why you deleted this page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Speed_Skating_Championships_for_Men&action=edit&redlink=1. This is major page for European speed skating men's results, there are no any analogs of it at English version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyperion1982 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Related article

Hi, Juliancolton!

...And why the deletion of the main-article (2015 World Single Distance Speed Skating Championships) for this category Category:2015 World Single Distance Speed Skating Championships ? I really don't think that was part of the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belarus at the 2016 World Speed Skating Championships as it was not mentioned there ? Restore please ? Best regards Migrant (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that, Migrant. Unfortunately, it seems I wasn't careful enough with my Twinkle batch deletion from that AfD. I believe I've cleaned up all errors (including the redirects you mentioned above) but I'll take a closer look this evening to make sure I didn't miss anything else. Thanks again, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring !! Best regards Migrant (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Jeet Gian

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeet Gian. 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. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For you working on closing WP:AfD debates. Bearian (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Bearian! It's very much appreciated. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1837 Racer's hurricane

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1837 Racer's hurricane 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 Hurricanehink mobile -- Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1837 Racer's hurricane

The article 1837 Racer's hurricane you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1837 Racer's hurricane for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink mobile -- Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 21:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

PERM

Thanks for stepping in at PERM, Julian, but when according rights for New Page Reviewer, could you please consider using the helper script - it automates three other essential functions connected with this right that are tedious to do manually, and at the moment, each day I have to go through the day's new accorded rights and carry out those functions manually. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, will do. Thanks for the suggestion and apologies for any inconvenience I've caused. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

RPP

Requested for unprotection of Template:Citation needed/doc. --219.76.15.12 (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Question, regarding rollback/CVU training

Hello!

A few days ago, I applied for the Rollback right, and you told me that I should reapply in a few weeks since most of my edits were only over the space of a few days. I am not questioning your decision here, I think you were right. My question is this. If I receive training from the Counter-Vandalism Unit (and pass), does that count for anything? Would I still have to have several weeks more of experience?

I know by saying this, it may seem that I'm trying to make acquiring rights my goal (WP:TROPHY is the closest thing I can link). That isn't my intention, though I may be doing it unconsciously. I do want to use programs like Huggle, though, which is why I'm asking.

Thank you for reading, and have a good night/day/afternoon/whatever time it is where you are!

MereTechnicality (talk) 00:47, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi MereTechnicality. I've gone ahead and given you the rollback right, since it looks like you know what you're doing and you seem to have the right attitude. I usually like to see at least a month of consistent editing before I grant rollback, but I'm pretty confident in your ability to use the tool with appropriate caution. Have fun and don't hesitate to ask for help if you get hung up anywhere. Happy editing, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Alright, if you think that I'm ready, then I'll get right to it! Thank you, and have a great day/evening/whatever! MereTechnicality (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

List of inline hockey leagues

You deleted List of inline hockey leagues. Please restore to my sandbox. Trackinfo (talk) 01:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I just found out you have deleted all the articles I created related to the 2016 Sukma Games and 2016 Malaysia Para Games? I wish to gather them together in my sandbox to see what can be done with them, so can you help restore and move them? Thanks.

@Trackinfo: I've restored it to User:Trackinfo/List of inline hockey competitions.

@Hongqilim: Both topics were discussed at AfD with a consensus that the competitions were not notable enough for results pages on each event. I'd rather not restore ~30 AfD-deleted articles to your userspace unless you have a clear and immediate plan of action more specific than simply "seeing what can be done." I see that you were not notified of the discussions, which is concerning, so I'd be willing to restore a couple articles of your choice so you can demonstrate how you intend to address the notability and WP:NOTSTATS concerns. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:53, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

What can I do now?--Hongqilim (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

As I suggested, pick two or three articles from the batch of Sukma Games and Malaysia Para Games pages for me to restore to your userspace. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for Uroš Pinterič

Colcody2000 has asked for a deletion review of Uroš Pinterič. 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 19:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

May I have Rollback permissions?

Hello Juliancolton, A few weeks ago I applied for Rollback permissions WP:RFP/R, and you said to come back after a few more weeks of anti-vandalism work, and you would grant it. I have expanded my experience with vandal fighting, and learning about how Wikipedia works, so was wondering if you would please grant me that privilege? Thanks for your time, L3X1 Complaints Desk 20:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for merge

Hi Julian. Please can you share the content deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basketball at the 2011 GCC Games? I requested a merge of the detail and this was not contested. Thanks. SFB 20:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sillyfolkboy:  Done – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for ForRent.com

I created the ForRent.com article that was deleted 26 January, 2017. Recently the article was paired down significantly to make sure that it was short and concise. It was then flagged again and quickly deleted. Why was this article deleted and not others similar articles like Rent.com? Adam2k (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

You can see the reasons for deletion here. If you feel that another article fails to meet notability requirements, you're free to nominate it for deletion, but you must provide a policy-based reason for doing so. Wikipedia is run by volunteers who address problematic articles as we come across them, and who have positively no interest in the advertising success of one American apartment searching website over another. Please keep in mind our conflict of interest editing policy. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Why did you delete Championship_Rally_(Atari_Lynx) page?

Hi Julian,

We just went through review of this page last September. See below history. Now 3 months later it's deleted again. If I knew that one day ign.com is notable, then next day arbitrarily it isn't, then I would have added even more links. E.g. several magazines reviewed this game in 2000/2001 (including EGM I believe). Also it's the 1st hit on google.com when you search for championship rally Atari lynx (which is now a defunct link) and there are more than 50 other articles. Last it's sold by telegames.co.uk which isn't homebrew company.

History: 21:24, 25 January 2017 Juliancolton (talk | contribs) deleted page Championship Rally (Atari Lynx) (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Championship Rally (Atari Lynx) closed as delete) 14:45, 21 September 2016 Nyttend (talk | contribs) restored page Championship Rally (Atari Lynx) (17 revisions restored: LucienK objects to the PROD) 19:57, 19 September 2016 Nyttend (talk | contribs) deleted page Championship Rally (Atari Lynx) (Expired PROD, concern was: Fails to meet WP: Notability (video games). Homebrew video game with no claim to notability. Only two sources cited, one of which is the publisher's website

Thanks, Lucien — Preceding unsigned comment added by LucienK (talk • contribs) 00:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I've restored the article, as required by WP:SOFTDELETE. If an uncontested deletion discussion remains open for several weeks with few or no comments, admins are permitted to delete the page at their discretion, but must restore it upon request. Keep in mind that the article may be re-nominated at any time, so you may wish to keep a close eye on it if you'd like the chance to address other editors' concerns next time around. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

re: ENFOS Inc

Hi Juliancolton, thank you for getting back to me about the deletion of the ENFOS Inc. article. Is there any way I could get a copy of the deleted article to have it edited to better represent the Wiki guidelines in line with your suggestions? The company itself should fall within notability rules - it's a significant ERP software company with some of the largest companies in North America as clients (BP, Sunoco, CN Rail, Department of Defense). Looking at the ERP vendor list List_of_ERP_software_packages, it falls alongside the size and scale of other accepted ERP vendors. I'll have to re-write the article from an objective, non-promotional view, as you pointed out - but that's a reasonable change to make. I'll also implement what you pointed out about the references to independent, reliable sources too. Thanks a lot for your time, it's appreciated. - CWade593 —Preceding undated comment added 15:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Rollback question

Hi Julian,

I saw that you denied my request for rollback, due to a lack of experience. How much experience should I have before submitting another request? XboxGamer22408^{talk to me} 04:23, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@XboxGamer22408: Hey, thanks for dropping by. There's no set limit but I'd give it a couple more weeks of consistent anti-vandalism work before reapplying. At that point we should have a solid record by which to judge your competence and trustworthiness. Of course, standards vary widely from one person to another, and if you happen to be friends with a couple admins, you may get lucky by asking around. Keep up the good work! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

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

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

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

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

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

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Round 3 Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday saw the end of Round 2. Shearonink took out Round 2 with an amazing score of 499. In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an astounding 236 points, and in third place, Cartoon network freak received 136 points. Originally, we had plans for one wild card for 9th place, however it appears that both Chris troutman and J Milburn were tied for 9th place. Therefore, we have decided to have both advance to Round 3. In Round 2, 91 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 2, the longest wait had decreased to a little over 6 months. It's clear that we continue to make a difference at GAN and throughout Wikipedia, something we should all be proud of. Thanks to all our competitors for helping to make the GA Cup a continued success, and for your part in helping other editors improve articles. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 3 so we can keep decreasing the backlog. To qualify for the third round, contestants had to earn the two highest scores in each of the four pools in Round 2; plus, one wildcard. For Round 3, users were placed in 3 random pools of 3. To qualify for the Final of the 3rd Annual GA Cup, the top user in each pool will progress, and there will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 4th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 3 has already started and will end on February 26 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. Also, we'd like to announce the departure of judge Zwerg Nase. We thank him for all his hardwork and hope to see him back in the future. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

GA review mentorship

Hi, I asked for your guidance for my first GA review, but that one went well without your input because I think the article quality was already good, so reviewing it wasn't difficult. I am taking "Abaza Hasan Pasha" as next review. I feel this article has lower quality than the previous one, so the review is more challenging. Would you mind watching my review there? HaEr48 (talk) 06:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey HaEr48, sure thing. I'm slightly pressed for time at the moment, but I'll read through the article and your comments later this evening, and post comments or suggestions as necessary. I think it's great that you're trying to improve your skill as a reviewer by seeking guidance and taking on more challenging reviews – unfortunately, GAN is plagued by superficial, low-quality reviews. Until later, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:22, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

Hello Juliancolton,

A HUGE backlog

We now have 810 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Deleted articles

I would like to have the following articles kept in my Sandbox:

• Athletics at the 2016 Sukma Games
• Archery at the 2016 Sukma Games
• Badminton at the 2016 Sukma Games
• Athletics at the 2016 Malaysia Para Games
• Swimming at the 2016 Malaysia Para Games

--Hongqilim (talk) 13:29, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done:

User:Hongqilim/Athletics at the 2016 Sukma Games

User:Hongqilim/Archery at the 2016 Sukma Games

User:Hongqilim/Badminton at the 2016 Sukma Games

User:Hongqilim/Athletics at the 2016 Malaysia Para Games

User:Hongqilim/Swimming at the 2016 Malaysia Para Games

– Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.

--Hongqilim (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at submarine warfare in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Constitution Marsh

On 9 February 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Constitution Marsh, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that New York's Constitution Marsh, an Important Bird Area, is adjacent to what was once "the most cadmium polluted site in the world"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Constitution Marsh. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Constitution Marsh), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

ENFOS Inc.

Hey Juliancolton, I posted a reply to your comment on my talk page (talk) about the deletion of the ENFOS Inc. page but it seems to have gotten deleted without being moved to the archives.

May I get a copy of the deleted article in order to edit it as to better represent the Wiki guidelines in line with your suggestions? The company itself should fall within notability rules - it's a significant ERP software company with some of the largest companies in North America as clients (BP, Sunoco, CN Rail, Department of Defense). Looking at the ERP vendor list List_of_ERP_software_packages, it falls alongside the size and scale of other accepted ERP vendors. I'll re-write the article from a more objective, non-promotional tone, as per your suggestions. I'll also implement what you pointed out about the references to independent, reliable sources too.

Thanks a lot for your time, it's appreciated. - CWade593 —Preceding undated comment added 15:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

request / question / favor

Hi, I randomly picked your name from the mentor list at Wikipedia:Good article help, so I hope this isn't forward, however, in reference to my message there, I've had a GA review that appears to have been abandoned mid-process by the reviewer. I was wondering if I could impose on you to take-over the review just long enough to fail it? That way I can renominate it. As it is, it's kind-of stuck in limbo and I'm not sure if the reviewer will be returning to Wikipedia. DarjeelingTea (talk) 05:49, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey DarjeelingTea, taking a look now... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the 1858 Atlantic hurricane season page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
• On the 1897 Atlantic hurricane season page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News

Guild of Copy Editors February 2017 News Hello everyone, and welcome to the February 2017 GOCE newsletter. The Guild has been busy since the last time your coordinators sent out a newsletter! >>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<< December blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 11 through 17 December; the themes were Requests and eliminating the November 2015 backlog. Of the 14 editors who signed up, nine editors completed 29 articles. Barnstars and rollover totals are located here. Thanks to all who took part. January drive: The January drive was a great success. We set out to remove December 2015 and January and February 2016 from our backlog (195 articles), and by 22 January we had cleared those and had to add a third month (March 2016). At the end of the month we had almost cleared out that last month as well, for a total of 180 old articles removed from the backlog! We reduced our overall backlog by 337 articles, to a low of 1,465 articles, our second-lowest month-end total ever. We also handled all of the remaining requests from December 2016. Officially, 19 editors recorded 337 copy edits (over 679,000 words). February blitz: The one-week February blitz, focusing on the remaining March 2016 backlog and January 2017 requests, ran from 12 to 18 February. Seven editors reduced the total in those two backlog segments from 32 to 10 articles, leaving us in good shape going in to the March drive. Coordinator elections for the first half of 2017: In December, coordinators for the first half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 stepped aside as lead coordinator, remaining as coordinator and allowing Miniapolis to be the lead, and Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators. Thanks to all who participated! Speaking of coordinators, congratulations to Jonesey95 on their well-deserved induction into the Guild of Copy Editors Hall of Fame. The plaque reads: "For dedicated service as lead coordinator (2014, 1 July – 31 December 2015 and all of 2016) and coordinator (1 January – 30 June 2015 and 1 January – 30 June 2017); exceptional template-creation work (considerably streamlining project administration), and their emphasis on keeping the GOCE a drama-free zone." Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Miniapolis, Jonesey95, Corinne and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the March Drive! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Question

Could you please clarify your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuck It Tho (Keshia Chante song)? You seem to have decided that the title should be redirected to itself? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Simple copy and paste error on my part. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for mentoring

Dear Julian, having put an article I've worked on up for GA Review, I thought I should return the favour. I'm therefore proposing to review Grič Tunnel (Zagreb). However, this will be my first GA review and I'm not wanting to make a mess or let the main author down. Would you be willing to have a look at my attempt, before I finalise it, and let me know if I've broadly got it right? It would be much appreciated. Regards. KJP1 (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi KJP1, I'd be happy to check your work and offer any guidance as needed. At a glance, the article looks to be in fairly good shape, so hopefully it'll be a relatively smooth first review. As long as you adhere to the GA criteria and have a firm understanding of Wikipedia's core content policies, it's actually rather difficult to mess things up too badly. If the substance of the review is thorough, then the process isn't very important. Best of luck! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Shall start tomorrow. KJP1 (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if you'd be kind enough to have a look at this [5]. I'm not sure if this is something I've done, (entirely possible), or whether it's linked to the Legobot issue raised on the Good Article nominations Discussion Page on 17 February? I've left a message on the author's Talkpage. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

@KJP1: Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I suspect the bot was thrown for a loop by the non-standard character "č" in the article's title. It doesn't appear to be the result of any bungling on your part. :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Julian, no apology necessary at all, I don't expect instant responses! I think I'm about done with my draft, which you will find here, [6]. My view is that it should Pass, subject to the relatively minor modifications I've suggested. I'd therefore plan to put it On Hold, and give the nominator 7 days to respond. Could you have a look and give me your thoughts? Have I missed anything significant? Is there an obvious reason not to Pass which I've overlooked? How do I put it On Hold? Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@KJP1: Your review is very thorough, but not to the point of pedantry as with some GA reviews I've seen, and eminently fair. As far as I can tell, you've hit the mark perfectly. I'm very much in agreement that the article could use a photo from inside the tunnel, for what it's worth. It might be worth mentioning to the nominator that flickr has numerous such images with compatible licenses. (As an aside, when I saw those images, I was a little shocked at how tall the tunnel is. I think the article should probably list the height of the tunnel along with the other dimensions, if that info is available.) My one suggestion would be to check either "yes", "no", or "hold" on the {{GAList/check}} templates for each criteria, so the reviewer can quickly prioritize their improvements. It isn't strictly necessary, though. To place the article on hold, all you have to do is change |status=onreview| to |status=onhold in the {{GA nominee}} template at the top of the article's talk page. The bot will take care of everything else. I've added the review page to my watchlist so I can keep an eye on things and add a second opinion in the unlikely event of any disagreements, but I think you've got this thing well under control. Nice work! – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Julian - I really appreciate your input, and am very pleased the review seems up to snuff. I shall amend as per your suggestions, place On Hold, and let the nominator know. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

Hello Juliancolton,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 810 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

---

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1896 Cedar Keys hurricane

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1896 Cedar Keys hurricane 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 TropicalAnalystwx13 -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1896 Cedar Keys hurricane

The article 1896 Cedar Keys hurricane you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1896 Cedar Keys hurricane for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TropicalAnalystwx13 -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1896 Atlantic hurricane season

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1896 Atlantic hurricane season 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 Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Precious four years!

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Always a pleasure Gerda Arendt! :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks very much for all your assistance at America's 60 Families! DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

@DarjeelingTea: Happy to help. If you ever need any more assistance, with the GA process or otherwise, please feel free to ask. Best, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The Tropical Cyclone Barnstar

		The Tropical Cyclone Barnstar
		For your excellent contributions to Tropical cyclone-related articles. I was passing through and (unsurprisingly) noticed that the parade of tropical cyclone related work you do still continues (I mean seriously, how many articles do we have on this stuff? :P) Anyways, after doing some digging I realized that it appears that you haven't gotten this barnstar in a while (around mid 2011) and we simply can't have that. It is my honor and pleasure to present to you yet another Tropical Cyclone Barnstar. Your work on tropical cyclone articles is how I first ran into you years ago and it is great to see that you continue to chip away at improving our coverage of the topic. Thank you for everything you have done and continue to do! Best, Mifter (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Mifter! :) What a neat surprise. I shall display this barnstar with pride. BTW, it's nice to see that folks still appreciate my work despite recently hearing that some editors would prefer poorly written FAs on any other subject than have to go on living with the knowledge that I've written one more of my "formulaic" hurricane articles... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Could you be my review mentor please?

Hi, I'm beginning my first GA review and would appreciate some feedback. Are you able to assist? I had an article approved for GA status recently and found it a really useful process so am now putting my toe in the reviewing process. I have begun a review of the page for Bobbi Campbell at Talk:Bobbi_Campbell and am not sure if I'm being too detailed. thanks, JulieMay54 (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Grič Tunnel (Zagreb)

Julian - first, many thanks for your help and advice. Greatly appreciated. One more question; how do I now Pass the article? I've changed the status to Pass, but that doesn't seem to do the trick. Or is it just a time lag? KJP1 (talk) 10:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Happy to help KJP1! To pass the article, replace the {{GA nominee}} template with {{GA|topic=|~~~~|page=}}, where the topic is the same as the GAN subtopic, and the page is the number of the successful review page (in this case, 1), and reassess it as GA-class in any WikiProject banners. Then simply list the article as a GA in the relevant topic section, in this case Wikipedia:Good articles/Art and architecture#Architecture, being sure to update the tally at the bottom of each section. A bot will come along and take care of everything else, like adding the |oldid= field to the talk page, giving the article its GA icon, notifying the user, removing the listing from GAN, etc. For convenience, I've gone ahead and taken care of the necessary tasks. Excellent job with your first review, and if you need any more help in the future, please don't hesitate to ask. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Julian - That's very kind and I really appreciate your help. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I'm a bit puzzled that no notification on the article's passing has gone to the main author, nor has the green bullet appeared on the article. Is there something more I need to do? KJP1 (talk) 16:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, my guess is that the bot was still having trouble with the article title (see it arguing with itself here). I added the icon and finalized the review template, and it seems like you've already notified the nominator of the promotion. Back in the old days, we had to do all this stuff manually anyway... :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

ENFOS Inc.

Hey Juliancolton,

May I get a copy of the deleted ENFOS Inc. article in order to edit it to better represent the Wiki guidelines as per your suggestions? The company itself should fall within notability rules - it's a significant ERP software company with some of the largest companies in North America as clients (BP, Sunoco, CN Rail, Department of Defense). Looking at the ERP vendor list List_of_ERP_software_packages, it falls alongside the size and scale of other accepted ERP vendors. I'll re-write the article from a more objective, non-promotional tone, as per your suggestions. I'll also implement what you pointed out about the references to independent, reliable sources too.

Thanks a lot for your time, it's appreciated. - CWade593

Here it is: User:CWade593/ENFOS, Inc.. Please note that if and when you decide to publish the article, it may still be summarily deleted if its content is too similar to the previously deleted version. Also, as always, please be sure to declare any conflicts of interest that you may have with the article's subject. Happy editing, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Tessi

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cyclone Tessi 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 TropicalAnalystwx13 -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 22:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Tessi

The article Cyclone Tessi you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cyclone Tessi for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TropicalAnalystwx13 -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1896 Atlantic hurricane season

The article 1896 Atlantic hurricane season you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1896 Atlantic hurricane season for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2017

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

• A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
• AfDs that receive little participation should now be closed like an expired proposed deletion, following a deletion process RfC.
• Defender, HakanIST, Matiia and Sjoerddebruin are our newest stewards, following the 2017 steward elections.
• The 2017 appointees for the Ombudsman commission are Góngora, Krd, Lankiveil, Richwales and Vogone. They will serve for approximately 1 year.

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.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:

• Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
• Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
• 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
• Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:51, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

GA review review?

Hi! I just did (or am doing? :) my first GA review, here, after submitting my own first GA request today. Any thoughts/suggestions on the review are welcome. In particular I'm not sure if I'm inserting too much of my own opinion into 1(a) and 4, and how to proceed if "?" really is the right assessment for those planks of the assessment. Thanks! —Luis (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey LuisVilla, congrats on getting your first tastes of the GA process! First, like with all recognized content criteria, the standards for GA are inherently subjective, so you'll always need to use your best judgement. Unless you're being truly pedantic or willfully going against established consensus, it's hard to be too opinionated... if you express your concerns and it turns out they're misguided, the "worst" that can happen is the nominator explains why things are the way they are, and you continue with the review. GAN is the last place that most articles will receive anything that resembles "formal" vetting, so if something doesn't look quite right, now's the time to point it out. With regard to your review specifically, I think you've raised some very reasonable concerns that definitely warrant at least a second look from the author(s). The "Teaching and activism" section does look rather disorganized, so I'm in agreement with your 1a assessment. You've also asked a very fair NPOV question... the article seems to paint its subject in a thoroughly favorable light, but if there are numerous reliable sources that have criticized the effectiveness of her activism, some more balance may be required. If you believe these are issues worth addressing (and I see no reason to dispute that), you can go ahead and put the nomination on hold for a while (ostensibly for one week, though in practice most articles remain on-hold for as long as it takes to improve them). That will give involved editors a chance to either fix the issues you've identified, or yell at us for being so far off the mark. :) Best of luck, and if you have any further questions, don't hesitate to ask! I've added the GA review page to my watchlist so I can keep an eye on things and add any secondary opinions if needed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:34, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the prompt response and feedback! I'll update appropriately. —Luis (talk) 17:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

GA process for Arab Agricultural Revolution

Hi, I see you have kindly offered your services as a GA mentor. I've had over a hundred GAs and never felt the need to ask for help before, but it's happened today. An editor has quick-failed Arab Agricultural Revolution on what appear to me to be wholly mistaken grounds, and I do mean completely. Rather than try to persuade them, I'd like to know how best to proceed. I could resubmit to GAN and wait some months, probably; or ask for a review of the decision, something I never attempted; and either of those things could be after editing the article, if any changes are needed (I guess I could ask for a peer review to determine whether that would be so, but that too can be a slow process). What would you suggest? Many thanks for your time. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - The Final

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016 GA Cup - Final Hello, GA Cup competitors! Sunday, February 26 saw the end of Round 3. Shearonink finished in first with 616 points, which is more than the point totals for all the other competitors combined! In second place, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga earned an impressive 152 points, followed by Sturmvogel_66 in third with 111 points. Chris troutman and Kees08 each received a wild-card and were able to advance to the Final Round. There was a major error on the part of the judges, and initially, 8 users were advanced instead of 5. This has been corrected, and we sincerely apologize for this confusion. In Round 3, 71 reviews were completed! At the beginning of this GA Cup, the longest wait was over 7 months; at the end of Round 3, the longest wait is still holding steady at a little over 6 months, the same as for the previous round. By the end of all three Rounds, the total number of nominations increased slightly - this suggests that users are more willing to nominate, knowing that their articles will be reviewed. We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in the Final so we can keep tackling the backlog. In the Final Round, the user with the highest score will be the winner. The Final has already started and will end on March 31st at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Finals and the pools can be found here. Good luck and have fun! Cheers from Figureskatingfan, 3family6, Jaguar, and MrWooHoo. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletters, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Cyclone Tessi

On 9 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cyclone Tessi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that tree debris from Cyclone Tessi in Townsville, Queensland, was processed into 25,000 m³ (880,000 cu ft) of mulch and used in local botanical gardens? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cyclone Tessi. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cyclone Tessi), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK

Hello! Your submission of Cyclone Althea at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on two facets of US military power Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Russian Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Cyclone Althea

On 13 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cyclone Althea, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the unroofing of hundreds of homes by Cyclone Althea in December 1971 prompted Queensland to overhaul its state-wide building codes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cyclone Althea. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cyclone Althea), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 26, 2017

This doesn't sound right to me ... "had to be rebuilt following Tropical Storm Kathleen". What would you call the storm? - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: If we wanted to be precise, we would say "the remnants of Hurricane Kathleen". Sometimes for general purposes, I think it's okay to just say "Hurricane Kathleen" (that is, the storm's COMMONNAME/actual classification) even if the events in question happened post-hurricane stage. Kathleen wasn't a TS at peak or in the United States, though, so good catch on that. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:57, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, we're currently at 1125 characters, so I can add "remnants of". I hadn't thought of that. Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Cool, glad to help. Doesn't get much better than roads and hurricanes in one blurb. :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:19, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello Juliancolton, this is the second time the article "Herzeleid tour" is deleted, still do not understand why, I asked Iridescent to restore the page explaining my reasons and has restored it, now I ask you to kindly restore the article. Thank you.

No Herzeleid tour page appears to have existed. Could you please provide the correct link to the article in question? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

TFAs

Hi, Mike Christie said via email: "Dan, I think you said Julian was going to keep Brian's TFA notepad page up to date, but as far as I can tell he hasn't edited it yet -- is he waiting for something from us?" - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Defiance, Ohio

January 31 you deleted the page Defiance, Ohio (band) I feel this is an error since it meets the criteria in 'Wikipedia:Notability (music) Criteria for musicians and ensembles' numbers match up with numbers in notability guide.

1. Defiance, Ohio has three full length albums and an EP released on No Idea Records, an EP on Plan-It-X Records, and Anti-Creative Records and several other releases on less notable lables. Their only self release was their fist album and demo.

4. They've had several international tours of the USA, Canada, Australia, Europe and Iceland. Here's a few announcements I found on google. https://www.punknews.org/article/48584/tours-defiance-ohio-spoonboy-east-coast

https://www.punknews.org/article/42909/tours-defiance-ohio-nana-grizol-your-heart-breaks-toby-foster https://www.punknews.org/article/32477/defiance-ohio-new-relese-tour-dates http://thepunksite.com/news/defiance-ohio-announces-tour-in-support-of-new-full-length/

7. Defiance, Ohio was one of the largest bands in the wave of folk punk in the mid/late 00's and had a large influence in the Bloomington punk scene. I'm wondering if there's a process to reinstate the page, or if I can just grab the text from archive.org.

EDIT: Created request in Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion

--Evanw (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Reason for deletion of Mikkel Vestergaard Frandsen page

Hello.

Can you please let me know why you deleted the page I put up about Mikkel Vestergaard Frandsen?

Can you also let me know what can be done to get a page about him on Wikipedia? I believe you'll find that he is quite newsworthy?

Finally, in the notes it says that there was a decision to redirect his page to the company page. Unfortunately, it was redirected to a page called "Vestergaard" which is not the company page. The company page is called: Vestergaard Frandsen. Can you possibly redirect it to this page?

Thanks for any suggestions you have for me to reinstate some content about Mikkel Vestergaard Frandsen. I am not a frequent user of Wikipedia so am most likely unfamiliar with some of the rules.

Thanks, --MerylNanRader (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Althea

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Cyclone Althea 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 CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 02:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

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

Administrator changes

TheDJ

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.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Cyclone Althea

The article Cyclone Althea you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Cyclone Althea for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CycloneIsaac -- CycloneIsaac (talk) 02:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI - April 2017

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Said discussion is closed. Have a great day! Primefac (talk) 02:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your comment here, you deserve a kitten.

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at air power and nuclear weaponry Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on Australia's part in the advance on the Hindenburg Line Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Kenyon (musician)

Your relisting of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Kenyon (musician) caused it to no longer be transcluded on any AfD log page, as it was already relisted by Ks0stm. It has now been manually relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 7. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 01:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that, GeoffreyT2000. I suspect that I opened the tab, got distracted for several minutes, and didn't refresh to see if anybody else took action in the interim. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

smoke-to-fire ratio

Regarding this edit: did you mean the ratio is higher than usual? isaacl (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Isaacl. I thought it one way and typed it the other. :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:FADC

Julian, were you still interested in maintaining WP:FADC and WP:FANDC? We're not interested in continuing Brian's notepad page any more, if that helps. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dank, my apologies... I took a short wikibreak last month and those pages completely slipped my mind. I'll get them back up to date by tomorrow morning. As for the TFA notepad, I hope you haven't decided to retire it because of the delay on my part. I'm still willing to update it when I find a decent block of time to sit down and figure out the most efficient way of going about it. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:05, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@TFA coordinators No problem at all, Julian. Jim, Mike and I changed our minds on Brian's notepad ... we'll be deleting the TFAs that run from it, and not adding to it. There's nothing for you to do there. Take your time on FADC and FANDC, and thanks for offering. - Dank (push to talk) 02:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding AutoWikiBrowser permission

Hey Julian, sorry for disturbing you here. You had asked for details on why I wanted AWB usage rights here and I provided it a few days back. It would be kind if you can review the request and approve/reject it.
Sorry, if I disturbed you here, I normally don't take these things to the user talk pages and wait for an admin to comment but here I thought you might have been busy and overlooked my reply. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

@Yashovardhan Dhanania: Thank you for the reminder, I've added you to the checklist. Sorry about the delay. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

No issues. Thanks a lot! Yashovardhan (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

page mover

Hello. I would like to ask you something. I was thinking of requesting page mover permission because I participate actively in closing RMs and generally moving pages, but there are many cases that a round-robin move is needed, and some others(generally not through RM) that redirects should be suppressed, but without having this permission, I cannot do either of them. But wonder whether this might be regarded by some as hat collecting since it will be my 3rd request for permission(the other 2 were done) in 16 days. What do you think? --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kostas20142: Well, firstly, I wouldn't let the hat collecting essay ever dissuade you from volunteering to help out in additional roles. I think the whole premise is silly and only serves to extinguish the enthusiasm with which newer contributors try to become integrated into the community. Even if you were hat collecting, where's the harm if the jobs are all being done well? Assuming you can demonstrate a need for any given right and have the necessary experience to meet its granting guideline, there should be no issues. That said, you do fall somewhat short of the edit count guideline for page mover, having only about 2,400 contributions instead of the suggested 3,000. The page mover right is not handed out as liberally as most of the other WP:PERM flags, since it effectively gives you the ability to delete pages, which can obviously result in some real damage if misused. I would personally prefer that you wait a while before seeking the page mover right, but who knows – other admins may feel comfortable granting now. There's no harm in trying. Best of luck either way, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your time! --Kostas20142 (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

RE: Rollback Granted

Thank you for accepting my request! I have used this tool before on a Wikia, so I'm pretty used to it anyway. I'll message you if I have any questions. Have a nice day!8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 11:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Black British communities

Hi,

You deleted Black British communities and i would like to make another page like this.

Why was this page deleted? I do not want to make the same mistakes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulcli1 (talk • contribs)

Hi Paulcli1. Black British communities was simply a redirect to a section in Lists of UK locations with large ethnic minority populations. Were you aware of this? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2098

Slightly confused by your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2098. Just one participant advanced keeping the page. I think the overwhelming consensus was that it should be merged to 2090s. You said "I would have to guess that there are probably plenty of noteworthy predicted or fictional events during 2098 that simply haven't been added yet" but I'm struggling to see how this justifies ignoring the consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi AusLondonder, thanks for the message. You've identified the entire problem – there was no consensus, in my judgement, and a "no consensus" result at AfD defaults to no action. One person suggested merging contingent on the rest of the years from the same decade also being merged, which obviously falls outside the scope of this particular discussion, and another person echoed that vote. A conventional headcount yields two "deletes", two "delete and/or merge", one "merge", one "keep", and one "keep and merge". Since the numbers reveal no clear consensus, it's necessary to assess the strength of the presented arguments, and try to determine if one camp made a much stronger case than the others. That wasn't particularly fruitful, either; most of the comments simply cited either WP:CRYSTAL or WP:TOOSOON (the latter of which is merely an essay) without explaining how they apply. The nutshell version of TOOSOON states, "Sometimes it's simply just too soon for some topics to have an article", but with years on either side of 2098 having fully developed and uncontested articles, it would have been necessary to state why this one is exceptional in violating our standards on distant-future events. Finally, the debate had been open for nearly a month, and it's been my experience that third relists are not very likely to produce any additional clarity. The nice thing about a "no consensus" close is that it's totally non-binding; you're free to re-nominate the article as you see fit, start an independent merge discussion on the talk page, or simply be bold, merge it yourself, and see if it sticks. I hope this clears things up a little, but if not, I'll be happy to try to explain myself further. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Jerusalem Arts Network (talk · contribs)

I noticed that you left a uw-softerblock on this user's talk page, apparently using Twinkle, but didn't actually block them. Any idea what happened? Is there any value in taking this up with the Twinkle developers? GoldenRing (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, that's sort of bizarre. I think it's far more likely that I simply misclicked something than for Twinkle to be malfunctioning, but I'll keep an eye on it the rest of the day and see if something similar happens again. Thanks for taking taking care of that and notifying me. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:51, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hello Juliancolton,

You recently speedy deleted a wiki that I wrote about Blake George. I believe that this deletion was made in error. He is a notable and influential member of the Chaldean community and is a notable businessman who has appeared on prime-time television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherbzz (talk • contribs) 16:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@Sherbzz: On Wikipedia, articles – particularly those about living people – need to clearly establish the notability of their subjects with credible claims of significance and references to secondary, reliable sources. The Blake George article was written like a resume and failed to establish notability, so it met multiple criteria for speedy deletion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing like racist editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherbzz (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

If that's what you'd like to think... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Overturning a speedy?

Hi, I have a process question. I noticed that the page for UniSoft Infotech Corporation was recently speedied, due to lack of notability.

UniSoft is definitely notable in the history of Unix. Looking at the article in Google cache, I can see the article needs work on its citations, but that shouldn't be hard to do.

What's the process for reverting this (and associated redirects)? If I'd been following the page, I'd definitely have contested the speedy, but I only saw it was gone when someone started pulling it out of articles that had previously linked to it via redirects. Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 18:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@NapoliRoma: I've gone ahead and restored it. If you believe you're able to improve the article, that's certainly preferable to deletion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thanks for the fast reply!--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

No problem! It's good to know there are folks working to make sure nothing important slips through the cracks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think A7 speedy deletion of articles that have existed for 13 years should not happen at all, even if they technically meet the criterion. An article that existed for such a long time, another week of discussion usually won't hurt. Also, in this case I'm sorry to say you were mistaken to delete the article in the first place. Some revisions contain clear claims of significance, such as UniSoft's ports being used on the first Sun workstations. Regards SoWhy 19:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

(ec) Hey SoWhy, I don't disagree... I was clearing CAT:CSD this morning and definitely went a little too hastily in this particular case, which is why I had no qualms about restoring it. I always check page histories before deleting anything and for some reason I got the impression this article was much newer than in reality. My mistake/oversight. Thanks for the honest feedback, and welcome back to my talk page - it's been a while. :) – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Another question: it looks like some of the confusion here is the article got renamed a couple of years ago from UniSoft. It also looks like this was a bogus move, since per naming guidelines, corporate suffixes should only be added if disambiguation is necessary.

I'd just move it to UniSoft, but since that was a previously-existing redirect prior to the speedy, I wanted to check first to see if it's more appropriate to restore the various redirects rather than recreate them to preserve their history.

I've identified UniSoft and Uniplus+ as two redirs that should be restored; not sure if there's an easy way to determine what others might have gone away as well.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:UniSoft Infotech Corporation probably should be restored and moved back as well. -- ferret (talk) 20:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done, I think we should be close to having this cleaned up... – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

"Closer", at least... I keep finding stuff. Thanks again.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

@NapoliRoma: Anything I can help with? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:28, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Ransome Hoffmann Pollard Ltd

Could you reinstate this article as a draft so that I can try and rescue it please?Rathfelder (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Rathfelder: Most of the text starting from the very first revision was directly copied from http://www.hoffmannbearings.co.uk/history-of-hoffmann-bearings.html, which does not, as far as I can tell, release its content under a free license, and I can't restore copyright violations. I'm afraid the best I can do is retrieve the citations to allow for a fresh start using the same material. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Was that my work? I don't remember it at all.Rathfelder (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

You created it in November 2016 with the edit summary "Imported content from article Chelmsford", so the plagiarism likely wasn't your fault. At some point in the next couple days, I'll look through the Chelmsford page to see if any other copyvios need to be removed. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:04, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Word of thanks

Hello! Thank you for instating a protection on the page List of predicted dates for apocalyptic events. It really does help. I was having trouble with a IP user who was undoing edits which they deemed "not notable" but certainly were. I would just like to give you my personal thanks for helping out in this situation. Best wishes!

Jeermud (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Very happy to help. I know all too well how frustrating it can be trying to keep up with a seemingly endless stream of misguided or malicious edits! Regards, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cyclone Althea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Surf. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Mia Hodgens wiki

Why did you delete Mia Hodgens' wikipedia page it is not a 'blatant hoax' You don't know anything about squash

Wangtang1234 (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the AWB auth. I'm sure you have lots of other things on your plate. Ahwiv (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Page protection

Would you be averse to me removing the protection on the Playboi Carti article? I've just declined a speedy deletion (repost) request on it. I gave it the benefit of the doubt as it is not substantially identical to the one that got deleted, particularly with some more sources. I felt it was on the edge of whether to be redirected again. Either way, now it is an article again do you see any requirement for the protection? I didn't want to remove it without asking you first. Woody (talk) 19:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey Woody, that's fine, thanks for the heads-up. You're right in that this version is much different from the one folks had been trying to restore up to now. At a glance, it looks like it might even stand a chance at surviving AfD now. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for that. Woody (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

MS Sea Wind

I've bashed the article into shape. Are you able to expand it from the sources you mention at the AfD discussion? Mjroots (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mjroots: Wow, really nice work! I was already planning on chipping in this evening, so I'll certainly do what I can to help continue your expansion. This is the kind of result I love to see at AfD. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Great, I'll turn my attention to MS Regal Star then. Mjroots (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. P. C. M. Babyland English Medium High School, Kokrajhar

I take issue with your closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B. P. C. M. Babyland English Medium High School, Kokrajhar. I don't see how you can claim "most editors agree that there's no reason to deviate from longstanding practice in this case" when WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is no longer a valid AfD rationale. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: Directly citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is now considered an "argument to avoid", but per the RfC summary, it remains "an accurate statement of the results"; consequently, it's still perfectly acceptable looking to standard practice for guidance. If you can explain why school AfDs typically result in "keep", then it's no longer circular logic and there's no issue. Even after the secondary school RfC, it is, as far as I'm aware, almost unprecedented for high school articles to be deleted (if I'm wrong about this, please let me know). Most editors—both at the aforementioned AfD and in general—agree that high schools and equivalents will typically be able to fulfill GNG, even if the sources are difficult to find. Since a few valid sources were identified concerning the institution, apparently without anyone having embarked on "a deeper search than normal", there was no consensus to abandon common practice surrounding school AfDs. Happy to explain further if I'm being unclear. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to clear up this logical impasse. Over the past several years a cohort of editors felt that Wikipedia should keep articles about secondary schools that didn't otherwise prove to be notable. Someone then wrote SCHOOLOUTCOMES, opining that because of this cohort, AfD often results in a "keep" outcome so it's fruitless to nominate. The RfC rejected this logic. Secondary schools are now required to pass some other measure of notability. The arguments provided in that AfD reinforced a belief (with no basis in fact or policy) that we should keep articles about secondary schools. One editor advanced the idea that even though there is no evidence that school is generally notable, we could presume that there must be offline, non-English reportage which would prove the school notable. What we have here is institutional momentum and a few stubborn editors proclaiming their opinions as a rationale. Your decision was wrong, in my mind, because it goes against the consensus of the RfC. The keep arguments were invalid and the correct decision was delete since the school fails NCORP and GNG. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, for better or worse, admins aren't given much latitude to determine the "correct" decision. I suspect you know as well as I do that a delete result there would have been labeled a supervote and rapidly overturned at DRV. It's not as if those arguing in favor of deletion made a vastly stronger case than those for retention; two of the votes were "per nom", even though the nomination statement didn't really advance a policy-based reason for deletion, as outlined by AusLondonder. Only one "delete" vote even bothered to address the sources that had been introduced, potentially to the satisfaction of GNG. I'm sorry you disagree with my reasoning and the result of that AfD, but I really don't think there was any other viable way to close that discussion. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Chris troutman: seems to have quite some difficulty treating other editors with civility along with failing to grasp that Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS. They have completely misrepresented the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES RfC outcome. In this case reliable sources have been provided which caused one delete !voter to strike their comments. When Chris troutman could not think of any debating points they resorted to personally attacking numerous editors of very long standing and high regard, accusing them of incompetence. !Votes centred solely on personal attacks, such as Chris troutman's should be ignored anyway. The deletion argument put forward by the nom was not credible and no other close option existed. AusLondonder (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Grand_River_Transit#iXpress

Hello, all sourced information from iXpress is already at Grand_River_Transit#iXpress. Can the content of iXpress be replaced by a redirect? --Rogerx2 (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rogerx2, yes, that's fine. Thanks for the message. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. It's done. --Rogerx2 (talk) 21:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Rahul_Verma_(social_activist)

You are requested to please reconsider your decision to delete above page. Although there are not so many article written about the subject directly but there are references available about the subject’s contribution to the society. This is not an emotional appeal but a request as this social worker keeps his foundation first before promoting himself, and work significantly towards the betterment and welfare of the society. If you go through their official website or other press coverage, you will find that all the work is done by him only and everywhere his name is mentioned along with his foundation. You are here on wiki for so long and have better wisdom than me. Please reconsider this page, i will improve the same in days to come with more direct articles and references . Regards Shibanihk (talk) 08:59, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Shibanihk. I don't doubt that Mr. Verma does excellent work, but you'll note that we already have an article on his foundation: Uday Foundation. You admit that Rahul Verma has not been discussed in many sources, so you already understand why he fails to meet our inclusion criteria. Notability is not inherited, so just because someone's business or charity is notable doesn't mean that they themselves are so. It's an unfortunate fact of life that one can spend a lifetime helping others and not receive much recognition, and Wikipedia only covers subjects that are already noteworthy. Thank you for understanding. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with whatever you said. We'll make his page again, the day i feel he is notable . Regards Shibanihk (talk) 07:23, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Juliancolton. I'm just posting to let you know that List of Bermuda hurricanes – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for May 12. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please restore J.J. Hurtak article to a draft

I understand the notability concern and will be researching further. The more solid references that exist about J.J. Hurtak's non-fringe work are global (non-English) so this may take some time. --Nel4316 (talk) 22:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

@Neil4316: Here you go: Draft:James Joachim Hurtak. Let me know if you'd like me to take another look at some point down the line. Regards, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Contesting the deletion of Adrian Țofei

Hello! Here are the details of the deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Țofei. Looks like the reason was notability, but the page had a lot of references in support of notability. Adrian Țofei is the director, producer, writer and star of Romania's first found footage feature film and second horror feature film ever - Be My Cat: A Film for Anne. The movie is the first 100% indie/guerrilla Romanian production to receive international recognition. Tofei won Best Actor at Nashville Film Festival and Hamilton Film Festival and Best Film at A Night of Horror International Film Festival in Sydney and On Vous Ment! Mockumentary Film Festival in France. The movie has also been included by Dread Central in Top 5 Best Horror Movies of 2016, by Blumhouse in Top 5 New Intelligent Found Footage Films, by Audiences Everywhere in Top 50 Best Horror Movies of the 2000's and has been named "the most revolutionary found footage film since The Blair Witch Project" by ANOH and "terrifying - a modern Peeping Tom" by Austin Chronicle. And all this is not only proof to the movie's notability, it is also proof to Adrian Tofei's notability, because he did almost everything related to the movie: directing, producing, writing, acting, cinematography, film editing, casting, production design, production management, sound recording, sound editing, special effects, set decoration etc. Most of the critics mentioned all this in their reviews as a very special characteristic. Can you please consider undeleting the page? I know it had very little info, but it was on my list of pages to contribute to and improve. Thank you! 86.120.253.128 (talk) 19:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done as the page is eligible for speedy restoration under the WP:SOFTDELETE process. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

ANI followup

As you were involved in the discussion on ANI, I am bringing this to your attention: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Request_to_de-sysop_Jondel. Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter

The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:

• Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
• 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
• Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
• Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Adrian Țofei

Hi Julian, I was wondering why this article is back, after having been deleted [7] --- it still doesn't pass WP:N. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey Somedifferentstuff, thanks for the message. Under the newish WP:SOFTDELETE protocol, AfDs that receive no comments are treated as expired PRODs. That is, we delete them, but since the deletion was not mandated by community consensus, anybody can request restoration for just about any reason, and we have to oblige. (You can see this particular request just a few threads up, at #Contesting the deletion of Adrian Țofei). Your best option for seeing the article deleted again is simply to submit another AfD at your leisure and hope for more participation to engender a more concrete result. Sometimes it helps to ping relevant WikiProjects. Hope this helps, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

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

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

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.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Please restore Brian Cain article to a draft

Brian Cain previously had an attempted Wikipedia page deleted per notability. There are several notable references that were not included in that attempt. Could you please restore to draft so that I can attempt to submit this? Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Cain

--MattMorse (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

@MattMorse: Unfortunately, consensus at the deletion discussion was clear, so I'm not at liberty to simply overturn the community's decision. You may use deletion review if you believe "significant new information has come to light" since the article was deleted, per criterion 3 of WP:DRVPURPOSE. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that "significant new information has come to light" but I do know that the previous article was inaccurate.

--MattMorse (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Appreciate you

Hey - thank you so much for extending the deletion debate over an article I very inncocently started about a Romanian filmmaker named Delia Antal. I'd seen her first film on youtube and thought she was very brave then looked her up and saw a lot of coverage of her - and she appears to be a celebrity in her country; and someone organizatiosn like BAFTA supports. BUT - the user who started the deletion process/debate appears to really want her article down, and I'm just not fully understanding why - although I was inline with him on some initial articles I used - but not all of them (including her listing and mentions on a page on WIKI about BAFTA). Anyway, I've not been in this situation before and I don't really know what to do from here. Can you offer a little insight? I'm not mad or frustrated - just want to learn! :-) Akrumoftruth (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI

Have sent you a private email, hope to hear from you soon. Zurose (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Strangeness at AIV

Have you noticed that some of the IP listed at AIV have weird filter log reports? They seem to be reporting all kinds of disruptive behavior by other IPs and registered users. Is this something I missed at new admin school? -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... there's been a string of IPs lately who seem to edit only for the purpose of reporting lots of other IPs to AIV. I think there was a thread about it at one of the noticeboards recently, but I glossed over it. The only thing I've known to do is just treat them like 'normal' reports, but AIV has gotten so convoluted over the years that I just avoid it most of the time. Mass reports, abuse filter logs, content disputes... it's all too much for an admin who cut his teeth on vandals with four clean insertions of naughty words and a tidy final warning. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

my recent report

Hello! I see you declined my recent UAA report. But doesn't this username imply that the user is this notable person? --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kostas20142. The user is trying to promote themselves by writing an autobiography, but they're by no means notable. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes , I see. Thank you! --Kostas20142 (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

FYI

See this diff. As I said in the edit summary, I've done this a few times also. I only caught it before deleting because the date the G13 tag was added was so long ago, which made me do a double take and look further.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Heh, whoops... if it makes me look any less foolish, I think that's the first time I've done that! Thanks for the heads-up. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on Strategic Air Command doctrine Op-ed: Tomstar81 looks at a little-known aspect of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion review for SMX-25

User:Vyacheslav84 has asked for a deletion review of SMX-25. 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 18:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

titanic

Why would u remove my link? It seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia??? OK so my link isn't good enough to be put there with other links to titanic sites?? Yeah I think that's pretty lame arrons titanic page is the best titanic site on the internet. I'll put my site up against ANY titanic site. Wikipedia is ridiculous anytime I try to correct something or add something some person with a little bit too much time on there hands changes it right away. Whatever. Cliffdimerandy (talk) 01:40, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi Cliffdimerandy. I'm sorry you feel a bit put out about your recent edit being reverted. However we have specific guidelines that cover external links, including some specific ones about what we don't allow in articles. You can check out WP:NOEL to get an idea for what those limits are and why we have them. Your contributions to the project are appreciated. Please don't get miffed because some of your edits get reverted. It happens to all of us. I just had one reverted by another admin! It's part of building an encyclopedia where everybody gets to contribute, everybody has their own opinions, and where we are all occasionally mistaken. Thank you again for your work on Wikipedia! -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Well thanks for the reply but u say that everyone can contribute anything I have contributed was always reverted back. I corrected errors in articles that were quite obvious. I still dont know why my titanic site link cannot be added but other ones can be. Doesn't make sense Cliffdimerandy (talk) 02:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I suspect your site runs afoul of criteria 1 & 11 at WP:NOEL. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Tom Kenyon (musician) delletion

Dear Julian,

Before I take this subject further I am folowing Wikipedia guidelines and will try to resolve it with you first. I was very surprised that the article was deleted, esspecialy based on 2 comments in deletion process, both off the cuff comments without merit.

I am an university professor with no connection whatsoever to Mr. Kenyon. I got briefly interested in the subject, collected the information in good faith and wrote a balanced article about a prolific musician and a medical professional. I don't have particular interest in that subject (actually I am not a fan of new age) but I referenced it quite well, (and if you checked the references you would see that too) and I can not understand why did it bother you that this article, without any disputable facts, and one that took effort and time to write would be removed. I believe that Wikipedia is opened to all as long as content is truthful, balanced and not biased, which this was, and that the person is of public interest. As you mentioned erroneously, I didn't quote Youtube as a reliable source, but number of views on youtube IS A PUBLIC INFORMATION AND IT IS A VERIFIABLE SIGN IF SOMETHING IS OF PUBLIC INTEREST. (please contest me on that) Also, if someone makes a biographical documentary about a person, and that documentary gets reviewed in Seattle times, then that person is also reviewed in the article (which anyone who reads it will notice). I would kindly ask you to look in the subject once more and restore the article before I take it to further review. I respect Wikipedia too much to let it be vandalised by people who are too flaky to fully review problems and who let their bias guide their decisions and consider two "off the cuff" comments a proper discussion. How could you make decision on those two comments?

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely,

milan_studio

Hi there, Milan studio. I'll start by saying that I don't particularly care whether Mr. Kenyon receives his own article here on Wikipedia. My job as an administrator involves closing dozens of deletion debates each week with complete impartiality (else I recuse myself from acting). The article in question did not "bother" me in any way, and while I'm sorry to have removed your hard work, we do have inclusion criteria here on Wikipedia. The deletion discussion, while not particularly well-attended, was unanimous (note that several different editors participated in the discussion; I made no comments aside from finalizing the result). Unfortunately, it appears that Tom Kenyon has not been discussed at depth in enough reliable sources to establish notability. Frankly, it surprises me that a college professor would find webpages like "All One Now" and "Luminosity Love" to be credible academic sources. As you've accused me of vandalism and called me "flaky", I'm totally disinclined to consider restoring the article which very clearly fails our notability standards. If you wish to contest the deletion, you may request a proper deletion review – though I expect you won't be very pleased with the result there, either. Finally, please sign your posts using four tildes, like so: ~~~~. This instruction is displayed quite prominently throughout the editing interface. Best of luck in your efforts to reinstate this article, and please consider a less hostile attitude the next time you disagree with another user. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Xpressdocs Deletion

Hi there — Trying to gather some more insight into why the Xpressdocs page cannot seem to get published. Anything that would read like advertising/pure marketing was removed on the most recent draft, and the remaining information was tracked by independent sources. In terms of notability, the Xpressdocs’ page contained content similar to the earlier versions of comparable organizations (such as QuantumDigital and Vistaprint). Could you provide additional information as to why this page is constantly marked for deletion? Thank you.

Hello, Missashmarie7. Have you seen the deletion discussion for the article in question? If not, the comments there may answer some of your questions. Aside from the promotional content, it seems that editors also believe the subject fails our notability guidelines. Unfortunately, this is not something that can be "fixed" with any amount of editing; notability can only be established through extensive commentary in secondary, reliable sources. Wikipedia operates on a purely volunteer basis, so there's no guarantee other articles will have been properly vetted; your examples of comparable groups may be equally unsuited for inclusion here. If your questions remain unanswered, please let me know and I'll try to help add some clarity. Regards, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

OnStream Networks debate

The result of the debate about the deletion of the article for OnStream Networks was definitely not a consensus. The article had been worked on since the posting giving it formatting and references resolving the first delete vote. The company was clearly historically notable in its moment. The NYT article and the massive price of its purchase by themselves makes it notable. Please restore the article. --User:Brholden (talk)5 May 2017

Hi Brholden. I've restored the article to a draft, which can now be found here: Draft:OnStream Networks. This will allow you to continue adding reliable references in your own time to hopefully address the issues identified at the deletion discussion. When you're confident that the article meets our notability and verifiability requirements, you may request a review or simply move the article back to the article space. If you need help with that process, please feel free to contact me directly. Hope this is satisfactory for now. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Your AFD close at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Black_&_Lane's_Ident_Tones_for_Surround

Hi Juliancolton.

I saw in my list that you have closed the Black & Lane's Ident Tones for Surround AFD as a delete, noting that the sources I provided don't work. This is my fault. The sources do work, but I had misformatted the links, and as a result, they have a pipe mark and a number at the end, which is being treated as part of the URL - it is this which is breaking them. The correct links should be:

1. https://ips.org.uk/knowledge-base/blits-black-lanes-ident-tones-for-surround/
2. https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3304.pdf
3. http://www.tcelectronic.com/blits-a-new-optional-tool-for-touchmonitor/

I have purposely not formatted these as external links in markup, as I broke them last time and I'm not doing it again!

Could you please review these links and let me know if the decision can be amended please?

Many Thanks

Sunil The Mongoose (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sunil The Mongoose, thanks for the message (and sorry I missed you on IRC this morning!). I've reopened and relisted the AfD, and fixed the external link formatting, to allow for review of these sources. Hopefully we can get some more eyes on the discussion in the coming week. Best regards, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Blocking of UMCS2006

You posted a note on their user talk page stating they had been blocked, but you never actually blocked them. I have taken care of that for you. Have a wonderful day! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:21, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, that's the second time I've done that recently... I'll have to try and figure out what I'm misclicking on Twinkle. Thanks for the note and for fixing my error. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:02, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Ashfield Mall deletion and undeletion

Greetings. As part of my routine of behind-the-scenes gnoming, I've watchlisted WP:BADAFD and periodically look there for things that I can try and fix. The article on Ashfield Mall popped up briefly here, as it has just been undeleted by DavidLevinson following your deletion last month per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashfield Mall. He has made no edits to the article itself other than to remove the AfD template. This does not appear to be in response to any request--based on his user page, he himself seems to have an interest in shopping mall articles in general.

Anyway, the action appears to be good-faith, but to restore the article with no changes in light of the consensus to delete seems to me to be outside of policy. Not wanting to accidentally start any disputes, I wanted to let you know of this action and seek your opinion as to what the best (or, failing that, the least-worst) actions to take from here. Thank you for your time. --Finngall ^talk 00:10, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notification and keen eye, Finngall. I agree that this out-of-process undeletion is problematic, to say the least. I've deleted the article once again and will shortly be engaging David in discussion. Hopefully we can get this sorted without any sort of wheel war breaking out. Regards, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Cyclone Ada

On 15 May 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Cyclone Ada, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that hundreds of tourists became stranded when Cyclone Ada ravaged Whitsunday Island resorts in January 1970? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cyclone Ada. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Cyclone Ada), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Creators of deleted pages, categories, etc.

Hi, How can i find the creator of a deleted page on commons or wikipedia? I'd be useful for this case. Thanks, 176.126.68.77 (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

No feedback? 176.126.68.77 (talk) 14:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for deleting so many vandalism articles! Elliot321 (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Lehigh Blue Mountain & Northern RR

Hi Juliancolton. I just wanted to let you know that I have modified a soft block you placed on the Lehigh Blue Mountain & Northern RR (talk · contribs) account due to the evidence of sock puppetry/hoaxing at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lehigh Blue Mountain & Northern RR. I've turned the autoblock on and changed the block reason to include the SPI. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4

Hello Juliancolton,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have 810 reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just 55 reviews, the 22,000 backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The request: Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer

Please look the review - click here. - Prinsipe Ybarro (Talk to me | Contributions) 14:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Prinsipe Ybarro: Your request was declined by Kudpung (talk · contribs); what's to review? Also, please consider changing the bright colors in your signature, which is very difficult to read against a white background. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Page you deleted

Yo JC if you could just do a quick compare and contrast exercise on [8]? Many thanks. Take care! — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 18:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Guess I missed the username connection the first time around. The new draft is actually quite a bit different and less spammy than the one from last month but given that the user is now {{uw-spamublock}}'d I'm not entirely sure what to do with it... think there's any chance someone else will adopt it? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

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

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

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

Deleted twice, and now recreated

Hi. This article was deleted twice. Last by you earlier this year at AfD. The first time by User:Cuchullain.

But it is now recreated (by a new editor, whose only sizable edit was to create this article) - with the exact same problems. The only difference is that the new editor wrote out the subject's middle name. So it now appears as Robert Michael Bernstein.

What to do? Thanks. 2604:2000:E016:A700:E065:25B8:9FA5:3B6A (talk) 18:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The content was substantially the same as the old deleted version, so it easily qualified for a G4 speedy deletion –  Done. Thanks for the note. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

The editor trying to make this into an article seems to be very persistent! This related article has also been created and deleted (not a problem now). Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernstein Medical.

I will try to figure out how to nominate this related article for deletion ... Michael Wolfeld. It was proded, but a new editor deproded it. 2604:2000:E016:A700:E065:25B8:9FA5:3B6A (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Battle of Kokoda and US defence acquisition in the 1960s Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Hazel

Julian, does Hazel look like it's in good shape to you? People were still talking about this hurricane when I was young, and I'd like to get it on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 13:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: We had this pulled from being a TFA a year or two ago, but the necessary improvements have yet to be made. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Oops. Thanks CB. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

How about 1983 Atlantic hurricane season? It's one of the rare WP:TROP articles available for TFA that has a date connection in July, according to WP:FADC. - Dank (push to talk) 18:20, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Mitchazenia on this one since he was the nom. - Dank (push to talk) 19:35, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Need help with one thing: I've skimmed the article and the sources, and I still can't tell whether the first storm formed on the 23rd or the 29th. - Dank (push to talk) 19:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dank: Yeah, at a glance, it looks like 1983 AHS has not aged particularly well and needs to be updated in several areas. The first depression officially formed on July 23, so if the article gets scheduled for that date, that gives me (and anyone else who wants to help) plenty of time to make it presentable. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

GA review in progress

Hi, I spotted your name at Wikipedia:Good_Article_help/mentor. I'm doing my first GA review and I would appreciate if you could look it over: Talk:Dezinformatsia (book)/GA1. That would be very much appreciated. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi K.e.coffman, sure, I'd be happy to help. I'm a little pressed for time at the moment but I should be able to take a closer look this evening and provide any feedback or guidance as needed. Just from a cursory glance, your procedure seems fine, and I can't imagine that you've made any grave errors. I'll be in touch soon. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries. My main question is whether it's important for the article to have a better developed reception section. My concern was that it was a bit slim, especially in comparison to the "Content summary section. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I feel it's enough for good article for right now. I don't have access myself to the other sources. I followed the advice of K.e.coffman and put them in the further reading section. I will do more research once I have more resources available. Sagecandor (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NPWgranted

Template:NPWgranted has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Incidents from Special:Contributions/DeadPi

Hello. I had been reported this form: DeadPi (talk · contribs)
Article related vandalism caused by attacking users, please check here below:

• diff
• diff 2
• diff 3
• diff 4
• diff 5
• diff 6
• diff 7
• diff 8
• diff 9
• diff 10
• diff 11
• diff 12
• diff 13
• diff 14
• diff 15
• diff 16

Please remove these revisions, it's is a vandalism. Thanks. - Prinsipe Ybarro ^{(Talk to me)} 08:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thai FPC

Since you showed a prior interest...Now that I've learned Lightroom to some degree, I've processed the Thai ruins photo and put it back up at FPC. PumpkinSky talk 20:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Editnotice

Hi Julian. I noticed a small grammatical error (tense, specifically) in the editnotice you created for the 2017 Pacific hurricane season article. In the part where it says "usually after it has impacted or began to threaten populated areas", began should be begun. The word is connected to the auxiliary verb has earlier in the sentence, so you have to use the past participle begun instead of the past tense began. I was going to fix it, but I found out that only administrators and template editors can edit editnotices. As I am neither, I thought I'd let you know about it. Thanks :) ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:00, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, I found that the editnotice for the 2017 Atlantic hurricane season article also bears this problem. If you could fix that as well, that would be great! Thanks again. ChocolateTrain (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Done.Jason Rees (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter

The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at planning for the unthinkable Op-ed: TomStar81 on Russia's Provisional Government in World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

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

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

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.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

July 23 TFA

Link is here. I've struggled with the word "officially", applied to June 1, for a while. I think I want to replace it in the TFA text. "officially" doesn't mean anything unless the reader knows who's making the call. But I think if we mention NOAA directly, that waters down the reality: regardless of who said it first, June 1 is now the consensus pick for the start of the season. I'd be happy with "generally accepted" or "by convention", or something similar, unless you think that misrepresents things. - Dank (push to talk) 00:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Juliancolton, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
• Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

• Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
• The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js adds a link to the new pages feed and page curation toolbar to your top toolbar on Wikipedia
  • User:The Earwig/copyvios.js adds a link in your side toolbox that will run the current page through

General project update:

• Following discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers, Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Noticeboard has been marked as historical. Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers is currently the most active central discussion forum for the New Page Patrol project. To keep up to date on the most recent discussions you can add it to your watchlist or visit it periodically.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

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

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 on the Battle of Messines and recent Australian Army leadership; Nick-D on South African armour Op-ed: Nick-D talks photography Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:37, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 08:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Juliancolton, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

• Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
• Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 September newsletter

Round 4 of the WikiCup has ended and we move forward into the final round. In round 4, a total of 12 FAs, 3 FLs, 44 GAs, 3 FLs, 79 DYKs, 1 ITN and 42 GARs was achieved, with no FPs or FTs this time. Congratulations to Peacemaker67 on the Royal Yugoslav Navy Good Topic of 36 items, and the 12 featured articles achieved by Cas Liber (5), Vanamonde93 (3), Peacemaker67 (2), Adityavagarwal (1) and 12george1 (1). With a FA scoring 200 points, and bonus points available on top of this, FAs are likely to feature heavily in the final round. Meanwhile Yellow Evan, a typhoon specialist, was contributing 12 DYKs and 10 GAs, while Adityavagarwal and Freikorp topped the GAR list with 8 reviews each. As we enter the final round, we are down to eight contestants, and we would like to thank those of you who have been eliminated for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. The lowest score needed to reach round 5 was 305, and I think we can expect a highly competitive final round.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to reduce the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck, and let the best man (or woman) win! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 06:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

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

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

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.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Alert

The Love Pony has return as TheNPepole. I hate block evasion. — FilmandTVFan28 (talk) 05:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at two recent releases Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on ANZACs in the Third Ypres Offensive Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Juliancolton, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

• The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

• On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
• Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hurricane Irma article issues

Hi, I'm LightandDark2000. Can you plese semi-protect the Hurricane Irma article for another month? After the recent semi-protection expired (new editor reviewing is still in place), at least 90% of all the edits coming in from IPs or new editors have either been pure vandalism or just unsourced in general. Given the high viewership/popularity of the article and the recent vandalism rates at the article, I doubt that the problem is going to go away for a while. I believe that the article should be semi-protected again at least until the commotion dies down, similar to other major current hurricane articles. Thank you. LightandDark2000 (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

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

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

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.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at Australian involvement on the Western Front in 1918 and in post-war New Guinea Op-ed: TomStar81 on the October Revolution Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Invitation on a review as an experienced reviewer!

Dear Juliancolton, I invite you on my review of article - Air stripline for a general assessment. Any comments and guidance are much appreciated. I also request you to fix minor errors encountered.

Thank you -- Navinsingh133 (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Juliancolton, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

• The new page backlog is currently at 12,878 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
• We have successfully cleared the backlog of pages created by non-confirmed accounts before ACTRIAL. Thank you to everyone who participated in that drive.

Technology update:

• Primefac has created a script that will assist in requesting revision deletion for copyright violations that are often found in new pages. For more information see User:Primefac/revdel.

General project update:

• The Article Wizard has been updated and simplified to match the layout style of the new user landing page. If you have not yet seen it, take a look.
• To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

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

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 November newsletter: Final results

The final round of the 2017 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2017 WikiCup top three finalists:

• First Place - Adityavagarwal (submissions)
• Second Place - Vanamonde (submissions)
• Third Place - Cas Liber (submissions)

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:

• Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a two-way tie with themselves for an astonishing five FAs in R2 and R4).
• Good Article – Adityavagarwal had 14 GAs promoted in R5.
• Featured List – Bloom6132 (submissions) and 1989 (submissions) both produced 2 FLs in R2
• Featured Pictures – SounderBruce (submissions) improved an image to FP status in R5, the only FP this year.
• Featured Topic – MPJ-DK (submissions) has the only FT of the Cup in R3.
• Good Topic – Four different editors created a GT in R2, R3 and R4.
• Did You Know – Adityavagarwal had 22 DYKs on the main page in R5.
• In The News – MBlaze Lightning (submissions) had 14 ITN on the main page in R2.
• Good Article Review – Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (submissions) completed 31 GARs in R1.

Over the course of the 2017 WikiCup the following content was added or improved on Wikipedia: 51 Featured Articles, 292 Good Articles, 18 Featured Lists, 1 Featured Picture, 1 Featured Topics, 4 Good Topics, around 400 Did You Knows, 75 In The News, and 442 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.

Regarding the prize vouchers - @Adityavagarwal, Vanamonde93, Casliber, Bloom6132, 1989, and SounderBruce: please send Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) an email from the email address to which you would like your Amazon voucher sent. Please include your preference of global Amazon marketplace as well. We hope to have the electronic gift cards processed and sent within a week.

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2018 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), and Godot13 (talk · contribs · email) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on late 1917 naval warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)