User talk:Djm-leighpark/Archives/2019 2

AfC notification: Draft:ThePrint has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission at Draft:ThePrint: I'm going to accept this. Articles on newspapers are nowadays very liberally accepted at AfD, so this deserves a community decision. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: ThePrint has been accepted

ThePrint, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

DGG ( talk ) 00:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

advice

It's almost certain that this article will be listed at AfD, and I think it has only a 60% chance of passing.The technical criterion for accept afd s is that they are mor likely than not to be accepted, so this technically qualifies. However, I and essentially all current reviewers usually work to a higher standard--when giving new reviewers advice, i say to aim at least for 75%. Myself, I seem to run a better than 99%--only 3or 3 of my several hundred acceptances have every been deleted (perhaps because I normally fix them up a little, after I accept them.)

My general view has ben that AfC is a rough screen only, and there is no point quarreling about accepting or rejecting an article. If it might reasonably pass, and the contributor is willing to take the chance, let the community decide. It'a not that the community always decides correctly, but it's our fundamental principle of operation. No individual editior should impose their will on the community--to the extent that admins have a power to act, its because they are trusted to know when there is something so obvious that the community would surely do it. Accepting of articles is a little special that way, and I'm generally in favor of giving any good faith contributor a chance--the ones we can be safe in deleting is the downright advertising, like the original versions of this article.

Please ping me if this goes to AfD, because I will need to comment to justify my accepting the article. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frederick Attock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Preston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:42, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

)

You've got mail

Hello, Djm-leighpark/Archives. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk 

@Padavalamkuttanpilla: I have deleted the email. Basically I do not respond to off-wiki emails. I observed you wished to move an article from draft space to main space. some president or other. Nope. Not doing that. If its blocked or you can't do it and work out who to ask then ask at WP:TEAHOUSE ... the're far less grumpy than I am. You also WP:CANVASed me to get involved in 3 AFD's. Again nope. I really recommend not canvasing off-wiki; and canvasing on wiki is bad enough. By my all means people who have previously been interested in an article and made significant edits. If you feel I have misreprented the contents of the email please fee free to say so below. Thankyou. 16:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark:You misunderstood it. It’s not what I did on canvas.that 3 AFD's,only my suspicion for your attention..Sorry Since you are an experienced editor, your advice is helpful for me .I appreciate your support ... cheers!-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla  Talk 

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Mz7 (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Admin help

Please remove self imposed enforcement block at (by rollback, changing 2030 to 2020 or removing the enforcer scripts.

• 1: User:Djm-leighpark/common.js
• 2: User:Bigdelboy/common.js

I have determined to exit retirement with some slight tweaks to my behaviour though I will admit it will remain robust. It is strangely triggered by the discovery of a microscope owned by Thomas Flemning Bergin as the Irish RCS that I may like to contact them over but I will likely be applying elsewhere as well. Thankyou for your trouble. Appreciate this may need referral to checkuser. I would prefer to continue most editing with Djm-leighpark but to use Djm-mobile for occasional use at insecure locations with blocked IP's like Leigh Park Library. Thankyou. Djm-mobile (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I know i'm not an admin but I hope this will help. I believe you can add {{db-u1}} to User talk:Bigdelboy/common.js and User talk:Djm-leighpark/common.js to request the deletion of your JS pages. When the pages are deleted, your accounts won't run the JS anymore. Then you can log in to those accounts and re-add User:Σ/Testing facility/Archiver to those pages. (I'm keeping this open so that any admins can correct me.) PorkchopGMX (talk with me - what i've done) 13:23, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@PorkchopGMX ... thankyou for your answer. I don't as user Djm-mobile have edit access to those pages and there is no guarantee I am who I claim I am (there are probably significant evidence I am simply by edits from this account but that is not 1005 proff). In fact I would be screaming about a security breach if I was able to do that. Thankyou.Djm-mobile (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@Djm-mobile: The fact that there is no guarantee you are who you claim to be is one of the "couple of reasons" I mentioned below why an interface admin might refuse to do the editing you have asked for. I considered just declining your request for that reason, but when I thought further I couldn't see any plausible reason why anyone else would want to create an account and pretend to be another user in order to get rid of that other user's wikibreak enforcer, so I decided that I could trust you on that. Anyway, I'll leave it there, unless you decide to ask me to do the deletion that I offered to do. JBW (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

• Djm-leighpark, only you or an interface administrator can edit those scripts, not an ordinary administrator. You may like to ping an interface administrator and ask them to edit the pages. A list of them is at Special:ListUsers/interface-admin. (You should first check that the one you ping has been editing recently.) That person may or may not be willing to do it; I can think of a couple of reasons why they may not.
• Alternatively, as an ordinary administrator although I can't edit the pages I can completely delete them if you like. If you want me to do so, ping me and let me know.
• In the meanwhile I am disabling your admin help request, so that we don't get several administrators one after another spending time coming here to check it. JBW (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@JBW: Thankyou for taking time respond and the comprehensiveness of your answer.Djm-mobile (talk) 14:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@JBW: Actually JBW you deleting those pages would be of the greatest help and perhaps the simplest way forward if you are willing to do it. If I am not who I say I am then I still would not be able to log into those accounts if I do not have the password. I've just copied over a manual archiver script I find useful so they are both free for deletion if you'd like to give it a go. Thankys. Djm-mobile (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

{{Done}} JBW (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@JBW: Thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)