User talk:Eluchil404/Archive9

Rebecca Pope Deletion Review

Hi, you were right, I don't really understand how to perform the deletion review. Can you tell me how to set it up? Thanks, TRLIJC19 (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS NO VANDALIZM THIS IS NOTE TO Eluchil404 actions

If you give a message be more specific. We found no sign of any discussion on the large page you linked. I see you acction managed by others. All is noted. Pszczola_osa and Getbee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.171.96.18 (talk • contribs)

Moved from user page. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Landzaat

It is strange to see that this article is removed. For one administrator, it is properly sourced and notable, for the other one not. But life is strange, so I have to do it with this. Is it possible to get a copy into my own userspace. I don't like the info to get lost forever and prefer to have on my own computer then. (preferably with the talkpage) Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I like to know why you have removed this article. There are so many actors on Wikipedia that score no better then Mitchell Landzaat. Are you going to remove them all after I have nominated them? Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Barnes (minister)

why did you close as no consensus?All 3 keep !votes were very weak. LibStar (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom election 2011

Dear Eluchil404, thank you for nominating yourself as a candidate in the 2011 Arbitration Committee elections. On behalf of the coordinators, allow me to welcome you to the elections and make a few suggestions to help you get set up. By now, you ought to have written your nomination statement, which should be no more than 400 words. Although there are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, note that many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

In order for your candidacy to be valid, your nomination statement must also include a declaration of any alternate or former user accounts you have contributed under (or, in the case of privacy concerns, a declaration that you have disclosed them to the Arbitration Committee), and must express your willingness and ability to meet the Wikimedia Foundation's access to nonpublic data policy.

You should at this point have your own questions subpage; feel free to begin answering the questions as you please. Together, the nomination statement and questions subpage should be transcluded to your candidate profile, whose talkpage will serve as the central location for discussion of your candidacy. If you experience any difficulty setting up these pages, please follow the links in the footer below. If you need assistance, on this or any other matter (including objectionable questions or commentary by others on your candidate pages), please notify the coordinators at their talkpage. If you have followed these instructions correctly, congratulations, you are now officially a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Good luck! Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you also look over your row on the table on the Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Candidates/Guide? Feel free to correct any mistakes or to fill in any missing information. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the Arbitration Committee Elections

Eluchil404,

As a candidate for the Arbitration Committee elections, please be aware that your name has been entered into the SecurePoll ballot and can no longer be removed barring the most dire of emergencies and direct manipulation of the database. While you may still withdraw from the election, your name will not be removed from the ballot, but only struck through. If you have any further questions on the process, feel free to contact myself, the other election administrators, or the election coordinators. --Tznkai (talk), 2011 Arbitration Committee Election Administrator. 21:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 24#Scam Newton and Scam newton

Hi Eluchil404. You closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 24#Scam Newton and Scam newton 14 hours early. Were you aware that you were closing the DRV early? Cunard (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation here. I had not noticed that the nominator was a sock, which justifies the early closure, and agree that the sock should not have been given attention in the closing statement. Cunard (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thank you

Thank you for your comment and support at my recent successful RFA. I'm certainly not perfect, but being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2011–12 Hannover 96 Season

Just to let you know that there was no consensus to redirect in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Hannover 96 Season. In fact, it should have been deleted. Kingjeff (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

MSU Interview

Dear Eluchil404,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdolreza Razmjoo

why did you deleted? Hello, references this article in Persian Wikipedia on confirmations. Thank you

| عبدالرضا رزمجو  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farkoh (talk • contribs) 22:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdolreza Razmjoo

Hello and thank you from the Follow up.Add ok Farkoh (talk) 17:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RainbowDash / Futtershy and an unsuccessful ArbCom candidate

[1], [2] – Out of curiosity, are you the unsuccessful ArbCom candidate mentioned in these diff's? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Abdolreza Razmjoo

Hello My dear friend, a new source for the article Abdolreza Razmjoo | Official Website Farkoh (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4850 Keele

4850Keele (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC) I have reviewed the article located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:4850Keele/CMiC, according to wikipedia guidelines. Please take a look at it, and if it meets your standards, can you please make the article viewable again? Thanks[reply]

Abdolreza Razmjoo, again

Farkoh posted this article again; I have userfied it for him, again, salted the title, and told him he must either convince me or you or take it back to DRV. See User talk:Farkoh#Abdolreza Razmjoo, again. JohnCD (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello,

I've noticed that an article about Apartheid in Bahrain was deleted last year for many reasons, including the user who created the article and not merely the content of it. Now I plan to write an article about Bahrain and the apartheid analogy (or similar title). The article Human rights in Bahrain is already long, inserting a lot of this will only make the problem worse, that's why I see that a new article is required. I plan to make it NPOV with RS and to write it in my own user space before moving it to the main space. Any suggestions/recommendations are welcome. I have found a copy of the deleted article on a Google search, would it be fine if I use info from it? Mohamed CJ ^(talk) 10:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Boy Who Grew Flowers AfD

How did you conclude there was a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Boy_Who_Grew_Flowers_(2nd_nomination)? It looks to me like there were two people who favored deletion and two people who favored keeping the article, with substantial argument on both sides. Terence7 (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help us develop better software!

Thanks to all of you for commenting on the NOINDEX RfC :). It's always great to be able to field questions like these to the community; it's genuinely the highlight of my work! The NOINDEX idea sprung from our New Page Triage discussion; we're developing a new patrolling interface for new articles, and we want your input like never before :). So if you haven't already seen it, please go there, take a look at the screenshots and mockups and ideas, and add any comments or suggestions you might have to the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Eluchil404. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 01:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ataria

thanks for the userfication. Will see what I can do with it, and/or db-user it if I can't establish notability. StarM 01:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Our memory and its capacity

We dotn vote count for consensus and hwo can it be added if its deleted? Perhaps a merge/redirect would be better so somoene can move the ocntent there. I could have dont it if id known first (te close coming hours after i commtned._)Lihaas (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But you said yourself to move that content. Can you restore it temporarily as a subpage of thatpage to move content thats moveable?

Could be a redirct there though. That option was no open when people sayid delete.Lihaas (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for it on the premise i could use it as background for Politics of memory...but i was also considering input as to where else it may fit. I dont think the suggested page of a specific book is appropriate. Would memory be a good page?Lihaas (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridgette B (2nd nomination)

I really do not see why this article was deleted; she passes the very first point in WP:PORNBIO by winning an AVN Award. And the delete !votes were from people that don't agree with the guideline, not necessarily the article. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:24, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Eluchil404. You have new messages at Erpert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 07:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Eluchil404. You have new messages at Erpert's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Bridgette B

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bridgette B. 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. Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 08:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there supposed to be temporary undeletion granted during a deletion review? (If anything, at least let me userfy it.) Erpert ^{Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it?} 17:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For a text-book AFD close and perfect explanation of policy [3]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ataria

Hi. Thanks again for the userfication. I've done some work on it at User:Star Mississippi/Ataria and while I think it's better, I'm still not sure if it establishes notability. I personally think museums are notable, but English sources are an issue here. Do the recognition of the building's architecture help at all? Your thoughts? Thanks StarM 22:42, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your feedback. Some of the sources are in Spanish, which I can read. The bulk are in Basque - I think, based on its location, - which I cannot read. I'm going to flag it for WP Spain to see if people know of other sources that might not turn up in Google. I'm just off a long wikibreak. Do I do the old afd tag on the talk, or just post a note that there was an AFD that closed as delete, but that this is different enough not to be a repost? Thanks! StarM 19:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the heads up. It's back at AfD so I suppose I'll worry about that if it survives. StarM 03:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PORNBIO

Since you've participated in the discussion about WP:PORNBIO, I am notifying you of my proposal tightening the criteria that you may wish to weigh in on at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Arbitrary_break:_discussing_Morbidthought.27s_draft. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4850 Keele

I've made changes to the article located at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:4850Keele/CMiC) per your request to establish notability. I've kept it pretty bare bones in order to eliminate instances of unsubstantiated claims. Please let me know if the article meets wiki standards and can be reinstated. Thanks! 4850Keele (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Halo_multiplayer_maps

Hi. I reverted your closure here and closed with the same result because something about your closure was breaking the AFD counter script. Let me know if you have any concerns.--v/r - T P 19:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4850 Keele

Hi, as noted in the earlier post (May 1, 2012), I made the changes you requested to the article located at (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:4850Keele/CMiC) to establish notability. Furthermore, I have kept it bare bones in order to eliminate the possibility of an unsubstantiated claim. Can you please review the article to ensure that it meets wiki standards and if so, please reinstate it. Our article has been down for a long time now, and I am confident that the required changes have been made. Thanks! 4850Keele (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prepare for porn debate

I have made my response Talk:Bridgette B Dwanyewest (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: Rules to consider/Do not include primary sources debate

Another user asked a very similar question. I answered at length on his/her userpage. Rather than clog up your page with the same thing, may I point you there? I'd be happy to answer any additional questions. Thanks. Rossami (talk) 14:18, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur MacArthur IV

It was shown in the AFD that multiple reliable and independent sources had provided significant coverage of him.Some deletion advocates provided irrelevant arguments, such as clanming that he had not achieved enough in his own life, ignoring the notability guidelines, which only require that reliable and independent sources had multiple instances of significant coverage, for whatever reason. You noted that there was "no consensus for deletion," which should have resulted in "no deletion," leaving the article intact. You ~~chose~~ instead ~~to act as a "super-editor" and~~ stated you were making an "editorial decision" to replace the article with a redirect to the article about his father, leaving readers with no information about him at all, other than "he was born in 1938." This is a mistake, since there was no consensus for a redirect, and I request that you undo the redirect and restore the article.~~No one has appointed you a "super editor."~~ Regards. Edison (talk) 02:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that the redirect was an ordinary editorial decision, reversible by any editor, rather than the consensus of the participants in the AFD. I note the wire service stories and Life magazine article specifically about him, and not about his father with just passing reference to him, and the longevity of the coverage, over many decades. Some AFD participants' complaint that he had not independently achieved enough significant things ignores our notability guideline. If I undo the redirect, I will shortly thereafter add more refs. Edison (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Stickel Deletion

Good Afternoon,

I received notice through my watchlist today that an article I reviewed and accepted through AFC was deleted today. When I looked back through the process I see that it was nominated for deletion, then the proposed deletion was discussed and finally it was deleted. My first notice of any of this was today, after the article had been deleted. I realize I could ask for a review of that decision but it was clearly made after careful consideration by the community.

I was just wondering if there was any process by which an editor who has reviewed an article in good faith could be notified at an earlier stage in the process? I think it might be useful when discussing a proposed deletion to have the input of the person who accepted the article as to why he/she thought the article met the necessary Wikipedia criteria. At the end of the day, of course, one person's view does not and should not carry the day but given the work that reviewers often put into the process, sometimes several days of our time, to help a contributor bring a submission into line with the criteria I can't imagine that we wouldn't have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion if we were notified that it was taking place.

Any information you can provide would be appreciated.

Thank you. Snowysusan Talk 18:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge/redirect is the same as deletion

Concerning Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/East_River_Monster, a merge/redirect is the same as deleting the article in this case. So when you say that, someone who was determined to delete it, will just switch it with a redirect. They'll probably wait until less people are around to notice. Dream Focus 19:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning

Can you please provide your reasoning for why there was no consensus for Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/East_River_Monster. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Eluchil404. You have new messages at IRWolfie-'s talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Enedina Felix

Thank you for closing the deletion review regarding File:Enedinafelix.JPG. However I see an enthuastic user has now uploaded the same image to File:Enedina-arellano-felix.jpeg on en.wikipedia. Can we have another speedy deletion? regards-Kiwipat (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Standard YouTube license

Hi! You closed the AfD for this article as "delete", but the article remains standing. Is this a simple oversight, or did you have a change of heart? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move for Ireland

(Discuss) Should Republic of Ireland be moved to Ireland? Kauffner (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:27, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Holiday cheer

		Holiday Cheer
		Michael Q. Schmidt ^{my talk page} is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.

Thanks very much....

... for tidying up after me. I thought I would have some spare time but I walked into a crisis that refused to go away. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

inre 1906 (film)

Hello, Eluchil404. You have new messages at Talk:1906 (novel)#Merger proposal.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Eluchil404. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Eluchil404. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Subir_Banerjee.
Message added 05:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (contact) 05:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD you participated in before is back for a second round

List of special entities recognized by international treaty or agreement is nominated for deletion again. I'm contacting all of those who participated in the first AFD discussion. Dream Focus 02:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New information warranting TheAmazingAtheist undeletion

TheAmazingAtheist · ( talk | logs | links | watch | afd ) · [revisions]

He is much more notable since the last deletion of this page; he has been mentioned in countless 3rd-party sources by this point and his viewership has mushroomed to 125,000,000 YouTube views. That is 12 times as much as Karmin's "Hello", a song which has significant radio airplay and its own Wikipedia page, the existence of which is warranted only via awards which measure popularity. The only argument I could think of *against* including someone so obviously famous/infamous is that their mentions will be mostly on websites and not traditional print media, but even then you can find mentions or coverage of him which lean more toward traditional media. AlmaIV (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Stefan Kutschke

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Stefan Kutschke. 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. 79.216.34.185 (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rigvedic rivers may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Eluchil404. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

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

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

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

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Latin American 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge ‎ has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Argentina etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Latin American content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. If you would like to see this happening for Latin America, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Latin America, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!♦ --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 00:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Eluchil404.

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

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

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requisition

You recently closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requisition (2nd nomination), deleting the article in question. I'm not seeing a consensus to delete there -- 2 keeps and 3 deletes seems a fairly even split. I'm quite certain that the topic is notable, just needing more work to flesh it out. Please can you userfy it for me and I'll develop it further. Andrew D. (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Eluchil404. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about The Wurn Technique

Hi. Fairly new-ish editor here. I was running through some deorphaning to spread my awareness out and ran int The Wurn Technique. I did a bit of digging and decided that this page looks to fail notability so I tagged it for a proposed delete. Wikipedia indicated that had happened before so I removed the page and went here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wurn Technique. I noticed that you closed the discussion and found that deletion review suggests bringing it up with the closing administrator. Not being entirely sure how things work here yet (but rapidly learning) and noticing that this was an old delete I was hoping that you could maybe fill me in on what's up with the page. Please ping me as I will not have you talkpage watchlisted. Cheers. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rap Chart Mike: It looks like the page was recreated after I had deleted it. Technically it could still be deleted through the Proposed Deletion Process as the old AfD was closed as Delete rather than Keep but you are probably better off starting a new AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wurn Technique (2nd nomination) following the procedures at WP:AfD. Deletion Review needn't be involved both because the previous discussion was so long ago and because it actually agreed with your desire to delete the page. Recreations of deleted pages can normally be speedy deleted under criterion WP:G4 unless they have been expanded to address the concerns that led to deletion but after 5 years a new discussion is probably the best way forward. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged. I'll look into beginning that process in a day or two. 32.215.14.226 (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a candidate for TNT" or "Burn Technik". HOLA! @Rap Chart Mike: and @Eluchil404 Cloud forest (talk) 08:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Eluchil404. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD - Names and titles of God in the New Testament

Names and titles of God in the New Testament has been nominated for deletion. As this is an article you may have an interest in, you are invited to comment at [4]. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Air Bud: Aussie Rules

I noticed that, about a decade ago, Air Bud: Aussie Rules was nominated for deletion, and that the final consensus was to have the article redirected to Air Bud. Given that no reliable sources have even alluded to the film being considered by the scriptwriters at all, it probably is best to have Air Bud: Aussie Rules listed at Redirects for Discussion. 76.126.49.152 (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Air Bud: Aussie Rules" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Air Bud: Aussie Rules. Since you had some involvement with the Air Bud: Aussie Rules redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 76.126.49.152 (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]