User talk:Jay/Archive 2021-2022

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antilia bomb scare, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ATS and Innova. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antilia bomb scare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalwa.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Mansukh Hiren

Why did you redirected this article to antilia bomb scare. Wasn't it capable of being a Wikipedia article. BTW I am not the creator of the article but with your permission can i re create the article Jogesh 69 (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resources page

Hi

That's exactly what it looks like. It should be full of links to resources, but looks like no one ever bothered to fill them in lol.
As you can see from the main page, that project is now inactive.
It was a real flash in the pan, and only lasted a few months, being marked as inactive by late 2011.

It was very difficult for new editors to become part of WikiWorld in those days, and we found that many would make one or two edits, get shouted at, and then never return.
Wiki Guides was started to try and help stop that, by offering mentorship to guide new editors through policy etc.

In the end, policy became the target, and there were long discussions across the whole project, some involving hundreds of editors, which led to the project becoming redundant.
Changes were made, and so the guides became less needed as messages and guidance was provided in text format for new users.
Similarly, village pump got working and discussions there went on for a while.

Did it work? That is an interesting question. In this discussion we find the table for 2011 (I have added the 2019 figures):

Editor edits >=	2011	Percentage	2019	Percentage
1	3,434,408	100%	7,280,006	100.0%
3	1,387,363	40.4%	2,693,770	37%
10	667,570	19.4%	1,259,055	17.3%
32	260,945	7.6%	483,416	6.6%
100	106,814	3.1%	190,593	2.6%
316	46,728	1.4%	80,182	1.1%
1,000	20,851	0.6%	35,635	0.5%
3,162	8,420	0.2%	15,049	0.2%
10,000	2,506	0.1%	5,403	0.1%
31,623	473	0.0%	1,475	0%
100,000	40	0.0%	262	0%
316,228	5	0.0%	31	0%
1,000,000		4	0%

As you can see, edit numbers roughly doubled with around 10% less retention than 8 years previously. We did worse, even after changing policy.
I have only just found out that WikiGuides died, and am very disheartened it died so quickly. I would have thought that it was still going, or at least kept going for a few years, but 5 months!?!?!?

All those pages should really be marked as inactive unless you are reactivating the WikiGuides program? Chaosdruid (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything like a welcoming template would be given by a guide, so should be on the "Resources for Guides" tab ... Yes, there is just the one I created, as well as an email template I can see there on the sub and it's talk page.

I am disappointed it didn't work, it seemed such a good plan. Take a new editor, ask them what the wanted and point them in the right direction. It seems we have failed new editors even more, with a lower retention and taking away their ability to create new pages ... I'm not sure if it is good or bad on the whole.

Good luck with your guiding ;¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:44, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CSAI redirect

Jay, for the CSAI Italian Motorsport body, see Automobile Club d'Italia#Competition oversight. It's new. --Bejnar (talk) 18:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Year of birth is not relevant in lists of people

You said as much just now, reverting an edit. Is that a personal view, or is there a wp rule that prompts that assertion? It's all over Wikipedia - though sometimes in, and sometimes not - just as refs are sometimes in lists, and sometimes not. Look for example at this other Colorado list .. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_from_Colorado I'm always curious when someone makes a definitive statement, and reverts another editor's work on the basis of the statement - without indicating whether it is their personal view, or a wp rule. thanks. --2603:7000:2143:8500:2827:3F2F:6095:E2D7 (talk) 07:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have undone the revert at List of University of Colorado Boulder alumni. I thought yours was the only entry with birth year and was inconsistent with the rest of the entries, but I now see there were more. I am checking for the guideline for list detail. Good you brought it up. Jay ^(Talk) 09:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wonder whether, like adding the only ref to a list of notable people from a city, it might not be decisive whether it is the lone addition of a type. Others may follow.--2603:7000:2143:8500:2827:3F2F:6095:E2D7 (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daventry Parkway "Project"

Based on no evidence whatever and sheer speculation, my money is on this "Project" being a spoof by sixth formers at Sponne School, to see how far they can push it. One of them has declared himself CEO of "Sustainable Transport Midlands". Special:Contributions/HumveeHardhat is illuminating: it seems to be largely an SPA set up in support of this fantasy: most of their contributions have been removed by various editors. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Web Services Description Language, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Endpoint.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Gloriamarie/The Hedonistic Imperative

User:Gloriamarie/The Hedonistic Imperative, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gloriamarie/The Hedonistic Imperative and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Gloriamarie/The Hedonistic Imperative during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Smazee

Hello, Jay,

Just a reminder that if you restore a draft that was deleted as a CSD G13 stale draft, you have to make an edit to the page after restoration or it shows up as eligible for deletion again as the last edit to the page would have been more than 6 months ago. Making an edit to the page makes it ineligible for deletion for another 6 months. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, thanks for clarifying on that. It was not there in the instructions, and I had asked you twice about the mystery of that dummy edit! Jay (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It happened again with Draft:Akanksha Khatri so I made a minor edit to the page. I thought I'd let you know but this kind of thing happens even with the regulars at WP:REFUND. There is a script, User:SD0001/RFUD-helper, that will do the minor edit for you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vijay Anand (filmmaker), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Vinesauce

Hey, I saw that you skipped over my request to undelete the page Draft:Vinesauce at Requests for Undeletion. May you please undelete the page? PantheonRadiance (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SUKUMARA KURP

explain him 122.174.99.63 (talk) 06:13, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand your message. Jay (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Helping

How are you User:Jay hope you are well Can you take a look here please buyuksivas.com Mr Omar 80 (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr Omar 80: I didn't understand. Do you need specific help at the article? Jay (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jay: Yes, please. Can you put your changes to the article? and this Diriliş Postası I will be grateful to you --Mr Omar 80 (talk) 09:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What changes? I don't have knowledge about the two articles. Jay (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For example, encyclopedic changes + the second article has been placed for deletion, and it is a well-known newspaper in Turkey Mr Omar 80 (talk) 10:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't have knowledge about the subjects. Why don't you make the changes yourself, and address the concerns on the article? Jay (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget social distancing, cleaning and mask, stay safe :) Mr Omar 80 (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Query

(removed per WP:DENY That "query" was from a globally-banned LTA, User:علي_أبو_عمر, who continues to relentlessly try to publish an article about himself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Ohnoitsjamie, that #Helping; Mr Omar 80, is confirmed sock also --Alaa :)..! 21:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled

A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Po (department)

Hey, Jay,

It looks like you closed a deletion discussion but this redirect is still tagged. I'm not sure whether it should be untagged or deleted or what, so I'm bringing it to your attention. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: Thanks for informing. XFDCloser did not do it because the page was moved. I have now removed the tags. -Jay

Merchandise giveaway nomination

A token of thanks

Hi Jay! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk ~~~~~

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus

I don't think your blanket dismissal of everything here as no consensus was fair or accurate. There was a supermajority in favor of deleting the "Sulla" redirects, and the single party arguing against it was replied to. I ask that you reconsider your judgement on those, as there is no reason why lack of consensus for the other two should vitiate assessment of the rest. Avilich (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: I had gone through the comment of the single party who favoured retarget, and your response to that. What you said was consistent with your arguments at the AfD. Tavix too had said that he had read through the AfD and was not buying into the arguments. As there was a difference of only one vote between supporting and opposing Delete, I concluded there was no agreement for an outcome here. Jay (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was a completely different discussion, with different ends, and with arguments of a different nature (the closer, Sandstein, was unconvinced the opposing arguments, by the way, hence the outcome). The objection, which was the only one, was to state a vague disbelief of the idea that those terms were not common. No particular evidence was offered, I took pains to show how these terms were invented and why his argument was flawed, and the subsequent delete vote agreed with me. Thus, there was one single objection, which was challenged and whose author did not engage further after that, against 3 deletes. This is quite enough for a rough consensus. There was no basis for giving the retarget vote the same weight as the combined 3 deletes, who did not think that either of those terms were commonly associated with any other topic to warrant a retarget, and accepted that those were made-up terms. Avilich (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Avilich: The AfD which was exhaustive, covered everything including what was in your response, especially the WP:Citogenesis angle. I cannot decide whether Tavix was satisfied with your challenge, or why he did not engage further. To be fair, I have asked him about this. Although he mentioned twelve years, the first version (now deleted) of Sulla's first civil war dates back to 2005. In this particular discussion, I gave more weight to the non-delete !vote because I believe the spirit of the AfD close of Redirect by Sandstein was not meant as a shortcut to Delete, but to buy time to allow editors to resolve any merger from the history through further discussion. Jay (talk) 09:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is wrong on many counts. First of all, the AfD ended in redirect, not merge: it was argued in the AfD that there is nothing worth merging (whence Sandstein closed it as redirect not merge), so there are no grounds here for giving the merge argument any more weight than the don't merge argument. Second, if you're talking about borrowing merge arguments from the AfD (you shouldn't, only the RfD matters), then you should've only declared no consensus over the redirects that have an edit history. Third, the prospect of merging was nowhere brought up on the RfD, therefore you had no grounds to supervote on the matter. Sandstein, moreover, explicitly said that, if a merge wouldn't be conducted, I was free to take it to RfD; that's what I did, therefore it was not within your discretion to supervote with merger in mind, and your close was certainly not conducted within the spirit of Sandstein's closing statement. I wish Sandstein would comment here, because his statement is being used in a way which he wouldn't have endorsed. Avilich (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the AfD close kept avenues of both Delete and Merge open. You made use of the delete, and if there was adequate support, the redirects would have been deleted and we wouldn't be having this discussion about merge. The AfD angle wasn't brought in by me now, it was referenced in Tavix's comment, who made it part of his argument. When bundling different redirects in a nomination, we are looking at a consolidated outcome, unless the !votes pick out and split the set, as happened for Roman vs Sulla. As the overall outcome led to a No consensus, it was not for me to engineer another split between the Sulla redirects with and without a version history. Jay (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tavix's argument did not even bring up the topic of merging and the outcome of the AfD also didn't support or require a merge (Sandstein explicitly said so). No case for merging was made in the RfD, therefore it was not in your discretion to bring it up the possibility of merger and modify the outcome as you saw fit. Tavix's argument was a single vague "I'm not convinced" (he did not provide direct evidence himself, nor did he build up from any in the AfD), one single weak argument that was rejected by all parties involved, a supermajority. That is all there is to it, and your closure should have reflected this, rather than give arbitrary weight to one single party's opinion based on a detail that wasn't even broached on the discussion.

It also follows that, if you won't distinguish the redirects based on their edit history, you shouldn't have brought upp the merger argument in the first place, since they only apply precisely to those redirects with edit history. You're being blatantly inconsistent here. Avilich (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I broadly agree with Jay, and also think that the fate of these redirects is so minor an issue as to not be worth arguing at length about. Sandstein 17:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took it to drv if you sitll care. Avilich (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My close did not mention merge. Nor did I talk of merge here except for quoting a close statement of the AfD that indicated why the articles were not deleted. Again, re-iterating the RfD closing statement, anyone is free to renominate. Nominating in smaller sets will be more fruitful. Jay (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirect Discussion: Brandywine Trail

I have a response to your question over at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion regarding "Brandywine Trail". It's rather complicated so thanks in advance for reading. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:29, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Please don't remove additional information because it is very useful to community because it creates confusion related to this issue. Hugh Wales (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A humble request from jay

Thank you for your suggestions as you told I am new here.But the information in jat reservation is totally correct , you can check on government websites and news. So I request you to put this information which I had written in wiki page. Hugh Wales (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the RfD

At this RfD, no one wanted to keep the current target. Yet since it was closed as no consensus, the current target remains. What can I do now? Can I retarget the redirect to either of the propositions made during the RfD?
I note that the RfD was only relisted twice. Veverve (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: I have reverted the close and relisted it. Jay (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Veverve (talk) 07:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In need of help for my RfD

Hello Jay.
I have made a 2nd RfD for a redirect here three days ago. I have tried to find and copy-paste the template used to indicate it is the second nomination. However, so far I have been unsuccesful. Therefore I ask you if you could add this template for me.
Thanks in advance.
Veverve (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve:

Done.

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for restoring my sandbox.👍👍👍 Rjsb0191 (talk) 09:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing RFD deletion discussions

Hello, Jay,

I don't know if you have noticed this but there is a problem closing RFD discussions. The discussions get closed on the RFD page but no action is taken on the page under discussion, if the decision is to delete, pages are not deleted, if it is to retarget, target pages are not changed and no RFD tags are removed from the pages. It seems to primarily be affecting RFD and I've posted messages at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser since yesterday but so far no response.

I have not manually deleted or retargeted pages because I wanted anyone fixing the problem to SEE the problem but I'm not sure how long to wait. One editor has already inquired on my talk page about why a redirect hadn't been retargeted yet. If you know of any tech-minded people here who could look into this problem with XFDcloser, please point them towards this talk page discussion. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jay, how are you handling closing these discussions? I thought this problem would be resolved fairly quickly but it's been three weeks+. I see you close a lot of RFD discussions but I have just focused on other XfD areas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: as XFDCloser is partially working, that is it closes or relists the nominations at the RfD page, I use that. For deletes and retargets, I do it manually by going to the redirect page. I do not make the talk page changes or relisting date correction changes that XFDCloser used to do. Jay (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manan Joshi

Hello Sir. I wanted to know that will there be any issue if I directly create Manan Joshi with the help of Draft:Manan Joshi. Manan Joshi had played a positive lead roles in Shubh Laabh - Aapkey Ghar Mein and the english film "The Yesterday" while he was negative leads in his debut Kaal Bhairav Rahasya and Guddan Tumse Na Ho Payega where his characters were killed later (I personally know because I am his fan who has watched him in all his shows). To add on, Joshi is currently the lead in Kabhi Kabhie Ittefaq Sey which makes him WP:N for all the shows he was part of and the characters he played are notable WP:N. Thank you.Commonedits (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Commonedits: I don't think with the examples you have given, that notability is established. If you feel that the subject is notable, you can remove the notability tag and submit the draft for review. The draft says he is playing the lead in The Yesterday but the link cited says no such thing. Jay (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jay: Honestly, I don't want to submit it as a draft because of the "biased" system of reviewing drafts shown by many reviewers here! Even if the sources are "independent and reliable", they simply decline the draft giving that "invalid" reason. You can check Draft: Bhumika Gurung. I swear that this is possible only if they're getting paid to accept certain drafts and decline incessantly others. Anyhow thanks 😊💟.Commonedits (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Commonedits please don't insinuate and insult article reviewers. You're unhappy that some of your drafts have been rejected, but allegations like this are not helpful, contrary to WP:NPA and not conducive to a collaborative editing environment. Ravensfire (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravensfire I am sorry if what I said felt like an "insult" or "insinuation" towards the article reviewers. But whatever I had said is not "some overnight built-up" story. (Plus, I'm not gaining anything by insulting anyone) Unfortunately, whatever I said is a "reality" which I have seen/experienced happening here!!! And it is not just the case of my drafts but the situation of several other "common editors" like me who work relentlessly in their drafts to make them "very suitable" for wikipedia mainspace and get them declined for "completely invalid reasons", while so many "messy and poorly sourced drafts" are accepted in a "wink of an eye". It's important that rules should be made equal for everyone here. Thank you.Commonedits (talk) 15:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matilda Offord (March 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DoubleGrazing was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The comment the reviewer left was:

All the sources are primary, and therefore unable to establish notability per WP:GNG. I don't think this satisfies any of the specific criteria at WP:NTRIATHLON, either, but happy to be proven wrong on that.

I'm declining this on the basis of some of the content being unsupported by referencing. The first ref comes at the end of the 3rd para, so where is eg. her DOB coming from? Please see WP:BLP / WP:DOB for how to reference information regarding living people.

--

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matilda Offord and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Matilda Offord, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have gone to the draft creator's talk page! :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jay! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request for a third relisting

Hello. Could you relist Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_March_28#Consanguinity_(in_Canon_Law) for a third time? Three relisting seem to be the standard procedure, and maybe someone will be able to make a consensus within the next seven days. I will ask Rosguill if they could intervene an give their opinion on this RfD, maybe it will change things. Veverve (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veverve: If third relistings are becoming a standard, I do not wish to be seen as encouraging it. However if you find that Rosguill (or anyone else too) wants to vote, I can revert the close (but not relist, but someone else may do it). Jay (talk) 15:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Avitesh Shrivastava

He is not a visual artist, & should not have been added to the "artists" sort list. Haven't I mentioned this to you before? Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnbod: thanks for the info. Let me know what needs to be fixed, or you can do it yourself. I used Twinkle and the drop-down only said "Artists"; I did not know it is meant for visual artists only. This is your first message on my talk page, and we haven't talked before. Jay (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thanks - the artists one should be removed, a music one added if it isn't there. I don't know the templates. Probably we should make the "artists" name clearer, as this keeps happening. Sorry, I thought the name seemed familiar. Johnbod (talk) 22:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting&diff=prev&oldid=1084841155 Raised the question. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFUD: Rajen Sharma

Wrt this request, you might want to reconsider since the user, in whose userspace the draft was moved to, was later blocked indefinitely, so they cannot move it even if they wanted. Regards So Why 15:43, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

African Judo Union

Hi, On 1 February 2022 you deleted the article African Judo Union after a consensus debate. I created another one here User:Faycal.09/African Judo Union. I hope to see if that's allright. Best regards --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is alright. Jay (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will create the page so. Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

David E. Olson

Hello Jay, the user who created Draft:David E. Olson wanted me to re-review their draft so I decided to take a look at the user's contribution history, user page, and user talk page. I've noted some concerns at Draft talk:David E. Olson, but I don't normally see this many potential violations. I've come across people writing pages about subjects they are connected to and I would normally just put some COI tags on both the page and its corresponding talk page. How would you proceed with this scenario? TipsyElephant (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you because you are an admin and you've made at least one edit to the draft. TipsyElephant (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied at the draft talk. Thanks for bringing this up. Jay (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have replied to the draft talk as well at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:David_E._Olson. Did my best to address all the concerns and would like to continue moving forward with working on it while I await your responses. Thank you in advance for your continued time on this. HHA LTP (talk) 19:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Thanks for you deleting my CSD notice! Apparently, you posted a warning on my page (which is automatic via Twinkle), I believe I requested to speedy delete it due to a typo when moving. Apologies for any misunderstandings, so thanks for your help! VickKiang (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question on tagging?

Hi @Jay thank you for your feedback on my page Glorify. If I may ask a question - I have been editing - creating articles when I find something available to write about, but mostly editing articles in GOCE copy/edit requests. I mostly focus on just general improvements to the prose and organization of articles, but if I do come across one that sounds promotional or not neutral, etc., can anyone apply those tags? Happy to contribute in this way, but I assumed that was an admin-only thing. But there are plenty of pages I've come across that don't seem to fit the guidelines to be included... many of which are older articles, I assume the rules years ago were more lenient. I'd appreciate your guidance. Thanks. The Real Serena Joy^Talk 17:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any editor can tag articles for improvement. The guidelines have evolved. Some articles that don't have editors watching over them, or no one comes across as they are orphans, may not have improved since long. Jay (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello..

Hie Jay.. Rakshit here this side. Need your inputs on draft page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Govind_Dholakia . please your inputs and suggestion for shape it in a better way will help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brakshit23 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may expand it by adding more references. I see that the page has received review feedback. Jay (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPI Case

If you want then I can teach you how to open an SPI case. Do you want to learn? Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 07:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Itcouldbepossible: Sure, since you are willing. On my own, I probably would not have made the effort. Jay (talk) 07:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Do you have twinkle installed? Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 07:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have only used warn, block, wel, csd, and xfd though. Jay (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now if you want to open an SPI case then you have first go the user page for whom you want to file a case. Then under the TW menu, you will get something like ARV. When you click it a new dialog box appears and you can now choose the report type. If this is the first time you are reporting a case against the user you will choose Sockpuppeteer and not Sockpuppet. Then you can enter the names of the users whom you think are socks of the main user. Then you put in your evidence as to why you think they are socks, and then you click the request for checkuser dialog box, and then submit. Till this is it clear? Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 07:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will this send notifications to the users involved? Because until the CU comes back with evidence, we need to assume good faith right? Jay (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No this will not. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 08:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now for example if you want to report a user whom you think is a sockpuppet of someone. In that case you can select the Sockpuppet option and type in the name of the sockpuppeteer, this will open a new case under there name. For example, if you suspect someone to be a sockpuppet of bodiadub you can file a new case which will be under Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bodiadub. Did you understand it? Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 08:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the process of filing a case ends there, and the CU guys will take over? Or is there more to be done? Jay (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No then a Clerk will either endorse or decline the checkuser request. They will do so when they think a CU is necessary. Then a checkuser would do the needful. Please remember that CU is done if and only if it is required. It is not done just like 'I said and you do it, or you asked for it and I did it'. You can know more about the checkuser policy from WP:CHK if you want. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 08:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk related to a page "Saksham Digra"

First of all i,m not connected to the subject but i,m supporting it because this article was suggested to me to edit so i edited it and recreated it by the information given by various reliable sources but i didn,t copied it i first researched and then recreated and as it was under my category but it was written by @Sakshamdigra22 as an auto biography but i transformed it to third person,s view and now it looks fine and doesn,t violates any law also notability can be confirmed by his work in a movie clearly mentioned in the article. So you can approve Saksham Digra and if you want me to do any change you must ask me. Hsb66789 (talk) 09:51, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested histmerge

Hello, Jay. Thank you for the help you have given me with restoring my old user pages. I was wondering if you could hist merge the old versions of User:Blackazz and User:Blackazz968 so that all user page edits I’ve ever made since joining are in one place. This excludes the 2022 redirect created by Ponyo and me correcting the redirect. Does this make sense? Thank you again, Blanchey 💬 • 📝 20:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replied by Graeme Bartlet at WP:Requests for undeletion#User:Blackazz, User:Blackazz968, User:Blanchey. Jay (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for telling me. Blanchey 💬 • 📝 07:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Drake Homes

You moved the page Drake Homes to Draft. What actions can I take to improve the article before resubmitting? Stonistone (talk) 03:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can add content to the draft. Read through similar good quality articles and bring up the draft to the same quality. Jay (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A request

Hello Jay! I want to request you to grant me the autopatrolled user right. I regularly create articles (atleast 1 every week) and as of now, there are 50+ articles I have created (excluding redirects and disambiguation pages). I have an editing experience of more than 2 years in Wikipedia. I am familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially those on biographies of living persons, copyrights, verifiability and notability. For all the articles I have created in this wiki, several patrollers (reviewers) reviewed them, without any further editing to those articles. I often received notifications of my articles being patrolled/reviewed by those editors, with no further editing. From this, I thought if I got the autopatrolled user right, I would lessen the burden on the patrollers/reviewers. For further information, please feel free to check my edit history and the articles I have created. Regarding user rights at other wikis, I have autopatrolled user right in meta wiki and IP block expemption user right in Meitei wikipedia. Please grant me the autopatrolled user right! Regards! --Haoreima (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Haoreima: can you approach an admin who is familiar with your work, or request at WP:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled? I have not been involved in the area of granting permissions to users, but would like to know what made you approach me. Jay (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I approached you because I saw you were associated with many India related articles in the past and I thought that since you were handy in that topics, if you could check my articles (which are all Indian topics), you could easily bring out the decision. Btw, in the future, I will take lots of help from you, other than this. Regards! ;-) --Haoreima (talk) 03:49, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Haoreima: as you have only created articles via transfer from the Simple English Wikipedia, I checked at WP:PERM, and I would not recommend autopatrolled right now. You may consider it once you have created articles from scratch, or moved them after working on drafts. Jay (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sir! All the articles I created in Regular English Wikipedia are the regular English translation of the Simple English Wikipedia articles, which are all created as well as substantially developed by myself. The reason I created there at simple wiki at first and later at en wiki is because translation from simple to regular is easier than from regular to simple. May I know your further decision after my clarification? --Haoreima (talk) 09:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, the articles I used to create are usually about Manipur related topics which is less known to most of the Wikipedians (for both simple wiki & en wiki). So, less people contribute to this topic, other than copy edits. --Haoreima (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you may want to contact an admin who is also a user at the Simple Wikipedia, or as suggested earlier, request at WP:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled, with the reasoning that you have just given above. Jay (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jay! I have chosen your first option. I have created many articles here (not translations from other wikis), just after our last talk. Please have a review of my latest created articles in my creation logs. Now, may I ask you to grant me the autopatrolled user right? --Haoreima (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See WT:Requests for permissions#Autopatrolled for translations. There is support for you. You may make the request at WP:PERM. Jay 💬 13:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have requested at the very place you suggested me. --Haoreima (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alfonso Navarro

Hello, can you put in my sandbox the deleted page of Alfonso Navarro? I want to develop and recreate it. Thanks -- Mishary94 (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is a WP:G5 case. Jay (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of User:Doug butler/Ethel Morrison

Hi Jay Thanks for deleting the article in my userspace as requested ({{U1}}). I was a little surprised to see a notification of the action on my talk page; the first in maybe 1,000 articles I've created using the Wizard. This is not a complaint, just an observation, and I thank you and your fellow-admins for the unenviable, and mostly thankless, work you do. Doug butler (talk) 22:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug butler: I use Twinkle to delete and there is an option to notify the creator. If I see that the user talk already had a to-be-deleted notification, then I don't notify the author because he can anyway see that the blue link has turned red. If there was no notification already (which is obvious for self-delete requests) I notify the author, knowing that he can remove it from his talk page if he wants. Jay (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A nice explanation, thanks again. Doug butler (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Mirror-Belle

In regard to the discussion about Princess Mirror-Belle at the Administrators' Noticeboard, now that User:Liam wigley has been indefinitely blocked by User:Bbb23, do you think it would be a good idea to unprotect the redirects at Princess Mirror-Belle and Princess Mirror-Belle (TV series) so that other editors have the possibility to write an actual article about the series? JIP | Talk 19:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure! Jay (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The pages have been unprotected. JIP | Talk 08:22, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_14#Terry_Pearce

Can I ask how you considered WP:NOTDIRECTORY when closing this? A policy, WP:NOT, would appear to overrule the manual of style. BilledMammal (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on NOTDIRECTORY was responded to by J947 and I considered that conversation complete. Jay (talk) 02:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the relevance of their reply; a local consensus at an AfD cannot change policy. BilledMammal (talk) 03:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You made a comment that disambiguation is not suitable, which got a response suggesting diaambiguation is suitable, the same argument that was played out in the referenced AfD. Jay (talk) 03:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But not a response based in policy; the response suggesting disambiguation is suitable is based on rejecting WP:NOT in favour of MOS:DAB. Since the manual of style cannot overrule policy, per WP:DETCON arguments for disambiguation based on that should be given very little weight. BilledMammal (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict between WP:NOT and MOS:DAB did not play a big part in this RfD, and the arguments for disambiguation had more weightage. Jay (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain why you considered them to have more weight? As far as I can tell, they are based entirely on the manual of style, and those arguments have been entirely rebutted by demonstrating that there is a relevant policy that supersedes the MOS. BilledMammal (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found the disambiguation arguments satisfying WP:RGUIDE the most. There was no rebuttal of the MOS at the RfD while it was in progress. But since you now have a strong opinion on this, one option would be to continue this at WP:DR. If you are referring to the rebuttal at the previous AfD, then the closer there had suggested a meta discussion elsewhere. Jay (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was no rebuttal of the MOS at the RfD while it was in progress. - I don't believe this is accurate; the reference to WP:NOT was the rebuttal of the MOS. However, there was no reference to RGUIDE, and RGUIDE discusses redirects, not disambiguation pages. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see it as a rebuttal, but as a Comment the way you phrased it. I look at RGUIDE both for suitability of retaining redirects, and for converting redirects into something else when found not suitable as a redirect. Jay (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How would you have needed it to be worded to consider it a rebuttal? I did not consider it necessary or desirable to make the same reply to every different "disambiguate" argument, when the same argument applied to each of them - a policy tells us that a disambiguation page is forbidden here, and none of the arguments in favour of disambiguation are of sufficient weight to overcome that. BilledMammal (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I see a response positioned as "Comment", I see it as more of an FYI, unless the comment elicits further assertive feedback. Jay (talk) 08:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move Emmbi Industries to Drafts

Hi, I wanted to move Emmbi Industries to Drafts but was unable to do so because a Draft article already existed. I tagged for deletion but you redirected from Drafts to the mainspace article. Is there any way I can move from mainspace to Drafts without requesting a move or admin help? I haven't managed to figure this out. Thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: as I replied at WP:Requests for undeletion#Emmbi Industries, and as endorsed by Muboshgu, I do not recommend moving it back to draft. Jay

14:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hi would it be possible to switch the image in you sig to 💬? Per Wikipedia:Signatures#Images we don't allow images in sigs these days.©Geni (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Geni: Thanks I'll fix it. Is 💬 a unicode character? I was looking for some colour. Jay

06:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

💬 is unicode. U+1F4AC apparently.©Geni (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Jay 💬 07:25, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I added a section to your talk page which I rved. It was a mistake, where I thought NeverTry4Me added a CSD G7 to a page created by another editor, without realising NeverTry4Me requested to undelete it. Sorry for this trouble, all good now also see here. VickKiang (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I got a threatening email from IP 103.106.xx.xx, which is near 15-25 km away from me. I am afraid, hence I requested a CS. I am not sure whom to forward the email. _-✍NeverTry4Me⛅ C♯ 10:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NeverTry4Me: Is it related to your edits on Wikipedia? You may contact the Arbitration Committee or the emergency response team. See WP:Harassment#Off-wiki harassment. Jay 💬 14:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please vote in the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election

Hello hello. I hope this message finds you well.

The Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Board of Trustees election ends soon, please vote. At least one of the candidates is worthy of support. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I humbly thank you for restoring every single page I requested. Crafterstar (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can I request the following be restored?

Crafterstar (talk) 13:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Requests for undeletion#several pages please is sill not closed, and I'm covering that one at a time. Jay 💬 12:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed and archived at WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 378#several pages please. Jay 💬 12:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Crafterstar:

Done. Entries not taken up for undeletion have been explained at the above archive and at WP:Requests for undeletion/Archive 377#Lots of pages requested. Jay 💬 12:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:House of Secrets (TV series) had only one line that said House of Secrets is an upcoming television series by Chris Columbus for Disney+. There is more info at House of Secrets (novel)#Television instead. Jay 💬 14:49, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anything about the anime of Draft:Kotaro Lives Alone (TV series) can be added to Kotaro Lives Alone#Anime. Currently the article has only 3 lines about it. Jay 💬 13:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Special message

Good day!

This is to express my gratitude to User:Jay for its contributions on this draft-turned-article 1967 Cavite bus crash. Its acceptance is not only the accomplishment of mine, but this credit is also yours, along with other editors. Being the creator of the article, i recognize editors' efforts as they matter, how big or small it is; this wouldn't be possible without you and your works.

Hoping you'll achieve and accomplish more in this site. Keep up your good work! Long live Wikipedia!Raider000 (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The article looks good. Jay 💬 07:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

how are you admin user:Jay i sent you a ping for something i will be happy if you give us your opinion thanks a lot Moviesandtvloves (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moviesandtvloves, you joined Wikipedia only today. You may start with contributing to other articles, rather than pick up a frequently deleted and protected title. Jay 💬 13:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yes sure just i want ask about this article and i will create new article and more Moviesandtvloves (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beacuse you are admin here your opinion is very important - stay safe Moviesandtvloves (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are sockpuppet of a banned user, you are very blocked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#Fastest thing alive

Hey Jay, I just came across Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#Fastest thing alive and I disagree that disambiguation is the way to go. "Fasting thing alive" would not be a search term for animals, and The Flash is the "Fastest Man Alive", not "Fasting thing alive". I don't think consensus was strong enough to close without a relist, could you please reverse your close and relist it? -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: relisted. Sorry for the delay, I did not log in since 2 days. I disagree on the argument for animals though. Jay 💬 13:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And no worries on the delay, I appreciate that real life is much more important than Wikipedia. I'll give my thoughts on the matter at the RfD shortly and we can discuss further there if you'd like. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Administrator changes

- Isabelle Belato
- Whpq

Interface administrator changes

CheckUser changes

Oversight changes

DGG

Guideline and policy news

The article creation at scale RfC opened on 3 October and will be open until at least 2 November.
An RfC is open to discuss having open requests for adminship automatically placed on hold after the seven-day period has elapsed, pending closure or other action by a bureaucrat.

Arbitration

Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 13 November 2022 until 22 November 2022 to stand in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections.
The arbitration case request titled Athaenara has been resolved by motion.
The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has entered the proposed decision stage.
AmandaNP, Mz7 and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. Xaosflux and Dr vulpes are reserve commissioners.

Miscellaneous

The 2022 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process has concluded with the appointment of two new CheckUsers.
You can add yourself to the centralised page listing time zones of administrators.
Tech tip: Wikimarkup in a block summary is parsed in the notice that the blockee sees. You can use templates with custom options to specify situations like {{rangeblock|create=yes}} or {{uw-ublock|contains profanity}}.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your unseasoned closure has been challenged to restore the integrity of Wikipedia and give accurate information and tranquility to our dear readers who have been feeling marginalized by this awkward act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_November_4 Madame Necker (talk) 14:10, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wha? That has to be the most awkward header I've seen from an editor who wasn't a sockpuppet or vandal. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

Administrator changes

Interface administrator changes

TheresNoTime

CheckUser changes

TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Consensus has been found in an RfC to automatically place RfAs on hold after one week.
The article creation at scale RfC has been closed.
An RfC on the banners for the December 2022 fundraising campaign has been closed.

Technical news

A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 12, 2022 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
The proposed decision for the 2021-22 review of the discretionary sanctions system is open.
The arbitration case Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block has been closed.
The arbitration case Stephen has been opened and the proposed decision is expected 1 December 2022.
A motion has modified the procedures for contacting an admin facing Level 2 desysop.

Miscellaneous

Tech tip: A single IPv6 connection usually has access to a "subnet" of 18 quintillion IPs. Add /64 to the end of an IP in Special:Contributions to see all of a subnet's edits, and consider blocking the whole subnet rather than an IP that may change within a minute.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in the United States

Earlier today you changed the auto-archiving at this talk page from its long-standing |minthreadsleft = 1 to |minthreadsleft = 5. I don't understand why - this particular talk page doesn't get very many posts on an ongoing basis. The last time anything was transferred to its archives was in 2021 and the single post on the talk page itself is from April of 2022, about eight months ago. Will keeping posts with no replies around for what will amount to years help readers or Wikipedia? Shearonink (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it'll help. The purpose of archiving is so that talk pages do not get too large, and you have said it yourself that the page does doesn't get many posts. The age of the post is not relevant. Jay 💬 06:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, so the talk page itself doesn't get overly large but also to keep recent posts in view for a relevant period of time. Keeping posts from a year or two or three up in view on the main talk page doesn't seem encyclopedic to me since most posters (especially short-period anon/readers who are looking for an answer to something or who ask for an edit etc.) will have moved on...and then someone else will come along, reply to a post that is a couple of years old and the OP never even knows. I'll agree to disagree on your point. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't see how replying to an old post is a problem. I reply to posts that are more than 10 or 15 years old (on talk pages that have kept old posts), and I get replies to my old posts as well. If the post is relevant to the current state of the article, then it can be discussed. If a talk thread has reached its end through discussion, it may be archived, again, if the talk page has become long. You may discuss at Help talk:Archiving a talk page on thoughts about your preferred way of archiving. Jay 💬 06:27, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. No worries, lots of different ways to approach editing & talk pages around here. Wikipedia is a big tent and there's room for all. Shearonink (talk) 14:47, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Cal Kern

Hello. I was wondering if you could RevDel this diff of the talk page in question. Thanks. SunilNevlaFan ✨ 14:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Jay 💬 14:43, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United States/Government

I saw Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 12#United States/Government and was a bit surprised to see the link red because the outcome of the RfD was retarget, not delete (or move without redirect). I'm surprised because you unilaterally made an administrative action against the consensus of the discussion, but also surprised because your rationale is...lacking. While it is true that subpages are now disabled in mainspace, legacy mainspace pages are considered {{R from old history}} and kept (similar to CamelCase redirects). You referenced WP:SUB, but no where on that page does it say that mainspace subpages should be removed, rather that they should not be created. Furthermore, the unnecessary move goes against the guidance of WP:MOVEREDIRECT. With the authority of this RfD, I will be moving this page back and urge you not to make unnecessary redirect moves against consensus moving forward. -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:31, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tavix: This was a bold move and independent of the RfD. It was an editor move, not administrative, and I had provided the edit summary. I went by WP:Subpages#History of subpages which says ..the Wikipedia:Do not use subpages policy had to be rigorously enforced and retroactively applied., which while mentioned in past tense gives the impression that most, if not all, subpages were taken care of. The linked WP:Do not use subpages there says When you come across a subpage in the main article space, please move it to an appropriate title.... Let me know where it says old mainspace subpages should be kept, I would have either missed it, or will reword it to make it conspicuous. Jay 💬 05:29, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First, you can't be "bold" when such an action is contrary to a decision arrived at by consensus; WP:BOLD is for things that are likely to be uncontroversial. Second, it is an administrative action because it effectively deleted the redirect United States/Government. Third, the guidelines that you quote are for article titles, not redirects. We don't want the article on the United States Government to have the title "United States/Government", so it has been moved. However, the resulting redirect is an {{R from old history}} and should be kept. WP:RFD#KEEP #4 includes old subpage links as examples of things that should be left alone due to existing for a significant length of time. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:49, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was independent of the RfD, as said before, and not related to the RfD or its outcome. Moving a page without leaving a redirect is not an administrator action, but a Page mover one. I did not expect it to be controversial, but you are right about K#4. While it only talks about deleting, a move without redirect causes the same result. I have added a line about redirects to WP:Subpages#History of subpages. Jay 💬 06:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! I wrote to you directly, to express that your question made me realize my mistake. You simply didn’t like me emailing you but honestly get over it. I mentioned that I would message a mentor (which could be you) but instead you decided to run to my talk page to make some public renunciation of how I conducted myself. I wrote to you that I will revise anything I did, including any teaching to ensure I don’t make this mistake again.

Please, you can relax knowing I’ll bother someone else with any assistance - but to answer your first question ever so directly, yes it was my mistake. Canada18 (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Canada18: I assume you are using some tool or template, otherwise why would you welcome me to Wikipedia? If you have a concern with respect, civility or good faith, you can elaborate. My way of communicating with you will be your talk page, or the user ping. You implied that you have a mentor, and I assumed that you are new and learning, hence my suggestion to use the talk page instead of email. Jay 💬 09:42, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone should be welcomed. You have never been welcomed. Canada18 (talk) 09:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say I have not been welcomed? See /Archive 2003,2004#Welcome. Jay 💬 10:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From me, of course. Canada18 (talk) 10:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Peter Membrey for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Peter Membrey is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Membrey until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Saucysalsa30 (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]