User talk:Nabla/Archive 4

Archives

1. August 2004 - February 2007
2. April 2007 - May 2008
3. May 2008 - December 2011

Your resignation

You said, 25 hours ago, that you were quitting Wikipedia. I see that you are still commenting. Have you changed your mind? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

No. Thank you for reminding me that I still had the e-mail warnings activated - Nabla (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

RETIRED

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Nabla (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Writing a page in a different language

So if you wanted a page in other languages than English, do you type it yourself?--$200inaire (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)$200inaire

Communicating with others; the impact of our work

Nabla, please don't talk to people like this. I understand that you're angry with Oliver, but we do still have a civility policy, and personal attacks are still forbidden. You've been calling Oliver an idiot since you started that conversation; this is hardly ever going to get you a good response. :)

To the actual topic of your conversation, I also work for the Wikimedia Foundation (for about a year now; I've been volunteering since 2007), and I really think you're probably misunderstanding Oliver's response. He took your question very literally; you may not have intended it that way, but people take us to task when we don't answer questions literally. :) It's safest to be comprehensive in response. I do not believe that he intended in any way to talk down to you; he has a sense of humor that comes across in a lot he writes. As our civility policy notes, it is possible to misunderstand the intent behind people's words. Unfortunately, it happens all the time in a project like ours, where our communications are in text (without body language and facial expressions) and where we cross cultures. (My culture, for instance, promotes politeness to a point that some feel insincere, while I can find the directness of some on Wikipedia really confrontational.) I note that he apologized for the appearance of his comments here. You have since recognized that your question was pretty broad; maybe in light of that, the apology he offered then will make more sense. :)

In any event, I'm really sorry that this has been stressful for you. Understanding that you're already unhappy with Wikipedia (over SOPA, it seems), I hope it won't further sour your feelings about the project. One of the advantages of working for the WMF is that I occasionally get to see the letters that come in from around the world from people who rely on Wikipedia. I don't think everything we do is perfect (we as a community; we as individual editors; we as WMF), but I think it's worth attempting to perfect, given the enormous impact we have on the lives of people every day. I hope eventually we'll win you back. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Okeys sounded arrogant. I always try to presume a bad reply is a sign of a bad day, no a sign of bad intention, so I asked him to rephrase his silly reply. He did not, he insisted that I was asking for IE3 support! Do you honestly think I was asking for IE3 support? If you do not, why would he reply about IE3 support? Humour you say? Maybe. Why insist then? Lots of humour? No, Okeys had a bad day, another bad day, and then again a bad day. He presented a half apology after I was aggressive. So being aggressive worked.

WP is taken over by activist for quite a few years, SOPA only showed that to the world. And reminded it to me. I am sorry for the many years and hours I've spent here. Yes, WP still is useful, it is still by very very far the best organized source of information on the net. But with the increased aggressiveness, including silly replies from 'officials', the loss of neutrality, the ever increasing complexity (Templates! oh so many! is WP still a wiki? something anyone can edit? I doubt it), the loss of "critical mass" to keep up the pace, WP risks collapsing soon. If so, it will be a major loss. Unfortunately, there is nothing a "common" person like myself can do. WP is taken over by full-time users (some of them paid), many of them coders (way too many bots out there).

Just in case this reply does not make complete sense, it DOES make sense. Yes, I am quite angry, mostly with myself, for having lost so many hours with something that bread users like Okeys. - Nabla (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC) (PS: I mean, it makes sense that it does not make sense :-)

BTW - have you seen the apparently simple comment above, by Cullen? A user pushing another user out, that is not aggressiveness? oh, it is only aggressive if it involves swearing? right, right... - Nabla (talk)

Thanks for your reply.

In terms of what Oliver thought you were asking, I'd like to explain a bit more fully my own comprehensive answer approach. I have no idea what version IE is on or why it would be good or not good to support IE3 (I'm not in the least bit techy; I can barely program my television's remote control), but when people ask me questions, I try to answer as fully as I can. Unless I know the person, I can't really judge their level of familiarity. And even if I do know the person, I can't forget that everything we say is documented for all of time and can be taken out of context by others. I work with copyright issues a lot. Sometimes somebody will come by my talk page and ask me a question, to which I'll reply, and somebody else will enter the conversation, saying, "Do you mean to say...." These days, even if I know that the person who asked the question will know better, I'll usually try to guess ahead how other people might misunderstand me. It saves time and trouble down the road. (And in spite of my trying, somebody invariably misunderstands me anyway :)).

There are certainly a lot of ways that Wikipedia could improve. The way we treat each other is a big one. But the thing is that we are all responsible for this. We can't know if a different approach than "aggressive" would work in any situation without trying it. And whether or not aggressive works, aggressive is against our policies. :) It creates a bad environment for everyone - not just the two people who are involved, but the people who are around them who see the interaction. It contributes to an environment that breeds arrogance. :/ The approach recommended at WP:CIVIL helps contribute to an entirely different environment and may eventually encourage those who are creating the aggressive environment to behave differently themselves. (If not, it makes it a lot easier to figure out who they are, since nobody else is playing along.)

And I agree with you that we should remain neutral, politically, for many reasons. In terms of the templates and complexity of editing, I'm happy to say that these are being actively worked on. The developers are working to come up with a simpler editor interface (the page is a little outdated, but work is ongoing: mw:WYSIWYG editor). Wikipedia:Editor engagement experiments are also being conducted in finding ways to improve the editor experience. They reported recently on one of their preliminary experiments, checking to see how users respond to templated messages on their talk page. They've got several projects in the works, and people leave suggestions for other things they should look into at their talk page. They're a great - if small - team, and I'm sure they'd be open to other ideas, if you have them. There are also volunteer initiatives. User:Steven Zhang, who has been doing some great work with dispute resolution, applied for and received a fellowship from the Wikimedia Foundation to try to improve dispute resolution processes on Wikipedia (his preliminary ideas are here). User:Ocaasi, on his own initiative, reached out to an online paid search engine and archival service to arrange 1,000 free accounts for editors from any Wiki (see Wikipedia:HighBeam) and is trying to coordinate with an Internet-based plagiarism detection service to help monitor Wikipedia for copying (see Wikipedia:Turnitin). We've got problems, yes. But we've got great ideas and great people, too. :)

I don't know Cullen328, and I don't have a clue what your relationship is with him. If he intended it to push you out, I'm sorry. That's not the way we should treat each other. Personally, I'd rather you did change your mind. No shame in that. Human beings do it all the time. We need passionate people who care and will put in the work to sustain and improve the service we provide to the public. Because that's what we're here for.

I can't share too many details for "privacy policy" reasons, but the letter that I hold onto when I think about reader responses is one I read six or seven months ago from a kid in a country without easy access to print sources. This kid had a rare health condition that the other kids made fun of. She wrote that our article helped; she could point other people to it to help them understand...and that, even more importantly, it helped her understand and remember that she was not alone. I'll grant you that the vast bulk of our visitors are probably here to look up Pokemon or read about some actor. And nothing wrong with that. That's a kind of a valuable service, too. :) But letters like that one, those make me proud to help out. They make me think Wikipedia is worth working for. :)

Sorry for the long-winded response. It's my natural state, I'm afraid. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem with long replies, I do them myself.

Okeyes was not being comprehensive in his reply about IE3. Maybe you don't know much about it, but Okeyes, in his position, must know something. He certainly knows, give or take a couple of years of error, that IE3 was launched back in 1996, and superseeded by IE4 in 1997 (check our article). I have no data here, but I bet nearly no one uses it for more than 10 years. Okeyes was... making silly humour, to think the best. Or making fun of a well intentioned user. Make your pick. Anyway, he was not being careful in his reply, quite the opposite.

Yes, aggressiveness creates more aggressiveness and affects more than the directly involved parties. Quite unfortunately, and too many times for my liking, my experience (in WP and elsewhere) tells me that it is the better and quite often the only way. I repeat, I asked politely for Okeys to remove silly remarks about a 15 year old dead browser, and his reply was to insist on it. What would you recommend exactly? Ask again, so that he could continue to give the same reply? Report him at ANI or some whatever forum? To the ArbCom? What? 'Shouting' IS the usual WP process, 'violence' is the main working process in here.

A WYSIWYG is most likely a bad idea (for the reasons I said to Okeye months ago, the more complicated is the code, the more likely it will have bugs, or exclude some browsers). Yet I believe the major difficulties are "social" or "organizational", no technical; so Steven Zhang's work could be a good thing, I hope he focus more on the final outcome of dispute resolution, not as much on how fast it goes. Fast is good, sure, but it needs time to gather opinions and think about what happens (and we should not leave WP only for the full-time users that can respond within the hour, should we?). Of course there are good people and good ideas out there, I wish them (you) luck. It would be good that WP survived for a long time. But I am likely not to come back (well, if it was 100% sure I wouldn't bother replying :-) but is is 99% sure) Too many arrogant people out there, too many full-time users, too many 'activist' opinion pushers, too much campaigning for/against person X, too many noise about recent news, too little of AGF, too little of writing an encyclopaedia.

I have no idea who Cullen328 is. Looks like it happened that he was for the SOPA blackout, I was against, so pushing me out sounded good to him. I have no problem with that, really, it is a favour he as done to me, I went away and now waste my time elsewhere :-) But it is a problem to you, do you want those kind of guys to "rule" WP?

Thank you. - Nabla (talk) 01:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

PS, came here to check if there was a reply (and because this still popped up in my browsing history :-) Ironically enough: 1) There was a silly colorful box asking me if I found what I was looking for, and if I wanted to improve the page. The silly feedback tool, which has no bugs except possibly for IE3, pops-up in a talk page? Nice! :-) Irony number 2: Why War? Good question. Make articles, not war. - Nabla (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry; I thought your questions were rhetorical, and I try not to push for "the last word." :) I haven't seen the feedback tool pop up on a talk page, but I'll ask if it's a known issue. I think you and I will have to see the comprehensiveness of Oliver's answer differently. I can understand why you took it the way you did, but I also have my own experiences influencing my perspective, and I have been asked questions from long-term volunteers about aspects of my job that shock me. Even as a volunteer. I still see people saying that we can import content licensed under GFDL; this has not been true now for over three years, but some people still don't know this. This is why when somebody asks me a question about our licensing requirements, I am usually very specific, even if the person asking may know better. The guy reading over his shoulder might not. What I would recommend if somebody says something that seems rude to you is explaining that it seems rude and why and then, in accordance with Wikipedia:Civility, walk away or ask for intervention from another editor. This is what I have always done, to be the best of my ability. Certainly, I've had my fair share of run-ins with rude, aggressive people, and it's not that it doesn't make me angry or hurt my feelings. :/ But I've managed to do okay on Wikipedia without shouting or violence. I really think our only hope for avoiding the problems you see overwhelming Wikipedia are for more people to adapt that policy-recommended approach and less to enter the fray. Because, yes, we need to make articles, not war. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

No problem, in late reply, I'm not looking in here often, anyway. I happened to log in to try a minor fix (avoiding to do it while not logged in :-) and saw this. Fine.

I repeat, Okeyes, has not answered carefully about a remotely possible confusion with a change happening some 2 or 3 years ago. He answered carelessly, and mockingly, about a browser not in use for 10 or 15 years. Currently IE6 is waaaaay old, so he knew what he was doing when invoking IE3: he was making fun of my worries. Should he disagree, OK, fine, but making fun?! Coming from an official position?! Unacceptable!

As to asking other people's intervention, I note that all (few) other people interventions - your's included, regardless of how polite and friendly you were - ranged from outright attacking me (and being praised by Okeyes for that!) or - and that is you - 100% supporting Okeyes: but his reply was NOT comprehensive, as you claim, his reply was clearly intentionally derogatory. The ANI is mostly a bunch of blood thirsty idiots; I dislike Okeyes attitude, but it is far from deserving such cruel treatment has trying to get the vampires from ANI to hunt him down (and possibly bit me too is their biting frenzy) God forbid! :-)

There is not much of a hope for him to ever truly apologize, because he probably thinks he was "funny", while he really "made fun of". Not important. But it is a pity that seamingly reasonable people, as yourself, praise the arrogants as Okeyes. Look agian, look with more care, will you please?

(Feel free to reply, even if the chance that I do not see it is increasingly higher :-) - Nabla (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Nabla, I'm not sure where this idea that I'm never going to apologise comes from given that I directly apologised here. I'm not sure what more there is I can do; I would ask you to please move on from this, as I am trying to. There's no productive outcome to everyone continuing to hash over things. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, Oliver. Sorry for extending the conversation. I'll of course honor your request. As a final note, though, Nabla I'd like to say that you may have misunderstood me if you think I recommend ANI for a single civility issue...either that or I need to reread Wikipedia:Civility to make sure that it hasn't changed. :) It's not a venue I would go to first, by any means, unless there was an emergency. WP:WQA or other dispute resolution forums are far more likely to be productive in getting outside opinions. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Okeyes, first, your appologies in there sound fake. You know very damn well IE3 is completely outdated and that no one in his right mind would ask support for it. So your comments dis not "sound" as arrogant, your comments were arrogant, if not not arrogant, at the very least they were mocking me. I understand you will never truly apologize because I doubt you'll ever admit making fun of a user. Second, this thread was not started by me but by Moonriddengirl, I replied (her ?) and we then had a polite conversation, though we do not completely agree here and there, we presented our arguments, without mocking each other, without insulting each other, without false accusations. Maybe you should let go, no?

Moonriddengirl, I know you did not suggest ANI. ANI happened to be just one place I could think of. Other venues may be better, sure, but I've been in here trying to help and edit, not to learn the intricacies of WP's bureaucracy (yes WP IS, also, a bureaucracy, anything you do, someone jumps at you arguing with some "law", often hardly discussed, and never voted, by a couple of guys in some remote "forum" :-). Again, thank you for you patience, and for trying to get something out of this. I'd recommend you trying to get one thing done, next time it happens, instead of defending Okeyes' behaviour, reprimand him, just as you - rightfully - reprimanded mine. Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 01:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Why War?

I was going to write a stub for Why War (paper) & noticed that you'd started one at User:Nabla/Work1. Not sure how retired you are... can I cannibalize it? Best regards, Dsp13 (talk) 21:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Please do. - Nabla (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Common law

I noticed that your recent edit on common law was reverted, I believe inappropriately. I was reverted by the same editor, Boundlessly, and addressed the issue, but thought it would be more effective if you were to advocate on your own behalf, if it matters to you. ENeville (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As you may have noticed above, I am mostly retired, I keep editing mostly as a "normal" reader, i.e., if I stumble into something I think I can improve, I do it. I have zero interest in engaging in any kind of edit war (in whatever mild version of 'war'). Nevertheless I did remove the self-links once again, as a self-link to the previous line does not seem to have any kind of use. - Nabla (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Noted and noted. But sometimes you're just right. Illegitimi non carborundum. ENeville (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I do love fake-latin expressions! And noted too. - Nabla (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I've found a way to reduce creeping entropy. When you've been managing a page for five years, keeping the vandalism and cranks at bay, I'll weigh your opinion against my practical experience. If you can't offer an alternative solution, then please don't remove mine.

If you want to respond to the explanation I gave with a better way to prevent the breakage that used to occur regularly, I'm open to discussing it. But if all you have to offer is "I can't see it," with no counterproposal or counter to my experience, then to answer your question, no, I have no reason to discuss anything with a person whose only defense is self-admitted failure to observe. Boundlessly (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Please keep conversations in one place. Some (deleted!) sentences in your talk, then some here, ... And claiming that I am dumb is not any argument in your favor, even if I happen to actually be dumb!

I haven't read critically your work over the article, but I'll concede it is possibly a good one, yet, you do not own any article, regardless of how good your work on it.

Yet let's let it go and jump to the the interesting part: exactly how having a link to the previous line help in any way? - Nabla (talk) 00:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed confusing to have the conversation partially deleted from your Talk page, Boundlessly, and then continued here. I am concerned about an apparent attitude of superiority, manifesting as intolerance for others' contributions, and a denial of the validity of their viewpoints, as evidenced in deletion of discussion on your Talk page. I am concerned about behavior that becomes Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. ENeville (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Just curious

What was this about? You've never made any edits to Talk:Hell, and "close wp" cannot be a serious suggestion for a conflict that (as far as I can find) does not exist. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• I followed a link from a ongoing RfC on a dispute resolution reform. I thought it was a mock up / sample of something that "should be created". So I was just clicking and writting more or less at random (and, well... closing WP would end all of WP's problems, wouldn't it? :-) Thanks for cleaning it up, given it is not. - Nabla (talk) 23:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

a request

You initiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Cabana back in August 2008. There is no record that you left a heads-up on anyone′s talk page, advising them of this nomination.

Leaving a courtesy good-faith heads-up to those who start an article is not absolutely required -- it is now, and was in 2008, strongly recommended in the deletion policy. I am afraid I have found there are some wikipedia contributors who ′′′never′′′ inform contributors when they nominate articles they started for deletion.

Your page says you retired. But if your retirement is not complete -- and you think you might nominate an article for deletion in future, would you please consider informing the individual who started ′′that′′ article?

First, decisions on the wikipedia are supposed to be made through consensus -- following a civil, well informed discussion of the issues. I suggest that when nominators choose to disclude parties likely to disagree with them from the discussion -- like the individual who started the article in the first place, that discussion may be less well fully well informed. I suggest that the result of discussion is not a proper consensus, as it did not include all the appropriate parties.

I suggest that even if, for the sake of argument, the nominator is sure the article creator would agree with the deletion, if they participated in the discussion, it is still a mistake to fail to inform them. The decision not to inform them means they will not have an opportunity to learn from their mistakes, implying that they will continue to make the same mistake in future. This not only wastes their time, it wastes the time of other quality control volunteers, in future, who end up cleaning up after the good faith contributor′s future good faith mistakes. Geo Swan (talk) 23:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You are bothering me about a deletion from 2008? What?! That's insane!

And no, I do not warn any "article owners" as there are none. Never did, never will. If WP really wishes article owners to be warned a simple bot can do that, no need to force laborious human editing (isn't there something of that kind already?) - Nabla (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that advising the creator, uploader, is a task that could be automated. I have suggested this myself, a number of times. As of today it hasn′t been automated.

I question whether it is meaningful for you to characterize my request as ′bothering′ you -- since you acknowledge that you continue the same behavior of not complying with advice of the deletion policy today that you didn′t comply with 2008.

I don′t think you have acknowledged my explanation as to how failing to advise good faith contributors of good faith wastes both their time, but also wastes the time of other quality control volunteers who end up addressing the good faith mistakes the good faith contributor makes in the future, which the nominator could have prevented if only they had complied with the advice of the policy, and left the recommended heads-up.

I am going to assume you didn′t mean to be offensive when you called my request ′insane′. Geo Swan (talk) 03:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for the strong wording. It is simply an expression of surprise for having a subject closed 4 years ago to pop out of the blue.

I do acknowledge your explanation, and you are correct. I simply disagree with the need to *manually* warn editors, and given that policy does not force me to, then I do not do it. A simple technical solution could do it, should WP's community wish it, and there are already bazillions of bots doing similar tasks; so I do not think we should do it by hand. If you want to push for suggesting that any time, fine, let's do it. I am a so-an-so coder myself, I could even try to set up a bot to test something of that kind. Who should be warned? All registered users, with non-minor contributions, above X characters? Can you point any relevant discussion? {I will not do it tonight, that's for sure, but it is an interesting idea, which surely go into my list of ideas for someday soonish}

[and mostly a personal note: I do am less and less retired lately, maybe time to take out the template... :-) ]

Enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

With regard to previous discussions -- since those discussions are spread over 7 years, and I have made close to 70,000 edits, offering you diffs to those discussions wouldn't be that easy. Can I just summarize them? Other individuals have told me they won't follow the advice of the deletion policy, because it doesn't actually require leaving the heads-up. Some of these individuals angrily denounced me for claiming the policy required the heads-up -- but I have never claimed it was required. Several of these individuals were wikipedia administrators who act like being an administrator sets them above the obligation to be civil, collegial, and to extend the assumption of good faith.

As to contacting you in 2012, rather than 2008 -- why I didn't become aware of the deletion until 2012. So, the problem that the article creator doesn't become aware of the {{xfd}} in time to weigh in isn't the only problem.

Some people who don't want to leave the heads-up have said they should be able to assume the article creator noticing the addition of the deletion tag on their watchlist. There are several problems with this assumption:

1. Newbies don't know how to use watchlists.
2. You can miss the addition of an {{xfd}} if the nominator doesn't clearly indicate with their edit summary that they placed one, or if someone makes a subsequent edit, so the addition of the {{xfd}} is no longer the last edit.
3. Watchlists only work on a limited window. They don't go back more than 30 days. A heads-up on the talk page provides a permanent record to the article creator that an article they started has been deleted.
4. Some contributors are so prolific that a single watchlist is not sufficient. Around 2007 or 2008 my watchlist had grown to contain over 20,000 items. I found that reviewing a day's activity on my watchlist could consume the entire time I had set aside for working on the wikipedia, leaving no time for adding the new contribution I had planned. I'd like some future verstion of the wikipedia to allow users to manage multiple watchlists.
   1. I'd like a watchlist that only told us of edits to articles that we had recently edited.
   2. I'd like a watchlist that only told us of edits to articles when someone had nominated that article for deletion, merge or redirect.
   3. I'd like to be able to create topic-specific watchlists, as some topics I have worked on are less important to me than others, and I would monitor those watchlists less thoroughly and less frequently.

I considered whether I could create a 2nd wiki-id, just so I could have two watchlists. I decided that this wasn′t authorized by policy, and would have been difficult to manage. I know of at least one person who did create multiple wiki-ids so they could try to split what would be a really long watchlist.

Some years ago I was looking at a table I created, in article space, where each table entry had a blue-link to another article, and I saw three red-links. It was puzzling. I checked the article history to see whether someone had added new entries, without creating the corresponding articles the entries should have pointed to. But that wasn′t what happened.

Rather, I found that the three articles had been deleted. But there was no corresponding {{xfd}}. It was mystifying, as the explanations in the deletion log weren′t helpful. All three had been deleted by the same administrator. When I looked more closely that administrator had deleted all three at around the same time. I reviewed all their deletions that night, and found those three were not the only articles I started that they had deleted in one campaign.

Questions left on their talk page went unanswered. So I requested userification at deletion review. At first several participants there criticized me for the request, asserting that the deletion log entries showed these were valid deletions following the placement of [presumably] valid speedy deletion tags. But the articles were all userified. No one had placed any speedy tags. All the explanations in the deletion log were bogus. This administrator had suddenly decided to target my contributions, for reasons they never tried to explain.

So while all those articles were restored to article space, it pinpointed for me a real weakness in our deletion procedures. Good faith contributors are almost never informed when an administrator speedy deletes an article on their sole authority. The deletion log entries provide no clue as to whether two sets of eyes looked at the targets of speedy deletion, or whether a bold administrator had deleted the target on his or her sole authority. When one contributor adds a speedy tag to an article policy recommends they inform the article creator, thus providing a kind of audit trail. But policy is silent on whether bold administrators should inform contributors when they deleted an article on their sole authority.

I think this too could be easily fixed so that compliant administrators, who used a tool to aid them in performing speedy deletions, could count on the tool informing the contributor when an article they started was deleted.

As to who I think should get the heads-up. Almost always just informing the earliest contributor on the article history will find the article creator. About five percent of the time I start a new article I take a redirect and turn it into an article. I have seen people get the courtesy heads-up when all they did was create the initial redirect, and who created the redirect because they did not think the article topic was notable. An automated tool that aimed to always inform the first contributor would occasionally inform redirect creators. If it was capable of detecting when an initial entry was a redirect, it would have to keep checking, as due to double redirects, some articles will have multiple initial entries that are redirects.

FWIW there is a version of the Mike Cabana article at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Mike_Cabana I′d be interested if you thought Mike Cabana was a topic that didn′t rise to notability after you read it.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Administrators should not delete articles by their sole discretion, unless they are speedy deletes. A admin, just like any other editor, should flag articles for speedy deletion and wait for a second opinion, except for the most obvious cases (I might have deleted a few not-that-obvious ones - while I had my 'admin powers' on - but I surely flagged many many more than those). Overall, I still agree with you on the downfalls of WP's process on deletion.

One way to keep an eye on groups of articles may be creating a list in your user space (e.g. User:Nabla/Watch) and then watching the related changes (e.g. User:Nabla/Watch Related Changes)

As to Cabana's article, that version is better than the 2008 version. By WP's standards it has a chance to be kept. By my standard, it should not, I think WP's bar for biographies is extremely lower than it should be. I have not looked with that much attention, but I think there is not a single source *about* Cabana, he happens to be referenced in a few sources and the article weaves that into a article. I would say that is pretty close to WP's definition of original research. But there are thousand and thousand of such articles out there, so... - Nabla (talk) 21:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. Fine, by me. Seems a natural thing to do. Thanks for the heads up. - Nabla (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Executive orders

Good day. I will try to be clear on the edit in the Administrative divisions of Portugal article. Decrees, in the Portuguese context, are not only issued by the executive, and can be issued by the legislature and/or councils of Portuguese governing bodies. Therefore, it is incorrect to use a wikilink to "Executive order" as a method disambiguation. And, yes, I do agree, it is too U.S.-centric to use Executive order as a disambiguation link. Regardless, I am willing to leave this as it stands. Just clarification on my part. ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 11:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am (also) portuguese, and read the constitution a few times, though I am not any specialist and have no specific formation about it. I think "decretos-lei" are issued by the government/executive, the parliament/legislature issues "leis" (that is a simplification, there are more kinds of legislation going around). Is Executive order US centric? Most likely, it has a single line pointing that something of that kind exist in the rest of the world (but apparently is not that important :-). Is it the best target for decreto-lei, probably not. Probably there is a need to either have it expanded, or a new and more specific article - Decree-Law? - be created (probably the best option?). I do not know enough to have a strong opinion. Quite simply I used the link used as a interwiki at pt:Decreto-lei, if the folks at pt: use it, it probably is not that much completely bad. (I added the reverse interwiki - en:Executive order ← pt:Decreto-lei - but not the one in pt:). The thing that surprised me when you reversed that was asking for a source. I don't need a source for that. Not another pt:WP told me the concepts were similar. Sure WP is not a good source, and good-faith actions just as this one may propagate erros... I will remove the links, and turn on a red link for Decree-Law. Feel completely free to disagree and improve. - Nabla (talk) 23:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Decree-law exists... is a redirect to decree, maybe not perfect either, but well... might be better, yes. - Nabla (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't take much that is written in Portuguese Wikipedia as faith. There is a tendency to write first-person articles in this environment, as with your example, without supporting second- or third-person sources (I refer you to Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources). While I do not, at all, disagree with your comments (and support them) regarding the validity of the subject, it makes it more difficult for someone to revert them. Hence my original revert. My greater concern was whether there was a direct one-to-one relationship between Decreto-lei and Executive order. I agree, though, the use of Decree might be a better substitute. Regardless, this is not a nitpick situation: I find your arguements regarding interpretation completely valid, I just felt there was a need support the connection. Appreciate your cander and good faith commentaries, and hope to half future meaningful dialogue. ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Don't take me wrong, but I'd ask you to avoid starting to "teach", assuming others do not know something (you started out teaching me basic portuguese constitutional law, now you are teaching me the basics about sources) I am here since 2004 (and that is the first line on mu user page), how likely is it that I do not know such a long standing guideline? If I were a new user, fine, but I am not... Really, please don't take me wrong, and if I am "teaching" you something obvious say so :-) For years I helped around mostly as a wikignome-admin, lately my target as changed to edit less overall, but edit a little more about Portugal, so I guess our paths will cross again and we may even end up helping each other, who knows? I hope so. - Nabla (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Touché. How stupid of me. I read your status, but didn't even think to realize the obvious. Did not take offense, and I hope you too were not offended by my "sermonizing". ^{ruben jc} ZEORYMER (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No offense at all, and no big deal, as the overall tone was quite pleasent. I do hope our paths will cross out there. - Nabla (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Resysopping

As you have made comments regarding the interaction between WP:RFA and the proposed resysopping practices, you are specifically invited to comment on the newly proposed Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices#Option 18. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Moroccan American League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moroccan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back! :)

Just saw this edit. Welcome back! Remember not to take things too seriously and avoid WP:Wikistress.

Neo139 (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to remember where I read your username, so thanks for the link :-) Don't take me too seriously either, I AM a purring kitten. Most of the times...

Yep, I got caught up in some Wikistress back in mid 2011, early 2012. I think me and WP deserve a second (or third, whatever) chance. Back on Christmas I was talking to one of my nephews, about WP being some mess in the backstage, often confusing, a battleground; but he recalled me that from a reader (his) point of view WP is nevertheless awesome. And it IS. Both. Messy and awesome.

Thank you. Editors acting as human beings is a fine thing to find out. - Nabla (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Tv.com

please restore this template. it is no different from Template:IMDb, and serves a useful purpose (see Template:Tv.com/doc). thank you. Frietjes (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

There is one significant difference. There was a TfD about {{tv.com}} resulting in «delete [...] after replacement». I happened to notice it on CSD, it was unused on article space, so I deleted it. And then there was a TfD about {{IMDb}} - started 13 minutes after the closing of the former discussion! - eventually closed as keep. I wasn't aware of the IMDb discussion, but that is a huge difference and it reinforces my perception that the deletion of tv.com is OK. Note that I was aware of the TfD on the Tv.com templates and the discussion about tv.com external links, both assuming the deletion of {{tv.com}} as a given fact, when I deleted it.

Anyway, I think I understand your point, that both templates have the same purpose, and it breaks the symmetry not having {{tv.com}} while having the related {{tv.com show}} and so on. So if, after these discussions settle down, the tv.com related templates are kept, then it may be worth considering undeletion.

For now, please don't take me wrong, I'll clean up my deletion, by also deleting the documentation page, which I unfortunately missed then. I'll also keep an eye on the related discussions, and consider undeletion when and if appropriate. If you, then or now, ask for it on DRV, I have no problem with it, just please leave me a note here. Thanks, enjoy. - Nabla (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

so I should take this to DRV or just have Plastikspork restore it instead? Frietjes (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I would start asking for Plastikspork's input. Another opinion can't hurt. I think that to undelete it is better to take it to DRV; I also think it is best to have only one discussion at a time, so I'd wait, but I will not oppose if you ask it sooner. - Nabla (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I asked him to take a look here, but I note he has not edited for 8 days now, so it may take some time (note: I do not think you have any obligation to wait - simply warn us if you get it to DRV, please - also, I'll be out for the weekend) - Nabla (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I can just recreate the template myself, and it should not be deleted per WP:G6 ({{db-xfd}}) since the template would be different from the one that was discussed in the deletion debate. I could then ask for a history merge, but how stupid would that be when I could just ask for the part after the TfD be restored and save the trouble of rewriting it. The problem is that you speedily deleted a template which was substantially different from the one that was discussed in the TfD. I agree that a DRV would be stupid, since it is clear that what was deleted was not the same template. Frietjes (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I have not speedy deleted it. I noticed it on the speedy deletion category, yes, but I deleted after checking the TfD with a decision to delete, and also that there was no noticeable argument against the deletion in the other two discussions (the TfD on the specific templates, and the external links discussion). You participated in the discussion so you knew about it. Yet you edited, and changed, it, after the discussion, I notice it now that you mention it. I'd say the problem is that you edited a (about to be) deleted template and expected it to be magically kept.

I don't think it is the best option for us (WP) to have a TfD discussion with a clear consensus to delete get automatically overturned because one editor changed the template afterwards. Neither it is up to me to overturn it. But I think that is exactly what DRV is for (namely, undelete based on a better version). - Nabla (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I restored the new version of the template, since it is substantially different from the one that was discussed at WP:TFD. If someone wants to delete the new one, they can certainly nominate it at TfD. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Acknowledged - Nabla (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Virgil Carl Gray

Thanks for tagging this article for notability back in 2008. It's still tagged; you may want to take it to the Notability noticeboard or AfD to get it resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• That is currently number 421 in my to-do list (really, no joke! :-). Anyway, if you want it deleted you may, and should, nominate it yourself. - Nabla (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nabla. You have new messages at Talk:2013 Shahbag protests.
Message added 18:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Freemesm (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Melo Sabacan

Thank you for rescuing the article! I changed your refimprove tag back to {{BLP sources}} because it's a biography. —rybec 06:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Thanks. - Nabla (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Nabla; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Declined technical move

Hi Nabla, I see you declined my request to have ADD (disambiguation) deleted so ADD can be moved there because attention deficit disorder "is currently lost somewhere low on the list of articles at ADD (disambiguation)." I wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding. There's no reason to think the order of items listed at the dab is any reflection of importance. The disorder is an overwhelming WP:PRIMARYTOPIC based on page views compared to other articles with ADD titles—it received 103,862 views last month, compared to 876 for Arab Digital Distribution and 131 for ADD model. I can always just place an RM, but the week of listing time that would entail seems like a waste. I don't think there's a need to run it through the entire process. What do you think? --BDD (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that now that you have provided some evidence, the deletion looks like uncontroversial, so I will delete. As a side note: Using the snowball clause is quite detrimental when talking with me, first, because I believe due process is important (important, not mandatory, for sure) to minimize errors, misunderstandings and abuses of authority; second, because the snowball is mostly called into discussions to shut off the possibility of opposition (but that is mostly at AfD and the likes). - Nabla (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I do agree with your concerns about SNOW (/WP:STEAM). I've been known to cite Wikipedia:Process is important myself. It's all about balance. --BDD (talk) 19:10, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Yep. And I think we got some here. And the page looks much better now, thank you. - Nabla (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions

A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

(1)Under the condition that I do NOT have editors asking that here (2) never before one year after the last time you (or any involved editor) asks in here (so, currently set to 7 April 2014; tic, tac,...) - this is not a random date, it means long enough so that users are no longer involved in (ab)using WP for self purposes - Nabla (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. Prioryman (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Draft topic ban Jax

I would like to see you comments and additions to User:The Banner/Workpage28, the draft for a topic ban proposal regarding Jax 0677. Hope to hear soon. The Banner talk 12:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: topic ban for Jax 0677 regarding templates

FYI: the proposal is filed here The Banner talk 15:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The Banner, I see no proposal here... nor anywhere close by Oh! It is not here it is at the Administrators' noticeboard... I'll take a look - Nabla (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nabla. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).
Message added 11:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheOneSean ^{[ U | T | C ]} 11:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Talk:Animal rights/new

I see that you deleted it as a G6, and I wonder if you might reconsider. (Parenthetical note: I'm not the author of the page, although I am an admirer of the joke.) Strictly speaking, it really isn't a proper G6. If, for example, you look here, it's been a topic of discussion in a positive way, and I believe that it serves a (very small) useful purpose in some discussions in animal rights-related content areas. The fact that it's an old joke doesn't really make for an adequate reason for deletion, that I can see, at least not for speedy deletion without discussion. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I found it at the Speedy Deletion category, tagged as an hoax (G3). It did not look like an hoax, it much rather sounded like a joke. Looking around I only found one old short reference to it (by you if my memory serves me well) at the animal rights talk page. Silly me, I forgot to hit the "what links here" link... so I missed the one you refer to. All in all, I felt no one would miss it, thus the G6 (uncontroversial maintenance) reason. As soon as someone clearly misses the page it definitely is not a G6, so I'll undelete promptly.

Allow me a side note: writing a meaningful link text - as in "If, for example, you look at Talk:Overview of discretionary invasive procedures on animals" versus "If, for example, you look here" - is just about as fast to write, with good use of copy/paste, and so much clearer to read; and true BTW, instead of false, because the discussion is not "here", it is over there, in another page :-) - Nabla (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! That makes very good sense, and I appreciate it very much. And your pointer about piping links is good advice, so thanks for that too. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you too, for your patience, I know I am in a huge minority against the (ab)use of "here" - Nabla (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary football navboxes

Can you help me discuss all football discussions in two articles: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 12, Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 July 13? Banhtrung1 (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Articles deletion

Dear Nabla,

I apologize for the inconvenience, but have no other way than appealing for administrators’ help recover a deleted article.

I published a film article entitled Drits (Derivas), a film by Portuguese director Ricardo Costa. It is the second film from an autobiographic trilogy, Faraways. The article was kept untouched by several months. To my surprise, it was recently eliminated and redirected to the director’s page with no discussion. I undid the redirection, but saw the article was proposed to deletion. Reason: independent, verifiable, secondary resources. I argued that the article couldn’t have but primary sources (the producer’s ones) as it is an upcoming film, like many others listed at upcoming films. A film that has not yet been premiered or distributed may not be commented. Besides, none of the films so listed has ever been deleted or even contested.

At last, in discussion, user User:reddogsix proposed that the article should be renamed to Drifts (film) or similar, and at the same time put at the disambiguation page of Dritf this reference «Drifs, unreleased film by Ricardo Costa (filmmaker). I created a new page for the same article entitled Drifts (Portuguese film). As the semantic root “drift” seemed to be the problem, I replaced the article name to Derivas (Drifts) and published it once more with some improvements. As a result, the article was fast deleted and I blocked for three days.

In the meantime, a new article about the trilogy was published: Faraways, which was proposed to fast deletion as well by the same user, User:reddogsix.

Although unreleased, although having no reliable secondary sources, Drifts is unquestionably an outstanding film for its uniqueness and characteristics: autobiography, comedy, docufiction, metafiction in one. I guess that “outstanding” may be a synonym for “notable” in such cases and that articles like this shouldn’t be deleted without previous cared analyses: important information may be lost.

This sequence of interventions is clearly a personal attack by User:reddogsix, supported by two or three user friend. It has no other explanation. It contributes in nothing to improve articles quality. Mists article, which I created on 10 September 2010, is the latest example. The article structure was unreasonably modified, loosing clarity and useful content.

NOTE: sent to 30 administrators.

Thanks for your attention, User:Tertulius 22:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

@Tertulius: I am unsure what I like less: if users which spend too many time wasting other users time (as in extensive AfD discussions, and polling 30 admins) or the absurd way policy is enforced i WP (with one admin able to be jury, judge and executioner)...

I am not diving in that river. If you have complaints about improper deletion please refer to wp:Deletion review; if you have problem with some admins/users you should look at wp:Dispute resolution#Resolving user conduct disputes (and good luck with that... it works, mostly, but it may get messy)

In a quick glance over the discussion, I'd say the article is NOT notable, the main point is not if it is unreleased or not, the point is if it is referenced in the media, and apparentelly it is not, while many other unreleased movies are referenced. - Nabla (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Cosmo

To be it looked an obvious nn/spam, but I admit I didn't notice your decline, restored now, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC) @Jimfbleak: Thank you. And you may as well (also) be right. - Nabla (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Your Third Opinion request

Hi, I'm a regular volunteer at the Third Opinion project. Your request for a Third Opinion has been removed because it failed to satisfy the following requirement of that project: "Before making a request here, be sure that the issue has been thoroughly discussed on the article talk page. 3O is only for assistance in resolving disagreements that have come to a standstill." All forms of content dispute resolution require talk page discussion before requesting assistance. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: The other user replied, yet only using edit summaries: "Rv per previous years" and then, after I have posted on the talk page, "no problems until now; take it the Project talkpage", which I also did. So I think it had as much discussion as it was possible, and I hope you give an (third) opinion then, or reopen my request. - Nabla (talk) 23:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please see my essay and help page on this subject for explanation (in footnote 2) about why Wikipedia dispute resolution requires this and one way of possibly addressing it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Interesting, I'll re-read with more care later, maybe comment on something. - Nabla (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Nabla. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited RTP2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ident (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Euxinia

Please give some input, thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Canfield_ocean Prokaryotes (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Marina Abramovi\xC4\x87 listed at RfD

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_9#.5Cx22Weird_Al.5Cx22_Yankovic. —rybec 22:20, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Your possible review schedule

Hello User:Nable; My interest is in initiating or starting a review for a GA or FA medical article on Wikipedia. Any possible interest in participating in this field? BillMoyers (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No, thanks. I have no medical knowledge, I am not interested in getting involved in GA/FA discussions, nor to get too involved in WP in any way for the time being. Yet, again, thanks, good luck, enjoy! - Nabla (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Your user page suggests that you may already have seen this recent essay on systemic bias and policy creep at Wikipedia from M.I.T.? http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/ BillMoyers (talk) 23:46, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

BillMoyers No I did not. the first 'screenfull' of text looks promissing, will read on later. Tks. - Nabla (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Disputed - Sousa Mendes

Hey Nabla – November 16, you’ve tagged the “Sousa Mendes” article as disputed. The dispute was if Portugal kept (or did not kept) on paying to Sousa Mendes a monthly allowance until the day he died. Since then I’ve added to the article several secondary and primary sources that prove that Sousa Mendes kept on receiving a generous monthly salary for the rest of his life. The other editor (Redmoon660 (note that Redmoon660 is a name change from "Aristides Sousa Mendes Foundation), probably because of the discredit that fall upon him, stopped editing on that same day and I suspect he resurrected as editor “Coimbralove” also on the same day. The Sousa Mendes article is now one of the Wikipedia articles with more references. I wonder if it makes sense to keep on having the article as “disputed”. Pls feel free to delete this after you've read it. JPratas (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

@JPratas: I think issues about an article are best kept in the article talk page, so that all editors may see it easily. So I'll copy your question there, and I'll reply there. BTW, note that deleting messages is not the usual way around here. - Nabla (talk) 16:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Pursuant to your feedback I’ve considerably shortened the article and tried to eliminate what could seem the attempt to denigrate Sousa Mendes figure (without however avoiding the facts). Most of the text in the article, added by me, is sourced from two Sousa Mendes biographers and admirers ’ (French journalist Jose-Alain Fralon and Rui Afonso)and for context I’ve used mostly the Yad Vashem historian Avraham Milgram. I understand that when you put the facts in context and in chronological order, one realizes that the story is not as rosy as the often simplified versions that one can read on newspapers. But those are the facts. Anyway I would be very thankful if you could give it another revision and provide additional feedback. JPratas (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 15 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the List of brothels in Nevada page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

Match fixing in association football

To answer your question - yes, we should cite them all if their relation to the topic has been covered in reliable sources (such as Gennaro Gattuso - the section needs expanding, not deleting). GiantSnowman 09:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• @GiantSnowman: That is absurd. There are likely millions of "<person> was investigated <of this supicion>" reported on the press. It is not interesting and it is an impossible goal. - Nabla (talk) 10:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• It's not absurd at all - this player was investigated for match fixing, as covered in RS, and so it is only appropriate that that is covered in the relevant article. There is not an unlimited number of footballers who have been investigated you know, as the article demonstrates. GiantSnowman 11:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• "The article demonstrates"? Please... Search for "Match fixing football", and possibly a few variants, in several languages, go beyond the first couple of pages, and you will get many many investigations. Domenico Criscito and 13 otheres, people from Racing Santander and Hercules, 22 players from El Salvador, Gattuso Just One of hundreds Investigated, Antonio Conte investigated, Stefano Mauri, Omar Milanetto, and 5 more in Hungary, and 19 more on Italy arrested. And that is a sample of two pages of results from google (5th and 6th for my search - some half of the results related to some other sports) - Nabla (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

• Perfect scope for expansion, then? Are the 22 players from El Salvador notable? No, probably not - whereas Gattuso is one of the most famous (ex-)players around. GiantSnowman 08:41, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Based on your comments here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Avoiding_harm, I am interested in having your feedback/criticism dialogue here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Guideline_for_crime_victims_of_world_wide_significanceMeropeRiddle (talk) 10:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thunderbird (missile)

When you cleaned up the page move - getting rid of colon - it left the article talk page no longer lined up, so the article shows as 'unassessed'. Could you sort this, please. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

@GraemeLeggett: fixed. Thanks for the warning. I was sure the talk page would follow the (main) page move, so I did not check that. Apparently it did not (maybe it does not when moving over a redirect...? gotta check it out). Again, thanks, and I hope it is ok now. Nabla (talk) 01:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

neutral RfC notification

Template_talk:Succession_box#RfC has a discussion on succession box usage. You had previously noted or opined at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 April 6#Template:NYRepresentatives thanks. Kraxler (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Wilayat

I call your attention to the discussion at WP:ANI#What_should_be_done_for_pro-ISIL_Wilayat_type_articles , permalink [1] where the general feeling seems to be that they are justified. I hope someone will re-create them. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

DGG, why would you call my attention to a discussion I am not referenced in and, most of all, you are not a part of? I looked at it and I do not see any "general feeling [...] that they are justified". I see 3 editors argueing that they are generaly unjustified, and one editor arguing that they should be treated as just any other article here: if there are decent sources, they should stay. I agree with him. So, I don't care if someone recreates them or not. - Nabla (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Because it was the polite way of saying that I think your close of the related articles was altogether misconceived, in that that you failed to recognize that the deletions was motivated by political prejudice. Read the first line of the deletion request again. A political prejudice that I share, to be sure, but none the less not a basis for decision. We have always accepted first order divisions of a national level political entity, no matter how little is published about it. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That makes more sense. Please, when you want to say something, say it, do not say something else. If you say it politely, as you did, I do not mind that you disagree with me - it is bound to happen sometimes, right? I disagree that my deletion was motivated by political prejudice. My motivation to delete was the way the discussion was going on, and the article's (absence of) content. Not liking the ISIL may have made the decision easier, but it is not the reason why. The deleted articles had not any relevant content that I noticed, so any sourced article that eventually show up will be different from these and not speedy deletable. Also the IS is (according to our article) not recognized as a national political entity by any country or organization but itself. I declined a few speedy deletions, the day before, because I think it would be better to discuss the lot, instead of going one by one, at each admin's discretion - that's how I noticed the discussion. Yet several of those articles were being speedy deleted, so, while I do not like 'snow' closes, I thought this was one of the exceptional cases to justify one. - Nabla (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I certainly did not mean in the least that your deletion was motivated by political prejudice, rather, that the nominator's nomination was so motivated, and you either failed to detect it, or decided to ignore that. Myself, I do not ignore that in a close--I discard all comments based upon such a perspective, and have a very few times closed an afd when inappropriate motivations predominate and suggested a renomination (which to the extent I recall, usually does result in a renomination and a better discussion) . I'm not planning to follow up on this whole topic unless someone else raises it; I try to avoid entanglement in this sort of political topic area.

But in general if I think someone has made a mistake I just ask them to revisit the area, & hope they perceive the problem. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning, but I do not think I made a mistake. Or not that one. Again, I have deleted for the lack of content and lack of sources, not for liking or disliking ISIL. I did made the mistake of not making that clear on the closing. Note that I have not deleted Wilayat_al-Raqqa_(ISIL) which is mentioned in the same discussion. Not because it would be too soon (too snowy :-) but because that one had something of an article start at least worth the shot of proceeding with a 'full' the discussion. With one thing I agree, I do not intend to get much into this (or any) polemic. I come here once in a while, fix a few things, help up with my mop, enjoy the occasional conversation (I do) but that's it. I takes too much damn precious time away :-) - Nabla (talk) 01:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Chromium version template deletion

Hi,

Seen you deleted this. From your edit summary unused, but it has been used here Chromium (web browser). Just want to know why or am missing out something. Kind Regards. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 10:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Hello, Enock4seth. Actually I declined to delete at first and deleted only after it being expolained to myself, so I am sorry, I clearly should have written a deletion summary (other than the automatic one... automatic is fine, but it makes one lazy on occasions...)

The template was used, as you point, in the article Chromium (web browser); yet it was inserted automatically by {{Infobox web browser}}, which picks the stable version number from that template, if one exists (see point 3 of the template's documentation). Apparently Chromium does not have a stable version, so a user requested to delete the template, in order for information about a stable version number to disappear from the article (actually the template read "n.a.", not a actual version number).

It feels suboptimal that such editing decisions needing a deletion. If you feel that the template is useful, please raise the question, preferably at the article's talk page (just to avoid going through a delete-undelete-delete process). Please tell me so if you do. I'll evidently undelete if needed as soon as it is not a obvious "speedy" - Nabla (talk) 01:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nabla thanks for your reply and clarifications, no worries. Since Chromium doesn't have a stable version, the state of the infobox now is ok. No need for delete-undelete-delete process . Best. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 21:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)