User talk:Sjakkalle

Welcome to my talkpage!

Ordinarily, any comments placed here will stay, and only simple vandalism will be reverted. If you wish to make a personal attack against me it will stay for everyone to see. Someone else will judge whether an attack says more about you or about me however.

Note that I am quite inconsistent with where I make responses.

If it is a response I think several people might be interested in reading, I might respond here. Otherwise, I will probably respond on your talkpage.
I do not respond to every message (most notably RFA thank you notices), although I normally reply to requests and questions. Sometimes I am unable or do not have the time to do so (or I see that the problem has already been fixed). If I don't respond to your posting, please forgive me.

Archives of previous talkpages

Closure comment

You made the comment closing the discussion that CSD#A3 endorsed speedy deletion. Speedy deletion of any redirect was prohibited from using A3 until the end of the discussion, all !votes prior to the change of the !rule should not have been taken into consideration and deletion based on consensus not speedy deletion should have been the correct closure.Camelbinky (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm on break now but since an administrator is obliged to respond to queries on admin actions I'll reply.)

(The discussion concerns the DRV of Ginifer King, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 July 22)

The WP:CSD rules do not function the same way as judicial laws. They are interpreted by the community. That means that the spirit of the rule (that is, the intended effect of the rule) supersedes the literal wording of the rule, and that is a view shared by most of the community. One of the intentions of CSD A3 was to prohibit pages consisting solely of a link to an external page. However, it was also accepted by the community that we in some cases should have a sort of link to a sister project, usually Wiktionary, for subjects that have an article there but not on Wikipedia. Therefore the "soft redirect" exception was carved out. The spirit of the exception in A3 was to allow for such cross-wiki links; it was never intended as a loophole to allow pages of external links covered up by the soft redirect template. The fact that the literal wording allowed it was in all likelihood an oversight.

Closing the DRVs are based on consensus. It is well within the rights of the community to decide that the spirit of A3 supersedes the literal wording of A3. It was the community that made rule A3, and so it is the community's right to interpret how A3 should be enforced. Had DRV been a court of criminal law, where I was a judicial judge presiding, and the redirect in question were a defendant on trial, I would have agreed with you. It wouldn't have been proper to convict someone unless they had violated the literal wording of the law beyond a reasonable doubt. But DRV is not a court of law, and my role there is more a steward of consensus rather than a judicial judge. The consensus was overwhelmingly that the page ran afoul of the scope that A3 was intended to cover, and my close was in accordance with that.

While I have butted heads with a few admins in the past weeks, I think you will be very hard pressed to find an admin who would have closed that discussion differently. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Still lurking around...

Hi Sjakkalle, sorry for the late reply...as you can see, I'm still lurking around, but I'm mainly reading articles these days and trying to ignore all the rest. I may return to editing some day, but don't count the days :P anyway, just wanted to drop by and say thanks for your very nice post. I'm positively surprised you even remembered me :) Oh, and one thing I never said: I still remember you having the balls to block Tony Sidaway all those years ago. That was the moment I realized that I may have done lots of things on Wikipedia, some of which may have been useful, most of which may have been useless and forgotten, but the one really good thing I did on here was nominating you for adminship :) All the best, Ferkelparade π 23:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You messaged me right in my break, so apologies for not answering sooner. Yes, I remember that incident from several years ago that happened during the disputes over how far IAR stretched and prior to any formal rules on wheel-warring. Anyway, good to know that your eyes are still on the project. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Sjakkalle. 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) 21:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding JetBrains deletion

Hi Sjakkalle, I've drafted a new article which hopefully meets all guidelines and overcomes the objections raised previously. Please let me know what you think: User:Eugenia_d/sandbox --Eugenia d (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a look at the article. I can see that you have put a sincere effort into the draft, but there are a couple of concerns that are nagging me a little.

The article is very focused on the products and business model. That is, very focused on material that you would expect the company to write about itself. Don't get me wrong here, it is very important that encyclopedia articles on a company cover this aspect, and I do not think that the tone in the article is overly promotional. But ideally, a Wikipedia article should offer something more than what one expect to see on a company website.
I looked through the sources, and found that many of them, and got the impression that some of the text was press release material, or product notifications. Texts like this just don't look particularily independent.

My estimate is that the article in its current state would have an approximately 50% chance of receiving approval by the community at DRV. The positives are that there is a long list of sources, so WP:GNG might be met, but the concerns that I have make me unsure. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. I've drafted a paragraph about the company's abandoned projects. This does not look like something a company would boast about, but may be insightful for other entrepreneurs.

Please let me know if this meets your expectations. If not, could you offer an example of more suitable content or direct me to the relevant guidelines please?

2. All the articles listed as sources are actually independent, which does not contradict the fact they may use company's news for their sources of information. Unfortunately I managed to prove some facts only by articles which don't have much editorial input. Nevertheless, there are no press releases among them.

I've replaced the link you mentioned with another one, but it's in German. Does this work better? Eugenia d (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly an improvement. I understand your point about the sources being independent, but a source that is based on information from the company information is an issue that members of the community might consider a deficiency. I used a translation program to look at the German source and I think I got the gist of it, and it too seems to be centered around a company announcement. But as I said, your effort has improved the draft and its chances.

My predictions of what the community thinks are not always correct, and the only way really to know whether consensus will be with restoration of the article is to request it at WP:DRV where you can point out the draft and the reasons you think that the sources are sufficient to pass WP:N. If it does not succeed, then it is an evaluation of the subject, not of your effort which certainly has been good. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:39, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article has been rewritten from scratchCSD#G4, can I simply recreate and deal with WP:DRV if the issue is raised? Or should I submit the draft for WP:DRV myself? Eugenia d (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good question! I have compared the deleted version (which is available in a userfied version at User:Be nt all/JetBrains) with your version, and I do not consider them substantially identical. I therefore think you can recreate the article without running afoul of CSD G4, if the issue is brought up, it will be at WP:AFD rather than WP:DRV. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the Parliament of Norway, 2013–2017

Hello, Sjakkalle, and thank you for your contributions!

Some text in an article that you worked on List of members of the Parliament of Norway, 2013–2017, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, List of members of the Parliament of Norway, 2009–2013. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on List of members of the Parliament of Norway, 2013–2017 at any time. MadmanBot (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Centre Party (Norway), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Socially liberal (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) 11:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White and black

are not proper nouns in standard usage. In the chess world this may be different, but that is not relevant. In many companies' literature, terms like "director" and "treasurer" are capitalized, but not in Wikipedia. This appears to be no different. Primergrey (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Standard usage" as WP:MOSCAPS calls for cannot mean anything else than what you will find in the sources discussing the topic. Considering that Wikipedia policy is to not use anything not supported by sources, what the sources universally say must be relevant. A few of the de-capitalizations were correct, and Cobblet has reinstated those. However, I have to agree with Bubba73 that an edit where the majority of de-capitalizations were incorrect, such as "Queen's Gambit Accepted" to "queen's gambit accepted" (the former is the name of a chess opening, the second says that a gambit belonging to the queen accepted something), will usually end up with the whole edit being reverted so that the correct ones can be inserted afterwards. Regarding White/white and Black/black, they are capitalised when they are used to refer to the player thus functioning as a proper noun substitution, but not if they are used as an adjective, therefore "In chess, White moves first", but "In chess, the player of the white pieces moves first". Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Harder

Hello Sjakkalle, will you reconsider the deletion of the Chuck Harder page? He was a notable talk show host. I remember listening to him on short wave (WWCR) here in Massachusetts, even though he was based in Florida, so that should be an indication that he was notable. Also, see this link for a few samples of his show: http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=%22chuck+harder%22+for+the+people — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitzi777 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I looked over the AFD discussion and I see that I deleted the article due to inadequate sourcing, and for a biography of a living person that is a complete dealbreaker. I believe that I would be violating policy if I reversed my decision on the AFD, and I will therefore not do so. Now, there were comments that indicated that Mr. Harder could indeed be notable, and it would be legitimate, and not run afoul of speedy deletion criterion G4 on recreations, if someone wants to recreate a properly sourced article about him. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

You seem not to be aware of the fact that the arbitrators were requested to clarify what you are so sure to know, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to clarify. The banning policy says (with my emphases)

"Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban. An editor who is site-banned is forbidden from making any edit, anywhere on Wikipedia, via any account or as an unregistered user, under any and all circumstances. The only exception is that editors with talk page access may appeal in accordance with the provisions below."

Assuming that the page was written in the English language, there is no interpretation of that rule that allows KF to edit his user talk page for any other purpose than to appeal. The request could and should have gone directly to the "Requests for enforcement" section of the arbitration page. If ArbCom believes that I am mistaken, I believe they will tell me so. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read the passage that you quote several times now. English is not my first language, but why the project would reject members adding constructive contributions is beyond my understanding in any language, - see the top of my talk, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation for why banned editors are prevented from making any edits whatsoever is described in WP:BMB ("banned means banned"). You are free to disagree with that policy, but there is strong consensus for it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sjakkalle has clearly over-stepped his authority Gerda, given the ongoing ArbCom case, but being an administrator he is invulnerable, so best to move on before he tries to silence you as well. Eric Corbett 21:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your allegation that I clearly overstepped my authority. Can you explain how? For the record, I have no desire or intention of "silencing" Gerda, nor do I think that I am invulnerable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For making a correct but unpopular decision. Even some Arbcom members equivocated on this, to the point that the archived discussion [1] was another laughable and inconclusive debacle. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I am not sure the ArbCom comments really waffled all that much. Three of the five commenting arbitrators (David Fuchs, Risker, and Carcharoth) said quite clearly that KW's use of the talkpage was in violation of the ban, and Risker and Carcharoth explicitly endorsed removing the talk page access. I had more trouble in agreeing with SilkTork's and Salvio's comments, because they expressed more ambiguity in the banning policy than there actually is. The table at WP:BLOCKBANDIFF says that for site-banned users, access to the user talkpage is "usually not allowed", and in any case they are no longer members of the community. But even so, neither SilkTork nor Salvio said any thing that was directly at odds with the banning policy. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:56, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A pie for you!

Thank you for voting to unblock me. I agree with your method of warning prior to enforcement. It gives a better position to demonstrate whether the editor in good faith made a mistake, or if the editor simply wants to purposely break the ban. MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MaxBrowne

I don't trust or like ANI so have avoided posting there if I can. I feel you made a mistake ala User:MaxBrowne, he vandalized a chess-related article, he sent "anal" at Toccata unprovoked, reverted Toccata's posts w/o basis against guideline, and there's not so much of a warning issued to Browne. Now I think this has emboldened him. (After the ANI he wrote an unnecessary "flush" editsum clearly to continue to insult Toccata, he's posted to my Talk after being disinvited to post further there, and even continued the taunting via an invisible "Thank you" notification on my revert of his last post to my Talk.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to be charitable, "anal" does not necessarily refer to the end of the digestive system. This page defines an "anal personality" as "a personality characterized by meticulous neatness and suspicion and reserve". I would avoid using that word nonetheless, because it can be interpreted differently, but it is generally wise to be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you do.

My support for Admiral Caius at the ANI thread was not to indicate that edits such as [2] are acceptable. Indeed, that is why I agreed with the WP:TROUT (which more or less is a colloquial "stop it").

MaxBrowne of course needs to understand that edits like what he made on Gordon Crowne are considered to violate WP:POINT, some might even call such an edit vandalism. Wikipedians in general have a very low tolerance for that kind of edit, and that defacement of articles usually leads to blocks in short order when it is repeated. But it is rare that we block or ban people with a long track record of positive contributions over one such incident. (Repeated incidents however is a far more serious matter.)

On the issue of civility and personal attacks, I know that my view is often viewed as a "kindergarten" variety, but I place a high value in not referring to people by any slurs or making references to sexual or excretory anatomy. Once a discussion degenerates to that point, recovery is very difficult if at all possible. I am not ignorant to the fact that some editors are skilled at being infuriating while still using superficially polite words, but none of that excuses cursing and swearing at people either.

In general, if you are pursuing sanctions against someone, edits such as this make it more difficult to achieve what you want, because an admin looking at the situation will see two people cursing at each other, and find the issue far too thorny to issue sanctions on one side. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pursuing sanctions of anyone. For all he did counter to policy, there was not even a caution or warning at that ANI, and it appears that this has emboldened him (the "flush" editsum and other things post-ANI mentioned above). That post of mine you linked was to another user and has no relation to MaxBrowne whatever. (Why did you post it? Why are you making this thread about *me*?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for posting that link, it was one that Max had referred to earlier and I didn't research its origin thoroughly. I know that it seems to you that Max is getting off scot-free, but he should be aware that the consequences will be more severe should he make another edit like the one he made on Gordon Crowne. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How would he know that without being warned? (My guess is he didn't, and doesn't, basing on his post-ANI conduct.) The place to warn him was the ANI. (I don't even want to discuss "trouts" for three reasons: they are humorous and this is not humourous; they are for doing something stupid, and Max's conduct was intentional not out of stupidity; and Toccata never initiated the crap -- he was responding after being fed up w/ what he was receiving from Max, so "trouts all around" does not compute for me.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC) p.s. After escaping the ANI w/o even needing to respond there, then coming to my Talk to give me crap ... just how much patience do you think I have for either him, or the "system" and how it should work? I can definitely understand why Malleus has grown to be sometimes vicious. (It is in defense of self, on this hostile, lawless site, where good users like Toccata get told they're of "equal guilt", and admins like Drmies defend in an ANI what to everyone at ChessProject is an obvous troll, and later threatens *me* with what he asserts would be effectively a topic ban for my only niche [chess] essentially making it an effective site ban the most serious sanction there is, then later denying to me that he "defended" the troll when he had stated that he had to other admins at a subsequent ANI on the troll, then accusing me of having "numerous lies" on my user Talk when there are none. [Even the troll made comments later about how he was able to observe User:Quale and me being treated like second-class citizens in that ANI and by the processing admins.]) Is my rant making my frustrations and dismay any clearer? Thanks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will not hide that I was very upset about the incident that happened at the end of July. It was the first time in over seven years that I took a month long break from Wikipedia. I believe that Toccata was treated poorly in that thread. Regarding Max, I believe that linking to a userpage gives that user a ping that he or she has been mentioned (that is why I linked to his userpage), and I hope that he will notice what I think of the Gordon Crown edit. We do not have a formal warning system, but I certainly hope that Max has gotten the message that he should avoid making edits like what he did there. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But don't "hope". (That never did anyone any good. [It's he most passive human "activity" possible -- even sleeping is more active: during sleep your subconscious brain is busy solving problems too much for your conscious brain during the day.]) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 18:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realize its easier to say it when you're observing than when you are involved, but patience can really be a virtue when you are in a conflict. Also, before I forget, I have noticed that you and Toccata quarta have been working tirelessly at fixing up the game descriptions I have been writing at World Chess Championship 2013. I really appreciate your efforts at making my texts better. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much that I can add to Ihardlythinkso's comments here on this matter. Sjakkalle, I was not demanding that MaxBrowne be blocked, but I did hope that he would receive a warning from an administrator, telling him that his behaviour was wrong. As Ihardlythinkso has observed, he didn't even need to post at ANI, and he never addressed any of my criticisms of his reasoning or conduct (example), while obstinately reverting my criticism of his behaviour, which I posted at WT:CHESS. He keeps making irrelevant references to WP:DTR (which is just an essay), and apparently finds posting at ANI laughable, as if that were for weaklings/losers/whoever ([3]). (In fact, posting at ANI was the logical next step in the conflict, since he just kept removing my post at WT:CHESS.) Here he offered a sort of "peace treaty" to Ihardlythinkso, writing, "Let's not fight. We both want to improve wikipedia's chess coverage." Since he didn't direct such a message at me, he is implying that I do not want to improve chess coverage on Wikipedia.

Sjakkalle, you are an admin, and could have warned him with respect to all these issues—violating WP:TPO/WP:NPV/WP:OR/WP:WTA/WP:POINT/WP:CIV, but have not done so. I'm sure you have heard Edmund Burke's quote "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." I hope you will reconsider your ongoing avoidance of conflict of any sort, "for fear of hurting someone's feelings". Toccata quarta (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, I have heard the Burke quote, which is a good one. In this case I don't think MaxBrowne is evil. He like everyone else on an open wiki like this is, is liable to being observed. I understand that admin inaction can be infuriating. A problem is that admin warnings or action often have the unintended consequnce of raising tensions rather than diffusing them. Even when an action ought to be uncontroversial, such as locking the talkpage of a banned user who by policy is not allowed to edit anywhere here [two sections up], I may wind up facing an accusation of clearly overstepping my authority, and insinuations of me being an invulnerable tyrant who will silence those who dare criticize me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, Wikipedia is an anarchy? Toccata quarta (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have a policy WP:NOTANARCHY that says we aren't. But we do not always come down on every instance of poor conduct either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(On a totally unrelated noted, I'd appreciate if you could leave a comment at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki brah. Thanks. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Reaper Eternal seems to be way ahead of me. Thanks for spotting another one of them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:42, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to add: "... and we sometimes come down (INDEF BLOCK) on conduct not really poor to speak of, but that we don't like or has irritated us in some way, depending on the admin's mood at the time." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot deny that I have seen situations where admins make very bad indefinite blocks, but the admin corps does not form a united clique. Speaking for myself only, I believe the vast majority of blocks that I have imposed have been for simple vandalism or on sockpuppets of banned users. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know. (I wasn't referring to you!) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC) p.s. But I think you're wrong, there is an admin "clique" in the sense that there is an unstated and even sometimes stated protocol w/in the admin corps that one admin does not reverse the decision of another (else they will risk violating said corps protocol culture). (I even saw an admin warn another admin that he better not revert his block as it went "against admin corp" [culture/protocol], and it would be bad for him if he did.) I think the only exception to violation of that admin corp code are when the editor blocked is a high profile editor such as Malleus, when just blocking/or unblocking of said editor, brings attention (fame and fortune, or infamy and misfortune) to the blocking editor (please don't take this personally, it isn't intended as such; Malleus has a long history of blocks/unblocks). (So, for small cookies like me, if I'm unfairly INDEF BLOCKED, I'm left for dead. ["Who cares about him? What's in it for me, the admin taking the risk of unblocking?" This actually happened to me and I'm trying not to name names: an admin currently running for arbcom told me they felt the INDEF BLOCK of me was unfair/unjust, but they had a previous run-in with the blocking admin in the past, who called them a "troll" when they objected to a block, and that they were merely one admin and "not on Wikipedia to cure all ills". So I was left for dead. Malleus has no shortage of admins who will unblock him, since the act of unblocking gathers some notoriety because it is Malleus, not a much lower profile editor like most of the rest of us.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For your consideration—two more Wiki brah socks: Fantasia west (talk · contribs) and Valeri Lilov (talk · contribs). Toccata quarta (talk) 19:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I see that SSI has dealed with the sockpuppets already. I have gone ahead and deleted the AFD that they set up per WP:CSD#G5. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:21, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies in advance for poking the dead horse, but I have not previously given my side of the story. It is unlikely that I will comment further after this.

Toccata has apparently made it his personal crusade to challenge any and all descriptive prose in chess articles, claiming WP:PEA violations. If you look at the historical context of the "peacock terms" guideline, you'll see that it's introduction was by no means uncontroversial; many even found the very phrase "peacock term" vaguely offensive. The intro to WP:WTW in any case makes it clear that there are no forbidden words on wikipedia and that this is a style guideline, not a set of rules to be applied rigidly. Basically, editors are free to ignore all rules and apply common sense. (Which by the way makes the statement above that I should have been "warned" by an admin for "violating" WP:WTA utterly ridiculous; if that's the case then he should be warned for violating WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!). The effect of this apparent obsession is to render an article dull and lifeless, like boiled cabbage and potatoes.

Which brings me to Toccata's penchant for simply linking to policy and guideline pages with TLAs as if that ends the argument, and is if the other editor isn't aware of them, a practice I find rather rude and insulting to the intelligence. In this discussion he seems to think that simply linking to WP:WTA is sufficient argument for removing the words "promising" and "premature", in defiance of common sense, and he goes about it in a very nitpicky and argumentative way, expecting me to simply accept his assertion that these are "words to avoid" even though it's just a guideline, even though these words are not even mentioned there, and even though these words are used in a similar context elsewhere on wikipedia. When I point this out he links to WP:OSE which is just an essay, again as if that ends the argument. In fact "other stuff exists" is a valid argument in this context; it demonstrates that the concensus among wikipedians is that these words and descriptions do not violate the "peacock terms" guideline. He even refers to his "rebuttals" as if wikipedia is a public debating competition in which the objective is to "win" rather than achieve concensus.

Toccata's nitpicky and confrontational manner naturally got my back up. True, that description "anal" wasn't very polite, but it was born out of frustration, as was my admittedly silly and trollish edit to the Crown article. Toccata's subsequent actions have only served to confirm my description.

Creating a whole new section on the WikiProject talk page filled with Parental invective was bound to pour gasoline over the fire. Why not just leave a note on my talk page? Or if he insists on a template, how about this one? I considered Toccata's actions a personal attack and told him so. I feel fully justified in removing it and would do so again, WP:TPO be damned. He compounded the insult by placing warning templates on my talk page despite my request that he refrain from doing so, and despite the fact that the policy on personal attacks specifically says that they can be removed by anyone.

As for escalating it all the way to ANI - yes I do consider this action laughable and contemptible, which is why I refused to participate in that discussion. ANI is specifically for the most serious and urgent incidents. As it says in the dispute resolution article, in bold and underlined no less: "The Administrators' Noticeboards are not the place to raise disputes over content, or reports of abusive behaviour.". If you're going to go to ANI you'd better be utterly squeaky clean, you'd better have taken reasonable steps to resolve the conflict (such as opening a discussion on the user's talk page as opposed to templating them), and you'd better not have escalated the conflict with a confrontational attitude. Your own conduct will come under scrutiny if you raise something at ANI, and could even lead to sanctions against yourself even though you're the one who raised the incident. Searching through the archive at ANI, it does seem Toccata is something of a serial complainer. I've been on wikipedia 6 years and I've never had any reason to go to ANI.

Finally Ihardlythinkso's uncritical taking of Toccata's side in an argument that didn't concern him was unhelpful, as was his later escalation of that conflict. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sjakkalle-J.B. Nilsen, 2008

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Position after 11...Rae8

Thank you very much for your view on the matter.

I see that some of your edits were made out of frustration, and in that regard I want to share with you one painfully instructive thing I learned from chess-playing. In the diagram on the right, from one of my games in the 2008 Hordaland circuit championship, I played 12.Rab1, overlooking completely 12...e4 that traps the bishop on d3. Completely frustrated with myself for being so stupid, the game continued 13.Rxb7 exd3, and with a piece down I went down in flames ten moves later. If I instead had calmed down to actually think through the situation, I am quite sure I would have seen the solution to the predicament: 13.Bxe4 Nxe4 14.f3 getting the piece back instead of the silly 13.Rxb7?? which was the real culprit. The lesson I learned from this episode, and that I used as an example when I teach children in the chess club, is:

Decisions made in the moment out of frustration are very ill thought through and can cause long term damage. When you are angry, frustrated, or in shock, wait a few minutes while you consider the best way forward.

When I look at the underlying conflict, which is on the use of some slightly vague words that may or may not be in accordance with our guidelines against puffery, it actually looks really minor. As such, I agree that this never should have escalated to AN level. I endorsed Admiral Caius's statement of "trouting" both without any sanctions; in your case because of the Gordon Crown edit that gave the AN posting more merit than it would have had otherwise.

I will also continue to say both you and Toccata have made a number of valuable edits that have significantly improved our chess content, and I consider both of you to be productive editors who I hope will continue to stick around. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't 13.Nxe4 Nxe4 14.f3 better than 13.Bxe4 Nxe4 14.f3 Nxd2? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

13.Nxe4 is even better, yes. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm ... now I think White is lost no matter what (14...Nxc3)! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

15.Rbe1 defends everything. Even 15.Bxh7+ is possible. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:11, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another pointy edit from the perpetually "but I was frustrated" MaxBrowne. Does his frustration entitle him to edit-war at that article as well? See User:MaxBrowne user page which name-calls other unspecified editors, blaming them for his "retirement"; meanwhile this editor is very active with edits and WT:CHESS participation. I'm not stating anything here that isn't blatantly obvious. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Toccata's tag team buddy or something? You think it's totally ok to call me "Mr Bully editor?" MaxBrowne (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

His frustration certainly entitles him to undo his own contributions. I'm disappointed that one of our most experienced editors stooped to the very name-calling he accuses the other editor of, and that it happened after what was actually a perfectly civil discussion. Let's not undermine the progress we've made in trying to work together. Cobblet (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're full of it, Cobblet. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ihardlythinkso, don't call people "Mr Bully-editor", it is an attack on the person instead of a criticism of the edit and it just escalates the conflict in a non-constructive manner. MaxBrowne, don't channel your frustrations into making "screw this" edits with encyclopedia articles. Now, some nasty rhinoviruses have been invading my respiratory system, so I am going straight back to bed and rest a bit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take care of your health first. "Mr. Bully editor" is not personal -- it describes MaxBrowne's intentional edit warring on the page to force his edits through without discussion contrary to WP:BRD which he apparently seems to think doesn't apply to him then or in his earlier edit-warring reverts on other page(s) due to his "but I was frustrated" argument. (If I had wanted to get personal, then I might have made comment on the attitude displayed by virtue of his revert and revert editsum, but I didn't bring either of those topics up -- Cobblet brought up that.) I happen to not like edit-warring as per WP:BRD spells out, and as an admin, neither should you. I also think using his userpage as an attack page against specific but unnamed individuals is anti-collegial, anti-guideline, probably anti-policy. The tendency here is to say "you're both at fault", but this is not a stupid ANI thread where everyone gets to be the first to announce "BOOMERANG". My "Mr. Bully editor" name was strictly business describing editor behavior ignoring WP:BRD in order to get his way/edits in by force rather than consensus. MaxBrowne's comments about Toccata's personality, the attacks on his User page, are personal attacks. So no one is fooling me. In addition, describing Toccata's observation of WP:WTA as "quibbling", is an unnecessary and unfair slight to a conscientious and fair editor (Toccata), so there we go again with the lack of collegial behavior repeatedly coming from MaxBrowne. (And to suggest I'm in a "tag team" with Toccata because I speak up, is the same -- an unnecessary insult and undeserved assertion about my motivations and values.) As an editor here I obviously have plenty of frustrations too, but I don't use them for excuses what I do and what I write, I take effort to control those things explicitly, for a long time now. Regards, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary:

Vandalism
Personal attacks
Edit warring

MaxBrowne doesn't get "off" those things by saying "but [he] was frustrated". MaxBrowne called Toccata "anal" and he attacks other specific but unnamed individuals on his user page. (And Cobblet, if you wanna see real hypocrisy, there you go do some reading, OK?) My "Mr. Bully editor" was obviously limited to MaxBrowne's reverts without honoring WP:BRD -- in fact I drew his attention to his ignoring WP:BRD in the same editsum -- so trying to jump on word "Bully" and trying to make it a personal affront from me to Browne and not what it was -- descriptive of his editing behavior forcing in edits through edit-warring without discussion -- is wrong and unfair to me. (What's the deal? In order to continue to exempt Browne from his misbehaviors, you have to find something wrong with me!? That is the "ANI-way", but I never believed in ANI nor the dumbed-down mentality and standards there.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[4] I think I projected after the ANI that the non-serious "trout" result (and no "trout" was even awarded) w/ just embolden MaxBrowne to continued indefensible behavior. So tell me I'm wrong!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. Your only purpose in making this edit was to take a swipe at me, something you do constantly, and I'm fed up with it. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong. I objectively evaluated the arguments, but found commenting at the DRN item inappropriate, because I honestly felt the dispute did not warrant an item there. (Do I get to be guilty now of any ghost and paranoid suspicion that gets dragged thru your brain?) You are hugely uncivil, Mr. Browne, and I suggest to get a clue. Or don't. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was uncivil and inflammatory, and clearly designed to take a shot at me. Yes I know you have "plausible deniability", you're good at that game. MaxBrowne (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'm guilty of anything you like to accuse. Got it. (Meanwhile, you aren't uncivil accusing. No way. Got it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sjakkalle, you could have done something to clamp down on User:Maxbrowne at Toccata's ANI, in which MaxBrowne did not even participate, I told you because of that he would be emboldened. Let's see ... in the last 24 hours he has suggested that I have no "awareness of current society", that I'm guity of participating in "flame wars", that I "shut down any reasonable discussion", "deter others from participating", and that I'm "bullying". Just because an editor decides to attack and accuse, does not make any of those things true. There is nothing warranted for me to receive any of his kind of shit, but, emboldened as he is, he feels free to toss that crap out. I've done nothing to warrant receiving his crap. And I'm not even saying what I think of him, but rest assured I could. But you or some other admin would use it against me if I did, claim "BOOMERANG" or some other ridiculous thing to allow his crap to go on. Happy New Year 2014. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the WT:CHESS discussion that was taking place. Quite frankly, I don't think either side can be entirely excused. What I am seeing is a ping pong match of insults gradually escalating at every turn. For example, the "learn to use the preview button" comment is condescending, but your reply "Fuck off" however does nothing to help. If you wouldn't say these things in a face to face conversation, please don't write it on Wikipedia (or anywhere else on the internet for that matter). Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Quite frankly", I think you are blind (or prejudiced) when reading that thread. (Did you notice his "You are the last person I want to be discussing this with"!? After he entered discussion on several points?? That was rude, uncivil, unprompted. Followed by "Oh BTW, use the preview button" was just snarkiness AFTER rudeness. Those comments weren't prompted or justified, yet, Sjakkalle, you go out of your way to defend him. Your BOOMERANG thoughtless crap to justify the result you want.) I see in the past you have shown and proved to the WP audience that you also have been blind to how Malleus has been baited into incivilities. No diffeence here. If you read the thread at WT:CHESS, you will also see how MaxBrowne extended his commentary and attempted to make that thread about my editorship, digging up all sorts of diffs in attempt to shame and defame. That wasn't warranted either, and completely out of bounds. But you overlook that. I'm done talking with you Sjakkalle, because I've lost respoect for your ability to see how I was hounded and harassed and continue to be by Max, and how you go out of your way to justify it. Coming to you for help as an admin, is simply leaning into the pitch for your justifying his incivilities because that is what you want to do. Please tell me to go away if I ever stupidly and mistakenly go to you for any sort of help on anything whatsoever again. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And stop lying and mischaracterizing me at that thread. I am seeing is a ping pong match of insults gradually escalating at every turn. Bullshit. If I went toe-to-toe with him, than I would have taken the opportunity to also dig him, to look up diffs and try to defame and discredit him, to challenge his criticisms of me and respond to the arguments and diffs he threw my way for others to see. I did not do any of that. I did not get in it with him to any extent, except to tell him he was personally attacking me, and misusing the thread, and "fuck off". To suggest that I would entertain the likes of MaxBrowne and get into an equal ping-pong tacky emotional brawl with or equal to him is an insult to me, Sjakkalle, besides being untrue and misrepresentative. I wouldn't lower myself to the likes of that kind of tacky shit. So quit insulting me, and quit lying about me by mischaracterizing my participation in that thread. Go read it again if you have to. But again, I presume you decide the conclusion you want, then look for ways to support said conclusion. That's called prejudice in my book. You try and be non-offensive to both parties in any dispute. Guess what? It doesn't work. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to prove to you that you are illogical, Sjakkalle: Look what you did. You claim you read the thread, found fault with both parties, therefore (according to you), MaxBrowne does not warrant any special admonishment more than me. Bullshit. For you to logically reach any other conclusion, you have revealed that your condition, consists of incivilities by one side, and total absence thereof (i.e. perfection) from the other side. (If you find any imperfection, the deal's off.) Well, that is illogical, for two reasons. Expecting perfection from a party and making it a condition is unreasonable -- people are human and not perfect robots. Second, if a person initiated a fight with me and battered me with a baseball bat until they broke every bone in my body, and during my defense I stepped on their toe intentionally to hurt them in retaliation, by your logic, both are at fault and no sanction is warranted. That lacks judgement. In the case at hand, you are unwilling to see how I tied to stay away from the shit Max was doing in that thread, and was 95% successful. You want to excuse his complete abuse and misuse of the thread, in attempts to brawl and defame and discredit my editorship. Great judgement by you, Sjakkalle! (I'm supposed to respect that?!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a do-nothing waste of time with you in this thread! Clearly I expected more. Clearly I was a fool to. I shan't repeat that mistake. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a couple questions I want in your head: 1) Do you think after experiencing MaxBrowne's harassments on WT:CHESS, and you as admin blaming me for equal incivility, that I as editor will become more, or less, tolerant of, and in my remarks to, the MaxBrowes of the WP? 2) Do you think you could have made any kind of a different impact on the first Q, as admin, when I've come here in good faith and commnicated my objections to his behavior? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC) p.s. Don't answer. I have no faith in you whatever, for fairness, for objectivity. You will only put more false blame on my back, and that is the kind of shit at WP that I detest. I can totally understand how Malleus got to where he's at. Even I am not nearly the writer calibre he is. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I try to avoid getting involved in this conflict beyond giving my comments when asked. I disagree with what you just wrote, but I accept that you dislike the way that I am handling this and that you feel that criticisms of your conduct are unfounded. My words on the matter are nothing more than my views, and I am not going to make any attempts to enforce any of them.

As for why I am not more active, being an administrator who happens to be a member of WikiProject Chess makes it very awkward to try to implement sanctions or other disciplinary measures such as warnings against other members of that WikiProject. This is in part because I believe that the members on the project genuinely and in good faith want to improve and maintain these articles, and imposing sanctions will damage the ability to work with people whom I expect to work with later. Another reason is that since I have views on how the chess articles should be written, imposing sanctions on one side or another in a dispute over those articles will immediately bring into question whether I have an ulterior motive for doing so. If I imposed a sanction, there would be questions on whether it was a legitimate reaction to misconduct, or a corrupt sanction against an editor whom I disagree with. It is generally best to avoid being a refereeing admin in a dispute between people that you work with, as explained in WP:INVOLVED.

That I am not getting involved may seem infuriatingly passive, but if you want more active intervention, I am afraid that it will need to be from an administrator who is from outside the WikiProject. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing some pertinent points, Sjakkalle. Such as ignoring the damage you do by placating and justifying the likes of MaxBrowne, for example, by your decision to enter he ANI brought by Toccata on uncivil behavior grounds. (Why did you even enter that ANI? You justified MaxBrowne's incivilities by doing nothing there, placating the situation, which I contend has simply emboldened him to do more of his crap, which he has done. If you wanted to remain neutral, you could have kept yourself out of that ANI and let another administrator handle. But you didn't do that. You entered the ANI voluntarily, with the intent to placate and disregard the stream of incivilities from MaxBrowne. Better you didn't participate in that ANI, given your goals. You seem to fail to see the negative effect you had or can have by participating and placating. If you were trying to get Max to change through placating, then I ask you, did it work?!?) Secondly, you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth when you say imposing sanctions on one side or another in a dispute over those articles. Those words don't apply to either Toccata's ANI complaint, or my complaints here at your talk, which are purely behavioral, and not content disputes or content-oriented. (I can understand your reluctance as admin to take action in content disputes over articles. But this wasn't that -- neither at the ANI nor at the WT:CHESS discussion.) You should not have entered Toccata's ANI because clearly you are signalling that you had a predisposed posture to do nothing re Max's behavioral issues, so evaluating them could not have been fair or objective on your part as a result, and the damage you did by emobolding him has just worsened and extended the problem. You "wanted to help" those two editors get along?!? Did it work!? If that is the case, for all your good intentions, just how smart was that, and did it improve the situation or worsen it in your evaluation today??! You've inadvertently messaged Max that he can do anything he damn-well pleases re incivilities against me, for instance, and criticize me if I respond as a normal human being with limited patience. I've put up with his shit best I can but there is a limit. And the limit is telling him to "fuck off" and leave me alone, and reprimanding you for making me have to do that to get the point across clearly to that editor. But he gives a flying fuck, since you essentially have OK'd him to do anything he pleases. Let alone the hypocrisy of that user's complaints on his User about the nastiness of the WP envioronment, and deleting Toccata's posts at WT:CHESS about Max's behavior, in desperation pre-ANI, and Max's hypocritical recent use of the WT:CHESS thread to make a personal attack page against me, which I 95% ignored. The onus is on you to explain this shit, not me. You are ADMIN. Ihardlythinkso (talk) p.s. You were also not the target of Max's incivilities, so you can hardly tell me, or Toccata, or Malleus re his harassers, how those editors should feel, and complain when they as editors do not respond like perfect machine robotoids that you require.

Please notice ip 111.243.0.198 , 114.39.7.129

Hi , Please notice, ip user 111.243.0.198 and ip 114.39.7.129 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/111.243.0.198 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/114.39.7.129, Vandalism a lot of articles , please stop these ip user , thank youMBINISIDLERS (talk) 08:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a content dispute over whether articles should say "Taiwan" or "Republic of China". Seems to be edit warring rather than vandalism, can you try WP:AN/EW? Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template parameter

Hello Sjakkalle, as I understand, you speak Norwegian, so I'd welcome your help with a couple of webpages in Norwegian. Which names should be put in the "author=" parameter of a "cite" template, when referencing the pages http://www.nrk.no/sport/carlsen-hadde-kun-kontakt-med-en-1.11376623 and http://www.vgtv.no/#!/video/74493/se-carlsen-fellen-som-lurte-anand-trill-rundt? I find the first page particularly confusing, since it lists two names at its right side, but the second person (Nils Fredrik Røren), unlike the first, isn't identified as a journalist, while the article http://www.nrk.no/mr/_-en-magisk-kamp-som-hadde-alt-1.11377557 lists two names, and identifies both as journalists. Thanks, Toccata quarta (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would include both names in the citation template. I am not sure why Røren is not listed as a journalist, but if they are in the box on the right, they should be considered authors and mentioned in the citation. For the VG video, there is no author listed to cite. The balding man with a black and pink suit is Hans Olav Lahlum, but I don't recognize the other two. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC) Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! :-) Toccata quarta (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Silly arguments

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus (i.e. Sjakkalle) says to stop it.

Can you maybe take Cobblet and Ihardlythinkso aside and hand out some trouts? I don't think IHTS will listen to me but he'll listen to you. Regards. MaxBrowne (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think IHTS will listen to me. That's rich! Seeing you proved the editor not willing to listening is rather yourself [5]. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contratulations you won. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Holiday Cheer

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

Nigel Short page move

It seems the talk page has not been moved and doesn't match the article page. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 00:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have moved the talkpage as well. Thanks for the notice. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request - List of actors who won the Academy, BAFTA, Golden Globe, SAG, and Critic's Choice Award for a single performance

Hi,

I am engaged in an edit war with another user on this page. I am hoping for an admin with some knowledge of cinema to protect the page and settle the debate (I emphatically believe I am in the right), or failing that, just someone to protect the page and end the edit war whilst I attempt to persuade the other user.

Best Wishes

MasonBanks (talk) 23:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requests of this kind should go to WP:RFPP so that a patrolling admin may handle the matter, instead of an admin approached by one of the parties. My contribution to the article is limited to closing an AFD on it, and I don't know enough about the issues here to adjudicate on the conflict. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

re: deletion of 4info

Mea culpa. Perhaps I should have left the stub page alone. Please reinstate the 4info page. If possible, please correct the title at the top with 4INFO. I believe the Corporation Overview where I did add a few things was appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkMillerITPro (talk • contribs) 17:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It looks like the version I deleted was one from 2005, and it was probably very different from the recent article. The 2014 deletion was done by RHaworth, I think he will be in a better position to consider your request. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break

I took a month off, but I'm sort of back now. Sort of, because I haven't really edited Wikipedia much in the last five years or so except for doing a little gnoming. I see you noticed I was away, and I just wanted to let you know that I take breaks from time to time when I need them, but I'm not likely to permanently disappear for a while yet. I wasn't in any particular distress on wiki or in real life, but I'd had my fill of crazy and didn't feel like dealing with any more tantrums for a while. I didn't mention this at the time, but I felt bad that I might have been a contributing factor to your last wikibreak some months ago. I was angered by a vile and slanderous attack made against you, so I let the slanderer know I was displeased. You have an outstanding temperament for admin work and never react that way, and I knew that if I had asked you would have told me to let it go. Your way is better, but I was not able to allow such an offense against a friend go unanswered. I didn't intend to involve you in my actions, since as always, I was speaking only for myself. You seemed concerned that there might be negative consequences for me, but I am fully responsible for my own actions and you shouldn't worry that I might get myself in trouble. I was not going to escalate the situation any further, but I was prepared to face any personal consequences for my talk page comment. I was not prepared to have my actions be part of the reason you needed to take time off, and I was distressed that you might have felt it necessary to take time off to try to protect me by letting the tension dissipate. I'm sorry. Wikipedia needs good admins like you, and I don't want to add to your wiki-stress. Quale (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words and for taking the time out to set straight the circumstances of your last Wikibreak. The last Wikibreak I took was some weeks after the incident that you refer to. I took a wiki-break due to me feeling that I had become entangled in a follow-up a few weeks later that was longer and nastier than the original incident, a follow-up that you were not involved in. I understand the feeling about seeing wiki-friends being attacked; when the attacks are against me I at least have some control over the situation, but I can become angered when I see mistreatment of others. My activity on Wikipedia is much lower now than it used to be, and I am almost absent from the chess articles now. I can assure that this is not a consequence of wiki-stress. The main reason is that since moving to Haugesund three years ago I became much more active in the chess club life here where I have taken up organizing tournaments and arbiting. Two weeks ago my club organized the national scholastic team championship with almost 120 youth and children. All this is highly enjoyable, but it takes up a fair chunk of my leisure time, leaving less time for Wikipedia. I hope all is well with you, and it was good to see your edit again. You have always been a voice of reason on Wikipedia that I appreciate greatly. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is great to hear. Working with children is fantastic, and real life is always more important than wiki-life. I'm pleased that you are active in chess. Sometimes I think I probably shouldn't even write about it, since my real world involvement in chess ended decades ago and since then I only read about it. Every other chess editor has more actual involvement with playing than I do, with people or computers or both, although it's also true that chess does not miss another very indifferent player such as myself. There's no law that says you have to be good at your hobbies, but I am less good at playing chess than I am any of my other small number of pastimes. For some people Wikipedia might be a refuge from stresses in their real life, but I fear that often Wikipedia causes the stress and real life is the refuge. Take care and enjoy life, friend. Quale (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of wheel-well stowaway flights may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{| class="wikitable"
| Died<ref>{{cite web | url =http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/corpse-found-in-wheel-well-of-klm-plane-at-amsterdam-s-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"you didn't build that"

Can I nominate this for deletion again? Two years later, I still don't see much of long-term significance of this obviously ridiculously-overhyped topic. Someone said that it meets WP:notability. However, I believe that policy may surpass guideline in regards to this. How about WP:NOT? --George Ho (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general, there is no need to ask for permission to list something on AFD again, but as always you should also consider alternatives. Is it possible to merge some of the content into another article on the 2012 campaign for example? In the last AFD there were some strong arguments and some weak argumets/non-arguments. If you renominate, you should address the strongest arguments that were used last time for keeping. I have seen cases where eager participants call out all the weak arguments on the opposing side, while ignoring the strong arguments, and then think they have proven their case. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jean-Serge Brisson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jean-Serge Brisson 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/Jean-Serge Brisson (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. 117Avenue (talk) 04:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree

You are mistaken in your editsum, Sjakkalle. I've read WP:IBAN carefully in order to be compliant with it, and nothing at WP:IBAN prohibits me from commenting on the quality of an edit, the restriction there is about comments on an editor -- direct or indirect. (If you want to take the position that commenting on the quality of an edit is an indirect comment on an editor [commenting on editors not content], I think that is a far-fetched and off-the-mark interpretation [and if you think about it, doesn't make sense either, since that interpretation effectively turns an IBAN with an editor into a topic ban on commenting on content contributions generally, or could easily do that, and that is what you are attempting to do here]).

Apparently you are stalking my edits with a bias against me, actively looking for a way to strike at me, and that itself is not only aggressive and biased but then unbecoming of admin. So I wish you'd stop it. (Otherwise, I'll have no choice but to bring up on AN about your behavior Sjakkalle, which I consider abusive and abuse of your power as admin to threaten a block, which you have done. I don't want to do that, so, please consider the arguments I've given you here for logic and fairness, and please revert and withdraw your threat.) Thanks for your consider, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sjakkalle, I'm planning to go ahead and open an AN on clarification of IBAN in general, because I can see that (what I consider your overly enthusiastic) interpretation such as yours is bound to continue without said clarification, and as mentioned I'm opposed to that interpretation, since it effectively censors an editor related to content, when IBAN's intent is to stop comments about users, and users interacting. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are prohibited on commenting on MaxBrowne, and disparaging his edit as bringing an article "headlong to grey goo" is a pretty flagrant violation of that. I firmly believe that you would have been blocked had that edit been noticed earlier, and given two prior blocks for violations of this ban, I belive it would have been for a week. To be frank, I think I was very lenient with you. Go right ahead and post on AN if you feel like it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And I think you are biased against me to get what you want (a block; drive me off WP; whatever). I did not comment on the user but the content of an edit (how many times does that need to be repeated for you to see the difference?). "Grey goo" is a general term I first saw used by user Eric Corbett to describe the unavoidable implications of WP's "anyone can edit" policy. For you to interpret that as a specific "disparaging remark" about a selected user, is false, and a mean-spirited bad-faith manipulation and twist. (That section head is a generalized section head that is not personal. Would "leading articles to a lower quality status" be better for you? They mean the same. There is nothing personal. Although you like to make up a personal message, for your own destructive agenda towards me.)
  The AN has already been posted before your reply here. I think you are off-base, both in your intepretation and in making threats where there was no intent at all to violate IBAN except in your bad-faith presumptions. Final message: I have wanted nothing to do with you whatever, Skajkalle, ever since telling you that in the thread I opened on your Talk a long, long time ago. (The only sparks between us since then are because you have subsequently been pursuing me with as much crap as you can throw at me at every conveivable opportunity. Not my idea to have even one word with you. [I find it unpleasant as hell.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northern Spirit FC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christie Park. 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) 08:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of Northern Spirit and GHFA Spirit FC

Hey Sjakkalle, after the AFD had come to a conclusion to merge these two articles Northern Spirit FC and Gladesville Hornsby Football Association Spirit FC, I do believe that you have merged these two incorrectly. The old team that played at the national level was indeed the Northern Spirit, but now they play under the new name of GHFA Spirit FC in Australia's third division and thus, I believe that the Northern Spirit page should redirect to GHFA's. The information can stay exactly the same and I'm more than happy to write up a paragraph or two about them becoming the GHFA Spirit, but I feel as though this is quite like having Manchester United redirect to "Newton Heath LYR Football Club", which is what they were called when they were first formed.

GHFA were formed from the remains and the youth teams of Northern Spirit. So, if we could have all links towards "Northern Spirit FC" and "GHFA Spirit FC" redirect to "Gladesville Hornsby Football Association Spirit FC", I think that would be the best outcome. Thanks! J man708 (talk) 04:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is reasonable, and I have moved the articles around a bit (because of the page histories this needed some admin tools). Northern Spirit FC has been moved to Gladesville Hornsby Football Association Spirit FC. I have made a few tweaks so that the article reflects the new title, but it is in rough shape. I would appreciate it if you can polish it up a bit. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks a bunch, Sjakkalle. I'll write up a new paragraph and put up a new logo for them in a few hours. Once again, thanks! J man708 (talk) 07:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thanks for working on the article. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M. D. Benoit closure

In your closure comments, you said "On merits, the fact that only one independent book review has been provided as independent sourcing is a serious notability concern..." I myself added two independent book reviews. Was that an oversight, or was there a problem with one of the reviews? As notability guidelines specify "multiple" independent reviews, I think that makes quite a bit of difference between one and more than one review. Any comment? Thanks. Dcs002 (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "independent" was a poor choice of words, but in general open consumer review sites such as Epinions are not considered to establish any notability since anyone can submit reviews without any checking the reviewer's credibibility. The same problem is true for self-published sources, and sites like Eternal Night seem to fall into that category. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, thank you for the clarification. Eternal Night looked to me like an amateur review site, with reviews published only by those affiliated with the site, but yeah, I guess those are self-published reviews. However, since Benoit is so popular on the blogosphere, and since it appears she and her Jack Meter series of books seem to be gaining in popularity and readership internationally (going by availability from international retailers - much broader than other books I've seen, but of course blogs and retailers are not RS), I hope it won't be too hard for someone in the future to give this article another go. I am learning through my participation in AfD discussions, and my questions are sincere, and not meant to challenge your close. Thank you for what you do for WP! You admins have a thankless job, especially with users constantly question your decisions. Cheers! Dcs002 (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - No problems, I'm always happy to review my own decisions. I have been incorrect on some occasions as well. Being an admin on Wikipedia is about as difficult or easy as you want it to be, since almost everything is strictly voluntary. Thank you for your kind words. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

World Chess Championship 2014

Thank you for your contribution to this World Chess Championship 2014. I wanted to show you what tool we use in the Hebrew wikipedia to show the games. [6]. You can also annotate the games using this tool, and the best is that the reader can sit down and see the game playing by itself like in the chess sites. You are invited to install the tool in the English wikipedia! --Yoavd (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That function looks very interesting indeed! I'll see if my mediocre technical skills can get around to using it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, IF you need any technical help do not hesitate - I will help you. --Yoavd (talk) 12:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chessboard may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

or green for the dark squares and shades such as [[buff (colour)|buff]] or [[cream (colour)|cream)]] for the light squares. Materials vary widely; while wooden boards are generally used in high-

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving a dead/deleted page.

Hey Sjakkalle, remember me? :P
A few months back I got you to move around the page for Gladesville Hornsby Football Association Spirit FC. Once their 2015 season starts, I'll be able to work on the page more, which is why it still needs a bit of work. :P
Anyway, onwards with my enquiry! I wish to revive a dead page and the admin involved (@Nishkid64:) whom deleted the page after the AFD seems to be inactive nowadays.
The article in question is an Australian youth international footballer, named Panos Armenakas, who is tipped to be the next big thing for Australian football and seems to be a shoe-in for this year's 2015 FIFA U-17 World Cup. He currently plays for Udinese's Primavera (youth) squad, having previously played in the Watford youth set-up. A simple Google search for his name nets almost 5,000 responses including Australian Football website "The World Game" [7] and Britain's "The Daily Mail" [8]. Notoriety hasn't been an issue at all in the development of his article, it's just that his article was deleted in 2006, when he was just known for being a prodigy with huge potential. Since then, he has actually been capped at Youth Level by both Australia and Greece and seems set to embark in a (hopefully) long and fruitful career.
My enquiry today asks if you could possibly be able to unlock access to this (perhaps by putting it on my talk page) and I could utilise what used to exist as a template for a newer, fresher page? If so, that would be really helpful. I'm more than happy to do the hard work and chase up sources and stuff!

As a thanks for helping me out with this and the GHFA FC page, I'll tell you something that you might find kinda comical as a chess enthusiast. Back in my school days (maybe 8 years ago), I entered into a chess tournament, knowingly being quite crap at it and basically just being there to make up the numbers. Anyway, by playing the stupidest moves possible in one match (including intentionally bringing my queen into the open and losing her in about the 6th turn to something crappy like a knight), I actually managed to force a stalemate with the overall champion by pushing my king up the board and getting him stuck in a corner, while also getting my pawns stuck against other pawns and forcing a stalemate by literally running out of moves. Hahaha. Thankfully I took out his bishops and castles before trying this. :P

But yeah! Takk! You've been an awesome help! - J man708 (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can give you the content of the last deleted version. It was:

Panos Armenakas is a seven year old football child prodigy originating from Australia, who plays for Abbotsford in Sydneys Inner West, he is currently touted as Australias best talent of his generation.

When aged only 6, Panos spent 3 weeks at spanish giants Barcelona [9] and trained with their elite under-8 squad, while also spending time with youth academies of Manchester City, Blackburn Rovers and Bolton [10] in the United Kingdom, while Chelsea and Manchester United were keen on signing the youngster[11].

As the person was only a very young child at the time who was still many years from becoming anywhere near a professional, I am inclined to think it was correct to delete the article back in 2006. Whether it is correct to recreate it now is probably a matter of discretion. The WP:FOOTYN guideline suggests for example that the player should be in an all-professional league to be notable. I am not sure if Armenakas meets that. In any case, the page is not protected against recreation, and the criterion for speedy deletion G4 does not apply if the new version is substantially different from the deleted one.

Nice going with the stalemate! I have experienced both the ecstacy of being stalemated in an otherwise hopeless position, as well as the agony of delivering a stalemate when I should have won. Looking for resources even when the situation is bleak is an important part of a player's chess skills. By luring your opponent into thinking the game would win itself, you deserved your draw. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm definitely not questioning the consensus at the time to delete his page. It was a lot of speculation about a child who could have quite easily grown up not wanting to be a footballer. So, it was basically a nothing page. I might slowly work on it in my Sandbox and get the thoughts from the Australian Soccer Taskforce, or something. I was hoping it was slightly more than a stub. Oh well. I'm sure it's not as much of an issue these days, as it was when he was just a kid.

As for the chess thing, I'm sure if I played better and took it seriously I could've probably been defeated a good twenty turns in, but my complete unorthodox style and blase attitude worked well for me! Hahaha. Once again, thanks Sjakkalle! - J man708 (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Ashida Kim

CrazyAces489 has asked for a deletion review of Ashida Kim. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 01:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template of deleted article

Hi Sjakkalle, perhaps you should also close this. - starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me about the discussion. I have looked at it but decided to let another administrator close it. I close TFDs rarely and am not entirely up-to-date on what policies and conventions apply for templates. The template has an obvious connection to the deleted article, but it is not out of the question that it could be a navbox for other articles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sjakkalle, it's me again. I followed the advice in your AfD closing comments, and framed the deaths in a different light, List of deaths inspiring Black Lives Matter. It was speedy deleted for being too similar to the previous deleted list. However, for each death, I managed to find both a primary and a secondary source to link each death to Black Lives Matter, and the cited sources are in the first Link column of the table. Here is the deleting admin's comments when I asked to undelete the list. Would you consider undeleting the article, as the other deleting admin is not opposed? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 12:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have looked at the text and see that you have made a good effort at linking each of the entries to the Black Lives Matter subject. I also think that the table does not need to be in a separate article. Since Chrislk02 has specifically authorized that the deletion be reconsidered, I will restore the table and make an editorial decision to merge it with the Black Lives Matter article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Sjakkalle, I really appreciate it! starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 11:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sjakkalle, did you happen to first look at the history of the article Black Lives Matter to see that this same material was reverted after it was re-added yesterday? As you can see in the talk page discussion there is currently no consensus for keeping this list in the article. The sources in the table do not make the claim that the deaths of each person inspired the BLM movement, so the OR issues have not been properly addressed. If you disagree with this, would you please make your case on the talk page?- Mr X 11:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of it. Thanks for notifying me. I will make review the matter again. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:34, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs

It would be convenient if your DRV close included a link directly to the new AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing this. I have added a link. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:10, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Research for 2 deleted articles

Hi there. I am wanting to get access to two deleted articles - and have discovered that neither of the two people that closed these accounts are currently active. And i see from above that you've helped others in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Australia task force with similar requests. This concerns :

I am not looking at resurrecting either of these article at all, I just want to look at the information, and especially the quality of the references that were used for the articles, with a view to adding/strengthening some of this information onto individual Club articles. Whilst i agree that these articles may not have been noteworthy in their own right, it may be appropriate to have a properly referenced sentence or two within the article on the particular Clubs. Can you help me here ? Or suggest someone who can ? Cheers ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have looked at the articles and see nothing harmful in them beyond being deemed non-notable. Since the articles are fairly long I have restored them to your userspace, they are located at User:Matilda Maniac/Iron Ore Cup and User:Matilda Maniac/The Distance Derby. You can keep them in userspace for a few weeks, but not forever either. When you are done looking at them, please send a notification so that they can be re-deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much ! And as anticipated, poor references, and/or WP:LR; not nearly as useful as what I was hoping for. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may now re-delete, thank you for your help. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels Airlines fleet

Hi Sjakkalle, the Brussels Airlines fleet is incorrect. The Boeing 737-300 is stored and not "in service" as marked on the Wikipedia page of the airline and you forgot to mention the two wetleased Dash-8 and sigle Erj-145.

I can't remember editing this article. I see that the page is edit-protected due to a dispute over this issue. Apparently wet-leased aircraft are not included in the fleet data. The discussion is Talk:Brussels Airlines#Edit warring on the talkpage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DJ LBC deletion

Hi. You appear to have made a mistake by deleting the DJ LBC article (deletion discussion). As per Wikipedia:Notability (music), a musician is deemed to be notable if at least one of 12 criteria are met. He easily meets the first one on the list - "multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician..." and as for number seven, "...one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" - he was one of the entire countries most prominent musicians, even getting an obituary from a Cabinet Minister on his death, and credited with releasing Zambia's first house music album. Since none of this was discussed in the deletion review, and a fairly superficial review of the sources would have brought this up (http://www.musiczambia.com/djlbc-dead/ http://power997.com/dj-lbc-put-to-rest/ http://zambiareports.com/2015/11/30/ex-q-fm-radio-personality-dj-lbc-dies/), it appears that those who supported the deletion were not applying themselves correctly, either due to ignorance or to systemic bias. Please re-create the article. Thanks. Greenman (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the AFD, but I find the consensus to be clear in this case. WP:MUSIC are guidelines, not policies, that are interpreted on a case-by-case basis. In any case, the article identified DJ LBC as a radio host and not a musician, so the guideline is probably not applicable in any case. You may contest the deletion at WP:DRV if you believe the decision to be incorrect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Hi Sjakkalle, thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joan Acocella bibliography.

Coolabahapple (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joan Acocella bibliography redirect

Thanks for the thoughtful close and taking the time to outline your rationale. I really appreciate it.

Best,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coolabahapple and @Lesser Cartographies: You're welcome! These overdue AFDs often contain interesting cases that are not entirely straightforward, and it felt good taking another looks at this business after some months of absence. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Common Tunnel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ring Line. 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) 11:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been fixed to the Ring Line in Oslo. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Direct AfD

Hi Sjakkalle. I noticed you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milan Direct as delete on 23 May but the article still exists. It has not even been edited since 2 May. I'm confused why this is. - Brianhe.public (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I closed the AFD on 23 May, but apparently I did so last year, not this year. The article was recreated in January this year, this time with the main concern (lack of sourcing) addressed. The revisions of the article that I deleted are still deleted, so the Milan Direct article is entirely new. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I didn't notice the year turned over. Is the article eligible for {{db-repost}}? – Brianhe (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't {{db-repost}} this. The current version is substantially improved over the version that I deleted last year, with more references and a more neutral tone, and the details for the WP:CSD#G4 criterion on recreated material does not apply to "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version [or] pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I never saw the original version so I needed that opinion. Cheers - Brianhe (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extended confirmed protection

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

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

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

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

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

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

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Sjakkalle.

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

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

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Sjakkalle. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

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

Obituaries

JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Another undeletion request

Hey Sjakkalle, how's the chess career going? (Hopefully well!)

I'm requesting the undeletion of the article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Joel_Allwright. The footballer in question has since been signed by and played for a club in Australia's premier football competition, the A-League. Because of this, I feel the larger body of information available for him would assist to make a decent quality article, provided I could access the pre-existing deleted article, to scavenge it for information? Also, the deleting admin appears to be on a break... If you could assist, that would be awesome! Cheers dude! - J man708 (talk) 07:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see your message before now. But I see that the article in question has been restored. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Jernbanetorget

The article Jernbanetorget has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no sources, could be fake.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Endercase (talk) 04:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I initiated the page it was as a redirect to Jernbanetorget (station) which is located in a tunnel below the square. The article is definitely not fake, it is a well-known transportation node in Oslo, and the page should not be deleted outright. It could be redirected back to the article on the station however, since there is considerable overlap in the content. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:02, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Waking_the_Tiger_(2nd_nomination)

Kindly participate in the voting if you are still around. Thank you.--Jondel (talk) 07:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New article permission

Sir, this article - Mahavir Singh (freedom fighter) had been deleted by you due to copyright infringement. Can I again start this article? There is also a article on this person in Bengali Wikipedia. I will try my best to edit this article without copyright infringement. Thanks :) Che12PM 13:41, 13 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Che12Guevara (talk • contribs)

Since the article was not deleted due to a problem with the subject, it is permitted to recreate a policy-compliant article. However, make very sure that you write the article in your own words. Simply altering the text slightly is insufficient. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:53, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PA double-downs by admins, with no shame

Max, as much as I haven't gotten along w/ him, was being abused at AN. (It's PA to ridicule an editor by suggesting their maturity level is that of a 9-yr-old, as Black Kite did, and numerous admins double-downed at AN. It's a popular and seductive insult on the WP, seemingly innocuous and free-licensed, but it's clear PA, by def, there are no exceptions. I don't know anyone on receiving end who's ever found the insult helpful; quite the opposite.) You're the only chess admin with clout, you did nothing, even you value Max's contributions and have often interceced on his behalf, and I also know you're stickler for civility. So am curious your take. (Max has so far retired in response to the admin pile-on abuse.) --IHTS (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Admins tend to come down like a ton of bricks on people who call BLP subjects a "creep" as in this edit because not handling those articles with care has serious implications that could bring the Wikimedia Foundation into legal trouble. I recognize that this was the edit summary, but they are publicly visible so the BLP policy does extend to them as well. Regarding Black Kite's conduct, his approach tends to be somewhat harsher than I am (or "was", I haven't been doing much admin work for years) but I cannot say that his approach rises to the level of misconduct. The block log entry is neutral, and his comments are related to the conduct issues that led to the block.

My absence from Wikipedia last week was due to the Norwegian Chess Championship where I was one of the arbiters, a role that gave very little spare time.Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't come here complaining about Max's block. (Although I tend to think it's a valid issue, I never at any time attempted to bring it up for discussion. And I also think it's an issue whether or not Max's insult-name to a BLP subject could even remotely theoretically be cause of any legal action in any universe, but again I didn't come here to discuss or open that topic.) You seem to be over-stepping my point. (Even if what you say is true, it doesn't justify, or help, by admins leveling PAs. And though it's unbecoming for admin to issue those PAs, counter policy, & counter Wales's directives for admins to behave at a higher standard, I never asked whether it fits any definition of "misconduct", so I don't know why you've thrown in that word. [I never suggested or implied admins guilty of said PAs & double-downs s/b desysopped.]) It's plain & simple wrong & uncivil. It doesn't further their ambition to protect the WMF one nit. I did suggest their comments deserve at least trouting. By your response, I can't very well imagine anything w/ have gone different had you not been absent that week, so I don't know why you bring that up either. (Or w/ you have injected something? What?) Comparing an editor to a "9-yr-old", then defending it (I was right to say that, his behavior reminded me of irresponsible young people that I have known, and maybe my bitch-slapping him with my insult will get the message across and he will change his behavior, where a block & block rationale wouldn't have the same effect God-oh-Jesus), then other admins piling on & doubling down in the same vein, doesn't achieve anything positive, but a host of things negative: furthers an already entrenched uncivil environment, drives the wedge deeper against admins, puts on full display once again the hypocrisy of ADMINACCT & a WP "civil working environment", even to a tipping point where an editor finds it disgusting & unacceptable & quits or retires.

Arbcom makes rulings, right, that sometime get fashioned into some sort of semi-permanent quotable edict of what is permitted & what is not. (I'd like to see one specifically crafted that at no time, in any circumstance, will any admin, for any reason, throw comment designed to riducule the maturity level of an editor, comparing to a "9-yr-old", "2-yr-old", "toddler", "gradeschooler", "infant", "baby", so on and so forth. (And to teach them to behave, there would be immediate consequence.) That s/b a no-brainer, that type PA is just as easily avoided as is undeniable (prima facie). (Any guidance to get the job done is appreciated.) --IHTS (talk) 07:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are interpreting things in the least charitable manner. The "9 year" comment here reads: "You don't go around calling article subjects childish names, unless you're about 9 years old." This is not calling MaxBrowne a year-old, but describing his characterizations as unacceptable. Were they made by a 9-year old we would attribute such conduct to ignorance, and respond with guidance. But an adult who does so is acting in spite of better knowledge, and so the response is more forceful. That is the meaning that I am reading from BK here, and I cannot see that as a personal attack. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:26, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I couldn't disagree more. (The orig Black Kite PA, the double-down at his Talk, the abusive admin pile-on at AN.) I previously said I'd never consult w/ you on anything again, I did so considering Max's retirement, now you've made me regret even doing that, I've only ever seen you speak up to take shots at Corbett, or me. --IHTS (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it necessary, and how isn't it a PA, to bring up "9-yr-old" when informing an editor their "characterizations are unacceptable"?? Why is it necessary, and how isn't it a PA, to compare someone's maturity to that of a "9-yr-old" when informing an editor they're "acting in spite of better knowledge"?? It's not. So why dance around with politically correct language to reword a simple insult against an editor's maturity level? Black Kite's double-down: Perhaps my comments might actually persuade him to act like an adult. If not, there is no harm done. Sometimes, dull and neutral "you're blocked" doesn't actually have any effect, because it gives the impression that you can do the same again after the block expires. Black Kite (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC) You might also see the nasty mocking double-downs by admins on AN. Give me a break! --IHTS (talk) 03:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pattern with admins (to bend over backwards to avoid saying other admins throw PAs at reg users). (I remember a now-desysopped admin who threw insult "Good luck someday joining the human race" at DanielTom user, and, attempts to have either Brown or Ched recognize as PA proved politically impossible. You demo to me nothing has changed; that admin culture remains crusted. I don't know why any user on this site needs to show "due respect" to admins here after that crap, and this continued crap. Oh tell me.) --IHTS (talk) 08:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

IHTS, I will just concede that you are completely right. Wikipedia has a horrible working environment, and the patterns that you observe are an excellent summary of Wikipedia's corrupt admin culture where we double down when an admin make personal attacks. Your criticisms of me are especially well-founded, for I am probably the worst person who has ever been promoted to admin. That constructive content contributors such as yourself continue working here despite all the harassment and mismanagement for all these years shows admirable tenacity, but the system is so rotten that I am afraid that it's a complete waste of effort.

Now that you have won this discussion I think we can wrap it up here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unintended edit to "Unite the Right rally" ?

I don't know how Wikipedia works, but I think I noticed an unintentional mistake in your edit to "Unite the Right rally" page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally

I think your edit on 13:42, 19 August 2017 was to add:

"At a 12 August press conference Trump again said there was "blame on both sides", these remarks were condemned by politicians from accross the political spectrum.[11]"

I think your intent was to start that edit with "At a 15 August..." (notice "15" instead of "12") to make the timing consistent with the source you cited, and to emphasize via your usage of "again" that Trump said it again 3 days after the first time he said something similar on August 12.

If I am correct about your intent, then please correct your unintentional mistake to "15".

Thanks! :)

-Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.162.197 (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that I got the date wrong there. Sorry about that. I see that the paragraph has since been changed so the point is moot now. In many cases you can correct such errors yourself, but if the page is semi-protected it is good to alder us. Thanks! :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

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

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

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

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email
Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak
Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:59, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is an MfD that you may be interested in

There is an MfD that you may be interested in at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ihardlythinkso/Headlong to gray goo (2nd nomination). I am notifying everyone who commented at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ihardlythinkso/Headlong to article lower-quality statuses --Guy Macon (talk) 20:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RE Deleted Article

Dear Sjakkalle,

Please note that I have nominated the deletion of Gouri Kishna page for a deletion review. "== Deletion review for Gouri Kishna == An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gouri Kishna. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review." Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

Deletion review for Mr. Greek

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mr Greek. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Thank you!

Thank you for moving MS Birgo! You can delete this comment if you'd like :) Just want to let you know we appreciate you! You're the best!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbknapic (talk • contribs) 20:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! When you do place a new article at Birgo, readers may appreciate a hatnote in case they are looking for the ship. Putting {{For|the ship|MS Birgo}} at the top of the article will tell readers "For the ship see MS Birgo". Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of historical landmarks in Healdsburg, California

I see you deleted this page. The comment that the landmarks are already on the Healdsburg, California article is in error. That article includes some National Register entries, but misses the buildings and districts established by City Ordinance by the City of Healdsburg. Should the table be included on that Healdsburg, California article? Or, should the deletion be reconsidered? Thanks.MikeVdP (talk) 06:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem with the article was one of reliable sourcing. Apart from the two entries already in the Healdsburg article (the library and the bridge), the remainder of the article relied on city documents, which would probably be considered primary sources. While such sources can be used for basic facts, they are poor at establishing notability. In particular, there was no information as to who designated the buildings in the letter as "historical", or if they are widely recognized as historical. For this reason, Wikipedia has a strong preference for secondary sourcing (see WP:PSTS). If more historical landmarks can be verifiably added to the Healdsburg, California article, then by all means do so.

In general, it is welcome to expand articles on cities by including information on aspects such as history and landmarks. When the required amount of detail would make the main article too long, spinning out separate articles on various aspects (be it the history, the landmarks, the infrastructure and so on) becomes an option per Wikipedia:Summary style. Separate articles that are 5-6 sentences long is usually overkill. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Norwegian speaker might be of use on the Fischer article

I admit that I didn't really follow the question being considered, but discussion at Talk:Bobby_Fischer#Sogn suggests that someone who reads Norwegian might be able to help. I don't think it's an important thing, but I hadn't communicated with you in a while and this was an excuse to drop by and say hello. Quale (talk) 03:49, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to hear from you again Quale! Lots of things have changed in life since we last met. Things like becoming a teacher, getting a girlfriend, and becoming a father, all things that affect the time left for Wikipedia! :-)

Not sure I can help that much on the topic at hand since modern Norwegian has evolved far away from the Icelandic language. The languages have a common heritage in the Old Norse language, Icelandic is still quite similar to that origin. I believe that "Sogn" is probably a proper noun when written in the context of a hospital name. As a common noun a "sogn" is roughly the same as a church parish. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I beg a thousand pardons for forgetting that you are an Icelander. My name is of Norwegian origin but I don't know much about Scandinavia and nothing of the Norwegian language. My grandfather also didn't know Norwegian but in 1970 he found some way to figure out how to spell "Merry Christmas" in Norwegian for a large outdoor Christmas display. (I might barely be able to manage this with the help of the internet today, but in 1970 I would have found it impossible.) Congratulations on all your exciting life changes, you are progressing. My life has reached a comfortable near stasis. Although my wife and I have maybe a decade to go before retirement, I don't have any particular complaints. Quale (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am a Norwegian, and never been to Iceland (although I understand it's a wonderful place to visit) :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Al Sabban

Re: your close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mona Al Sabban please refund Mona Al Sabban with talk page and any talk subpages if they exist to preferably or otherwise userify for for me to WP:STUBIFY and consider bringing forward. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the page has been restored to User:Djm-leighpark/Mona Al Sabban. Note that the categories the page was in have been "commented out". Good luck with the article! Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good close

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buttock Batu, I had spent the night thinking about this one, and had largely reached the same conclusions, except you said it better than I could have. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good to know that at least one other admin agrees with my line of reasoning. :-) It took some time to consider the arguments about the reliability of the source material. Some of the keep votes were a bit hasty in just citing precedent. FeydHuxtable made a good faith effort to prove the existence by pointing to the built up area in the vicinity, an effort I would have liked to reward, but unfortunately it was speculation, albeit reasonable speculation. If that area is a settlement with a verifiable name and some information, I hope that someone will be able to write up an article about it. Provided that verifiabiliy requirements are met, I support the practice of keeping articles on settlements. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:40, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barangay close

While I don't necessarily object to the redirect you suggested, I have to question the logic of your recent barangay close. Have you read WP:GEOLAND and WP:N (particularly WP:SNG)? You cited the WP:GNG, which doesn't apply in this case (and citing a previous close made on the same mistaken reading of the guidelines is not policy-compliant, IMO). Newimpartial (talk) 17:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more concern, Sjakkalle. "Santa Cruz, Camarines Norte" is not a plausible redirect as Labo, Camarines Norte and Talisay, Camarines Norte both have a barangay named "Santa Cruz" (not just Jose Panganiban's Santa Cruz). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: barangays do in fact have local councils called the Sangguniang Barangay (barangay council). —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 18:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of WP:GEOLAND which is a supplement (not a replacement) of the GNG. GNG is never irrelevant since sources are needed to build articles, but the degree of "significance" required may vary. It is typically low for geographical subjects. Populated places are "typically presumed" to be notable, but this is not a guarantee. It is a guideline that needs to be interpreted, and in the AFD here the rough consensus was opposed to a separate article. Consistency with the previous AFD was only one of several reasons. I was aware that barangays have local councils, and I mentioned that much in the closing statement.

Thanks for pointing out that the title is ambiguous. To be fair, that would have been an objection to the title when the page was an article as well. But I can make a disambiguation page instead. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:45, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you are saying, but neither the GNG nor the SNGs offer a guarantee; either can only create the presumption of a separate article. And GEOLAND does indeed replace the GNG for presumption of Notability within its domain; the ongoing discussion at WT:N, while containing a good deal of pedantry, is reasonably clear on the undelying point. Also, the section WP:SNG, which emerged from a widely-parricipated RfC last year, is quite clear that the SNGs are not, as a rule, supplements to the GNG (and indeed, GEOLAND is not).

Once again, my objection here is not to the redirect, but to the logic behind the redirect: I have seen it used before, but from a policy standpoint it takes guidelines that have an internal logic and makes them incoherent for no good reason. Newimpartial (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't quite see a clear consensus that GEOLAND overrules or replaces the GNG in the talkpage discussion that you linked to. Guidelines are not hard and fast rules that mandate which topics are notable and which are not and there is a wide range of topics where reasonable people may disagree. The guidelines provide presumptions concerning notability, not conclusions on individual articles. The guidelines are meant to guide, not govern. I still feel that my closure was in accordance with the spirit of the notability guidelines as they were interpreted in this AFD discussion, but you are of course free to bring this up at WP:DRV if you want other opinions on the matter. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since I don't object to the redirect decision itself, WP:NOTBURO cautions me away from DRV in this case. Not every topic that is Notable (that is, presumed to merit an article) actually needs to have an article. But if I see other AfD closes (not from you in particular; just closes in this type of case) that follow the !votes away from the actual decision logic specified in WP:N, I'm sure DRV could be in my future at some point. WP:CONSENSUSLEVEL is also a policy worth sticking out one's extremities for, at times. Newimpartial (talk) 19:26, 30 July 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) 00:07, 23 November 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)

The WikiEagle - January 2022

The WikiEagle

The WikiProject Aviation Newsletter

Volume I — Issue 1

Aviation Project • Project discussion • Members • Assessment • Outreach • The WikiEagle

Announcements

After over a decade of silence, the WikiProject Aviation newsletter is making a comeback under the name The WikiEagle. This first issue was sent to all active members of the project and its sub-projects. If you wish to continue receiving The WikiEagle, you can add your username to the mailing list. For now the newsletter only covers general project news and is run by only one editor. If you wish to help or to become a columnist, please let us know. If you have an idea which you believe would improve the newsletter, please share it; suggestions are welcome and encouraged.
On 16 December, an RfC was closed which determined theaerodrome.com to be an unreliable source. The website, which is cited over 1,500 articles, mainly on WWI aviation, as of the publishing of this issue.
Luft46.com has been added to the list of problematic sources after this discussion.
The Jim Lovell article was promoted to Featured Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Hawkeye7.
The Raymond Hesselyn article was promoted to Good Article status on 4 December after being nominated by Zawed.
The Supermarine Sea King article was promoted to Good Article status on 22 December after being nominated by Amitchell125.
The William Hodgson (RAF officer) article was promoted to Good Article status on 26 December after being nominated by Zawed.

Members

New Members

KingAviationKid (Joined on 17 December)
PatrickChiao (Joined on 22 December)
Wp9097 (Joined on 16 December)

Number of active members: 386. Total number of members: 921.

Closed Discussions

Featured Article assessment

Jim Lovell (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021

Good Article assessment

HAL Tejas (discussion) – Closed as not promoted on 30 December 2021
William Hodgson (RAF officer) (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 26 December 2021
Supermarine Sea King (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 22 December 2021
Raymond Hesselyn (discussion) – Closed as promoted on 4 December 2021

Deletion

Timeline of Berlin Brandenburg Airport's construction (discussion) – Closed as delete and redirect on 30 December 2021
Evergreen International Airlines Flight 17 (discussion) – Closed as keep on 25 December 2021

Requested moves

Akbarpur (Ambedkar Nagar) Airstrip → Akbarpur Airstrip (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021
1983 Avensa Douglas DC-9 crash → Avensa Flight 007 (discussion) – Closed as moved on 30 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 035 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 035 (discussion) – Withdrawn on 28 December 2021

Article Statistics
This data reflects values from DMY.

Aviation pages by quality
Quality
Quality	Total
FA	142
FL	15
A	56
GA	505
B	4,573
C	11,878
Start	15,082
Stub	18,754
List	2,539
Category	11,638
Disambig	653
File	2,713
Portal	629
Project	89
Redirect	1,518
Template	2,489
NA	66
Assessed	73,339
Unassessed	1
Total	73,340
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 251,827	Ω = 4.92

New/Ongoing Discussions

Featured Article review

D. B. Cooper (discussion) – Since 14 December 2021

A-class Article assessment

Granville Gee Bee Model A (discussion) – Since 21 April 2020
List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War (discussion) – Since 22 February 2010

Good Article assessment

Romanian Air Corps (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021
Jean Batten (discussion) – Since 2 October 2021

Merger proposals

List of astronauts by name → List of astronauts by year of selection (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021
List of cosmonauts → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021
List of space travelers by name → List of space travelers by nationality (discussion) – Since 10 August 2021
Holidays Czech Airlines → Czech Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 June 2021
Bendix Aviation → Bendix Corporation (discussion) – Since 30 May 2021
Airport Movement Area Safety System → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 29 May 2021
ASDE-X → Airport Surface Surveillance Capability (discussion) – Since 28 May 2021

Splitting proposals

Family Airlines (discussion) – Since 23 November 2021
2021 Kabul airport attack (discussion) – Since 24 September 2021
List of military aircraft of the United States (discussion) – Since 16 August 2021
Braniff International Airways (discussion) – Since 8 September 2019

Deletion

List of maiden voyages (discussion) – Since 29 December 2021

Requested moves

Hot-air balloon → Hot air balloon (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021
Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 108 → Aeropostal Alas de Venezuela Flight 109 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 150 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 150 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 206 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 206 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 708 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 708 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
Garuda Indonesia Flight 892 → Garuda Indonesian Airways Flight 892 (discussion) – Since 28 December 2021
TWA Flight 800 → TWA Flight 800 (1996) (discussion) – Since 27 December 2021
Dynamic Airways Flight 405 → Dynamic International Airways Flight 405 (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021
CommutAir Flight 4281 → CommutAir Flight 4821 (discussion) – Since 25 December 2021
Thai Airways → Thai Airways International (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021
Thai Airways fleet → Thai Airways International fleet (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021
List of Thai Airways destinations → List of Thai Airways International destinations (discussion) – Since 13 December 2021

Did you know

Ravish Malhotra (discussion) – Since 30 December 2021
Alexander Tahy (discussion) – Since 26 December 2021
Veronica Volkersz (discussion) – Since 6 December 2021
Rudolf Szepessy-Sokoll (discussion) – Since 3 December 2021

On The Main Page

Did you know...

... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force? (24 December)

Discuss & propose changes to The WikiEagle at The WikiEagle talk page. To opt in/out of receiving this news letter, add or remove your username from the mailing list.
Newsletter contributor: ZLEA

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:36, 1 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)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harry Gill (gymnast)

Hi Sjakkalle, thank you for closing that AFD.

In your close, you said reasonable arguments on both sides as to the notability of Olympic athletes in general have been made. Can you clarify what you meant by this? BilledMammal (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for example, reasonable arguments can be made on whether Olympedia really confers notability or not. It is probably a reliable source, but it's coverage is brief and its aim is to catalogue all Olympic competitors not just highlight the outstanding ones. As such, I think both sides of the debate held a defensible position, but neither of them were clearly in the right (or wrong). Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for clarifying. However, in that case I don't believe "no consensus" was the correct close; a majority of editors supported deleting the article, and those editors had the strongest argument - Olympedia was the only source presented as significant by the keep !voters, which means WP:GNG's requirement for multiple sources is not met, and as Olympedia is a database source WP:SPORTCRIT #5 is failed - the latter of this means the article must be deleted. BilledMammal (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - A majority does not necessarily mean a consensus. I disagree that this is a "must be deleted" case, for one thing alternatives such as merging the article to an article about the team remain on the table. Notability is a guideline, not a hard-and-fast policy, and interpreted on a case by case basis through consensus. In order to delete based on notability I need to see more than a slight majority where the minority makes valid points, even if you or I don't agree with those points. Most cases of "must be deleted" despite a significant opposition to deletion involve articles that violate core content policies such as WP:V or WP:NOR, or where there is no merit (or no coherent argument) whatsoever on the keep side. This wasn't one of those cases, and I feel that closing this AFD otherwise would be making a "supervote" which I believe administrators should abstain from doing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Must be deleted" is because of WP:SPORTCRIT #5, which is meaningless if we allow local consensuses to ignore its requirement that sports articles cannot exist without at least one example of significant coverage from a non-database source.
    Reading what you have said, it appears that you set aside SPORTCRIT #5, and WP:GNG's requirement for multiple sources, due to the lack of a super majority in favour of deletion. Is this an accurate assessment? BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Not really. What is a "database source"? Does attempting to be comprehensive and cover all topics within an area make it a database? Or is it a source that only contains stats and other tabulated information? The Olympmedia site is largely about stats, which supports your viewpoint, but it does also have a brief biography which is somewhat more than what you would find in a database entry, and that supports the opposing viewpoint. Also, during the debate Lugnuts and Bungle did link to some other sourcing. The significance of that sourcing can be debated, but it wasn't clearly without merit either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)×[reply]
        It seems a discussion about Olympedia would be in order. Thank you for discussing the close. BilledMammal (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dying of the Light (Heroes)

To discuss a different close, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dying of the Light (Heroes), I was hoping you would be willing to relist it. I am seeing a consensus to redirect emerging, and as it had only been open a week another might have been enough time to allow that consensus to be more clear, particularily with the good point raised by Lurking Shadow at the end about the WP:SUSTAINED failure.

I also note that in your close summary you say that the WP:NOTPLOT issue could be corrected with editing, but I don't see a consensus in support of that position; some editors do believe that, but other editors disagree, and no editor has been able to provide that it can be resolved. BilledMammal (talk) 06:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generally relists are for cases where there has been insufficient discussion. In this case the input to the discussion was above average. There was substantial debate where no consensus was the result. Relisting is not supposed to be used because you or I believe that a more favorable outcome might emerge.

According to WP:RELIST "That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a "no consensus" closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable."

My remark about the WP:NOTPLOT policy was about why I declined to close this as a "delete" or "redirect" as a matter of policy. It is rare that I close a discussion as "delete" when there is substantial opposition to it, but it has happened on occasion where a policy clearly mandates deletion, usually because there is a serious verifiability issue that the "keep" side is ignoring. The position that the article currently violates the NOTPLOT policy is arguable (although it was also argued that NOTPLOT was not violated since there was some content on reviews and reception). But even if the article does contain a policy violation of NOTPLOT, due to a bloated plot section, the regular remedy is to pare down that section instead of deleting the article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen Line GA Reassessment

Bergen Line has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coco Bandicoot

I kind of think the AFD for her should have been relisted instead of close. If you look at the votes, only two editors have given a policy/guideline-based reason since the comment I posted where I linked to the NYM Gamer source, whereas Cat's Tuxedo was unsure of the reliability, and the other editors that upheld their votes didn't give a reason. MoonJet (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please give it a rest. It wasn't even close to anything beyond ending as a redirect. You can't just hand-wave everyone who has higher sourcing standards than you as "not policy a based stance". Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that no one else gave a reason at all for their vote to upheld after I provided that academic source, not because I disagree with their interpretation of the guidelines. MoonJet (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can sympathise with you, as the first article I wrote, before creating an account, was a "character" (actually a starfighter carrier) from the Wing Commader franchise, and ended up seeing it nominated for deletion rathr quickly which was not particularily pleasant. However, my closure stands, although you are of course free to appeal at WP:DRV if you think I got it wrong.

The consensus in the AFD discussion was clearly against having a separate article for this character, but note that it does have extensive coverage in the list article that it now redirects to. This result is consistent with previous precedent for most fictional characters. Separate articles for fictional characters are the exception. For most characters, most of the sourcing will be "in-universe", which is fine for a list article, but insufficient for a separate article. The arguments that the sourcing, though present, didn't clear the bar for a separate article were well in line with the WP:FICT guideline. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT actually an essay, rather than a guideline. Also, WP:NOTPLOT tells us that fictional elements should have a detailed creation and/or reception section, which Coco had. In fact, WP:FICT says the same thing, not even mentioning that creation and reception need to include out-of-universe detail.

Yeah, I don't see any good reason for her not to have her own article with that extensive coverage you pointed out, which is the whole point of notability. In fact, I think it's ridiculous, to be blunt. Not only that, but there's even more not cited there that I brought up in the AFD. MoonJet (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are right that WP:FICT is an essay (not a guideline like I wrote) but it doesn't change matters much. It basically gives some advice on how WP:GNG applies to fictional characters. The notability guidelines leave a lot of gray area that is interpreted through rough community consensus, and in this issue the that was clearly, albeit not unanimously, for the redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when I provided new sourcing shortly before the AFD was closed, most of those that upheld their stance didn't give a reason for doing so. One editor was unsure if the source was reliable, another editor was on the fence about the author and yet another user said it was reliable and voted keep based on that. So, while it as looking like consensus was clear on a redirect at first, I don't think there was enough re-evaluation based on the new sourcing I provided. This is where I'm trying to get at. That's why I think it should have at least been relisted. MoonJet (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, if people just reaffirm their opinion it just means that they read what you wrote, found it unconvincing, and feel that their previous opinion and reasoning still stand. In an AFD it is not possible to nullify all other opinions by making a change, and then demanding that a reason adequate to you be given in order to reinstate it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can agree with this assessment, but okay. I won't press this with you any further. Thanks for the replies. MoonJet (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pleading for Reviewing Your Decision

Hi, I am the creator of the article Cropin. As per what I understood, the guidelines laid down in WP:AFD, I tried to argue in favor of keeping the article in the deletion discussion. I did understand that a number of editors have questioned about the lacking in terms of having independent coverage. The article initially had 50 references. At the time when it was deleted, it had about 70 references. The additional references were added while the deletion discussion was in process. I can appreciate that its cumbersome to examine all the references. Anyways, I will like to draw your attention to the book Socio-Tech Innovation: Harnessing Technology for Social Good published by Springer which has a dedicated chapter on the entity (Chapter 15) and also to the Book Innovate India: A Roadmap for Atmanirbhar Bharat published by Bloomsbury Publishing which has a detailed case study on the entity (in Chapter 7). In case the previous 50 references were not enough to establish notability, specifically failed to achieve the requirements of ORGID, these two with other books and journal references are definitely able make the entity pass the ORGIND and overall notability, as per my understanding. I mentioned this argument in the deletion discussion but possibly you missed it (it got a lengthy conversation to examine). So I am requesting you to kindly review your deletion decision, if possible. In case I have made any mistake by contacting you or you felt bothered, I am seeking apology beforehand for it. Khemotaj (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the two books you provided. I cannot access ch. 15 of the Socio-Tech Innovation book, but I am unconvinced that the book is sufficiently independent or neutral. The article title for CropIn, "CropIn: Addressing farmer poverty through "connected farming"" already looks like press release language, and the table of contents in general doesn't at all alleviate the impression that the content is promotional in nature. As for the case study in Innovate India, it starts off with "I met the founder of CropIn, Kunal Prasad..." and the entire content about the company is based on what Prasad says about the company. The source thus lacks independence.

I'm afraid the result of the AFD stands, but if you disagree you are of course free to appeal to WP:DRV. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pan'an South railway station

For this discussion, can you explain how you assessed the various !votes? Looking at the !votes in favour of keeping, only one opposes a merger while the rest merely argue that it is notable and thus shouldn't be deleted.

As such, while I agree there is a consensus against deletion, there appears to be a strong consensus in favour of merging. BilledMammal (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When a person writes "keep", that usually means keep the content as a separate article and I cannot interpret that as being OK with "merge" when the choice is between a keep and a merge outcome. Many of the participants pointed to previous precedent on railway station articles on AFD and while this is not a decisive argument, it is a reasonable one, since there is a case to be made for internal consistency in Wikipedia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that those !votes didn't present any argument, policy based or otherwise, against merging, and thus per WP:DETCON should have minimal weight in determining whether there is a consensus for such a proposal. Can you explain how much weight you gave each of those keep !votes?
As for precedent, I believe WP:LOCALCON applies; there was a recent RfC on that topic, with a clear consensus that train stations have no inherent notability, and we cannot allow a local consensus, or even a group of local consensuses, to overrule that broad consensus. BilledMammal (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A "consensus" means a broad agreement. When many people are against the action, I cannot call a consensus. Saying, "you didn't explicitly argue against merging in a discussion that is about deletion, so your vote doesn't count" would with good reason cause consternation. Nor is there any policy that demands that the content must be merged, although a case can be made that the content ought to be merged. But AFD is a poor venue for discussing merges, since they are an editorial decision, not requiring administrator tools to execute anything. If you wish to pursue merging, please use the regular process for that.
Decide what article the content should be merged into, this is probably an article on the railway line, and use the {{Merge from}} on that article.

Add a {{Merge to}} template on the article, or articles, that you wish to merge into the article on the railway line.

Initiate a discussion on the talkpage of the railway line article.
Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Policy requires that consensus is based on strength of argument assessed through the lens of policy, but based on your responses (When many people are against the action) it appears you assessed it based on vote counting.

If I have misunderstood, could you please clarify the weight you gave to votes that relied on the rejected precedent, and the weight you gave to votes that didn't address the proposal?

As for question of forum I believe WP:NOTBURO applies; even if you believe AfD is the wrong forum that is a procedural error and not grounds for rejecting the proposal. BilledMammal (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your question was how i "weigh" votes. I don't weigh votes.

I don't go through votes and accept or reject them based on their individual rationales, and then count up the votes that I have accepted. That method is vulnerable to letting my personal biases getting in the way of accepting votes with rationales that I don't agree with, leaving me prone to supervoting. I do reject obvious bad faith contributions, such as sockpuppets, or votes cast in a disruptive manner, e.g. to make a WP:POINT.

Instead, I look to see if a reasonable case has been made for each position, and anyone who supports that position in good faith is taken into account when determining consensus. If a person makes a good faith but poorly argued vote in support of a particular position, I will assume implicitly that they endorse the stronger arguments in support of that position. If the two sides are roughly balanced, that is usually a "no consensus" where the usual result is no change to the status quo.

I can overrule that if I see that one side is not making a case that addresses the main issue at hand, usually this will be one side ignoring a glaring policy problem with an article. For instance in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buttock Batu the "keep" side was not addressing a serious verifiability issue that concerned the subject's existence, and in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cropin the keep side was arguing about notability and sources while ignoring that the article was basically a promotional advertisement. Both of these are key policies central to Wikipedia's mission of verifiability and neutrality.

In this case there was indeed some sourcing for the station, and although it was basic it was reliable enough to satisfy WP:V requirements. (There is incidentally no requirement that the source be in English, per WP:NONENG, so I was somewhat puzzled at your ardour for your merge position while saying you were unabe to assess GNG.) There is no bright line as to whether an article is kept separate or merged and pointing to previous precedent, basically arguing for internal consistency, isn't a stupid argument whether you agree with it or not. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, can you specify which argument against a merge you considered strongest?

As for pointing at past precedent, it might not be a stupid argument (though I have some general reservations about it), but it is clearly an unacceptable argument in this case per WP:LOCALCON, due to being rejected by a broader consensus.

Finally, regarding the comment you referenced, I believe you misunderstood it; my statement on GNG was not connected to my statement on the merge. BilledMammal (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is a case of WP:LOCALCON. If it was one AFD where the result was deviating from all other precedent, I would agree with you. But when there have been dozens upon dozens of AFDs on railway stations, and the vast majority end up being kept outright, then that points to a level of consistency which is far beyond merely "local". Besides, nobody in the discussion were arguing that railway stations were inherently notable. They were arguing that the sourcing was sufficient. You may or may not agree with that, but they had something to point to, and that I think is the strongest argument on that side. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:21, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three editors in the discussion were arguing that railway stations were inherently notable; Necrothesp (Longstanding consensus is that all railway stations are notable), Mackensen (Long-standing consensus as demonstrated at User:Necrothesp/List of AfD discussions for railway stations is that (a) railway stations and services as a concept are notable and covering them is not WP:UNDUE and (b) they're better covered at standalone articles instead of in lists. Calling other editors "full of shit", while perhaps satisfying in the moment, doesn't change that.), and Lightburst (the rationale of Necrothesp. I know we can have a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS at any time but as evidenced by this AfD, that time is not yet.)

Regarding what makes this a WP:LOCALCON, that is the RfC, which I believe represents a broader consensus than any precedent; do you disagree?

However, I think you misunderstood my question. I was asking for what you considered the strongest argument against merging, not the strongest argument against deleting since no one was advocating for deleting. BilledMammal (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your interpretation of the Necrothesp's, Mackensen's and Lightburst's input. Citing previous results to appeal for consistency is not a claim of "inherent notability". They are not asking for the article to be exempt from GNG for example. As such, their votes are not inconsistent with the RFC you are citing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please give this discussion (which is clearly at an impasse and starting to get longer than the AFD discussion we are discussing) a rest. If you think my close is wrong, use WP:DRV, or the regular process for requesting merges outlined above. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022_September_26#Adolph_Mølsgaard

For the record, at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2022 September 26#Adolph Mølsgaard I wasn't arguing that the reclosure a day or so after the relist was a process failure in itself. I was arguing that just before the relist a constructive discussion was started, about where there was actual sources - but that someone with online access needed to do the search; the AFD was closed prematurely before consensus had formed, while an active discussion still was taking place. While recreation remains the option, closing the AFD removes the forum where constructive group discussion can take place. Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your view is noted, but it doesn’t change the fact that it was incorrect to characterize the close as «premature» when the close was in fact overdue. Believing that a further extension could have changed the outcome doesn’t alter that assessment. Ending the discussion is not an impediment for a recreated article. If someone has sufficient sourcing, the article may be boldly recreated without any further need for discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:38, 11 October 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) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Newimpartial (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey stick controversy

Hello, just letting you know that I undeleted the edits of this article and its talk page for attribution; see my talk page note for more information. It seems like no-one noticed the attribution issues with deleting the article history until I got there. Graham87 09:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Game competition systems

A tag has been placed on Category:Game competition systems indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 13:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems sensible. I think I created this category a long time ago under a different name while categorizing the article Swiss-system tournament. Reorganizations have probably made the category redundant now. Thanks for the notice! 🙂 Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lane Bess

Hi @Sjakkalle: I'm going to take this WP:DRV. I consider that the poorest close rationale, I've seen for a while. There is not a WP:SECONDARY source amongst any of those references. Also I never stated the Miami Herald was clickbait. It is a decent paper. It does state on the Miami Herald article: "In an interview, Bess, 60, said he anticipates having a “Zen” moment that will put life, especially its challenges, into proper focus". So it is interview, amongst many other interviews with an individual clearly on a PR drive. Nothing indicates notability as none of the references are proper WP:SECONDARY sources. scope_creep^Talk 13:31, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are of course free to challenge my closes on DRV. I hold the firm view that closing in accordance with the position that you advocated would be a supervote, and contrary to the requirement that there be rough consensus for a deletion to take place. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is understandable. I did think it was redirect, but see what the DRV says. scope_creep^Talk

Proposed deletion of Berlin Defence (disambiguation)

The article Berlin Defence (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This disambiguation page contains the primary topic and one other topic for the ambiguous title and no other topics can be found within a reasonable time.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For editing since 2005, and having quality edits all the way through. (belated) Congratulations on 19 years! Waylon (was) (here) 15:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that was unexpected! Thank you very much! :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates of the next Australian federal election (2nd nomination)

I think you've gotten this close completely wrong as the article is currently ready for mainspace from a notability standpoint and the TBDs can be easily edited. When would you suggest moving it back to mainspace, or should I strike up a DRV? Thanks! SportingFlyer T·C 17:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the tables are seas of "TBD" with a few islands of candidates that happen to have no challengers from within the party, and where it can be presumed that they will be candidates should they wish to run again. There is no bright line where moving the page back to mainspace is justified, but I did suggest that it be when the "nominations begin in earnest" while J2M5 suggested "when there are a fair number of non-incumbent candidates announced, or incumbents confirmed". You are of course free to contest my decision at DRV, and I have never taken it personally when people do that. :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added the "TBD" because there was an editor who had an issue with the table cells being blank. I have no preference between whether the cells containing "TBD" are blanked.

I've come to this talk page because I am considering challenging the closure. Given the roughly equal support for Draft and Keep, it would normally be controversial to find a result other than No Consensus. I am concerned that the closure comment reflects your personal opinion, which would be a valid entry in the discussion, rather than a neutral assessment of the discussion. Could you further elaborate on the reasons why you have found the consensus of the discussion to be Draft? Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the entire contents of this deleted article has now been moved to Next Australian federal election. Guess this can be debated in the Talk section of that page. But simply moving content from a deleted article to another active article seems to be against the whole point of AfDs. Teraplane (talk) 04:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only if the content is not notable, but in this case it was the article and not the content that was deemed not notable. The notability of the content itself was not disputed, so it could be within any appropriate notable article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 April 25. —Cryptic 13:39, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. Unless I feel some comment is in order, I tend to abstain from DRV discussions concerning my closes, but I do follow them. If the consensus is that I erred, I will learn from that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 19:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Template:Test1a" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:Test1a has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 20 § Template:Test1a until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]