User talk:Timotheus Canens/Archives/2019/6

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Timotheus Canens. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Queer Glass

Mr. Canens,

In reference to the deleted article, I am a little concerned that perhaps the final decision was made prior to re-reading/reviewing the updated article - when the article was proposed initially for deletion, and as a result of the comments (both pro and con), I revised the article substantially, as well as adding new reliable sources which solidified the assertion of this rather "new" art term. Would it be possible to get you to read the revised article? Or if you did and still think that adding the sources (from the nation's second largest glass school for one) doesn't add to the validity of the term as defined. That same reference was subsequently discussed elsewhere here.

Thank you in advice,

BZBoriquaZurdo (talk) 17:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

BoriquaZurdo, if you don't mind, and if T. Canens doesn't mind, I looked over the discussion, the deleted article, and the links you provided here, and I have to say I agree with the deletion. I think two main problems were identified: OR/synthesis (basically, putting disparate things together to make a new term), and lack of secondary sourcing. The "revised" version doesn't alleviate these concerns, and the links you post above aren't to secondary sourcing. Typically, OR/synth and lack of secondary sourcing go hand in hand, and that's what I see here. That your revisions weren't discussed by all participants, that's how it goes. I cannot speak for T. Canens, but these revisions really weren't that substantial. I see you added a Washington Post article--but that only explains what LGBTQ stands for and thus has nothing to do with the topic. A page on http://susanrichardsartist.blogspot.com doesn't help either--and I can go on. So I'm sorry, but as an admin, I don't see a very good reason to revisit this discussion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)