User talk:Tone/Archive 25

Welcome to my discussion page. I prefer having all the conversations on the same place, so I mostly answer here. If you decide to send me a mail, please remind me here to check my mailbox, just in case. -- Tone.
Click here to leave me a new message

Voice for Children and Families deletion page

Hey tone, I am the one that nominated Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Voice_for_Children_and_Families for deletion, and I think putting your thumb on the scale by saying "I'd close as keep myself but I participated in the discussion" is a really shitty and unethical thing for you to say. I think you're dead wrong about the sourcing, obviously, but you're entitled to be wrong(though I wish you'd one more than just assert those sources are reliable). But letting everyone know that you, an administrator thinks it should be closed but for the red tape is deeply unfair. Grung0r (talk) 05:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. However, as demonstrated, many of the sources are strong and solid (true, some are not, some are blogs or forums). And you were the only one questioning them. I will modify the relisting statement. --Tone 07:08, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article Deletion - Cycling age categories

Hi Tone, I noticed today that you closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cycling age categories, and deleted the article Cycling age categories, but I could not find the reason for the deletion. I thought that I had sufficiently cleaned the article to address why it was nominated for AfD and saw no need to go beyond that except to make a note that I had done so at the tail end of the discussion. So that I don't in the future invest any unnecessary time cleaning an AfD, could you please explain to me why you proceeded with the deletion? Thank you. — WILDSTAR^talk 19:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After a second thought, I will relist it so that the community can establish whether the issues have been fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. --Tone 19:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it's ok. It's already been relisted once... and I am fine with the deletion. I just wanted to know what needed to be done for the next time. Thank you Tone!! — WILDSTAR^talk 19:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're quick! I'm good either way. :) — WILDSTAR^talk 20:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Beer Star

The close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Beer Star seems invalid. Please reconsider. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is always the issue of references. Can you fix the article in this regard? If yes, I will be happy to relist. --Tone 12:17, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can't fix the article because you've deleted it. I already suggested a sensible alternative to deletion in the discussion. Did you not read it? Andrew🐉(talk) 12:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is listed there already, and the format of the list does not allow substantial content to be moved. What I wanted to say is, if you are willing to fix the article, I will recreate it and relist the AfD. --Tone 12:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not your job as closer to negotiate some sort of plea bargain and I will not encourage such demands. The closer should summarise what was agreed or not agreed in the discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving past the discussion. My decision was to delete because the article did not cite good sources, thus, GNG policy etc. What I am doing now is opening possibilities to move things forward. --Tone 11:43, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lauryn McClain

Hello, you recently deleted the article Lauryn McClain, which I understand. Now, it is possible that in the near future that she'll become notable in her own right. How do I go about recovering the page that was deleted instead of starting all over again, when necessary? Factfanatic1 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is easy, you ask me or some other admin who can provide you the content. And possibly even recreate the article so that the editing history is preserved. Ideally, that would take place in the draft space and then moved to main space. --Tone 14:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way for you to redirect all of the page links that were deleted for Lauryn McClain to Thriii, which is the band she's a part of with her sisters? Because the page and all of the links were deleted, there no longer is no history like there once was. Prior to the most recent page creation, all of the links associated with the page redirected to the band page. Also, the edit history would be preserved this way. Factfanatic1 (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable move. --Tone 15:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. You deleted all of the pages that redirected to Lauryn McClain. Could you restore the following redirects please: Lauryn mcclain, Lauryn alisa mcclain, ‎Lauryn A. McClain, and ‎Lauryn A McClain? Factfanatic1 (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those were just redirects. Feel free to recreate them with the new target ;) --Tone 16:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent AfD closure

Hi,

You recently closed an AFD of mine, but I am not sure you did it correctly. You see, if you look closely enough at the AfD you'll see only 2 people commented at it, I the nominator, and one other user. I am concerned you may have made a mistake in this AFD because given only one other user expressed supported for the nomination, I believe you should have relisted it. I don't think the support of one other user is adequate to have it deleted. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the nomination was reasonable enough, citing policies, and another user agreed. Noone opposed the nomination. So, seems fine to me. No point in waiting for five other users to stop by and say "delete per nom". Relisting is when the consensus is not obvious. --Tone 13:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Best, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deer Lake School

Hi, you recently closed an AfD for Deer Lake School, an article I created, despite there being only three votes, two of which were opposed to the deletion. I also improved the page after the most recent vote. I would have liked to have the page moved to my draftspace had the discussion suggested a delete, but I had thought that was not a possibility based on the discussion, so I didn't bring it up. I am also confused as to why it was deleted, as no reasons were provided that made sense to me based on the state of the article, given that the nominator of the AfD claimed the article had no secondary sources when over half the material in the article was based on secondary sources. Could you help me figure out why the article was deleted, why the conclusion was delete, and restore it to my draftspace if that is possible? Thank you. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! AfD is not a vote but a debate based on arguments. The main issue was notabilty, and this argument was not refuted in the discussion, hence the delete outcome. If you can establish notability, we can look further. --Tone 19:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of days before the deletion of the article, but after the last vote on the AfD, I added a second source which I believe established notability, but feel free to correct me if I am wrong. According to my understanding, a secondary school is notable if it meets notability (organization), which means that it is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I didn't keep a record of all the links I added to the page, but I'll provide two sources here that I was able to find quickly.

https://theprovince.com/sports/high-school/for-burnabys-deer-lake-falcons-no-religious-compromises-necessary-on-road-to-saturday-night -- This is a newspaper article from The Province, which is one of the two largest newspapers in British Columbia, with a reputation on par with a "newspaper of record", so it is the most reliable secondary source possible, in my opinion. It heavily features Deer Lake's athletic program, and highlight's the school's Seventh-day Adventist faith, and given the importance of athletics programs to secondary schools in North America I would deem that "non-trivial coverage". As a provincial paper it demonstrates regional coverage.

https://adventistdigitallibrary.org/adl-406397/canadian-union-messenger-april-21-1965 page 12 and 13 -- This is a magazine article from the Canadian Union Messenger, the official journal of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Canada. The topic of the article is the construction of Deer Lake School, which is covered in detail, and is further covered in later issues, all of which makes it non-trivial coverage. As a subscription periodic print journal, we know that the account was written by someone who did not have a vested financial interest in the success of the school, and is therefore independent of the subject; nor is this a case of self-publishing, which makes this a reliable secondary source independent of the subject. As a national journal, it demonstrates regional coverage of the subject.

If there are any problems with the above two sources, I will address them when I return home from my trip. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to evaluate sources outside the AfD discussion. It would be better if you ask the editor who nominated the article for deletion, I just closed the discussion. --Tone 07:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the editor who nominated the article for deletion was acting in a hostile manner and made no attempt to be respectful or thorough, so I do not believe it would be worthwhile to engage that editor. They did not even realize that there were any secondary sources until I called them out on it during the RfD process, which demonstrates that they did not check the sources prior to nominating the article for deletion, and therefore had no idea whether they proved notability or not. Would it be an acceptable course of action to move the article to my draftspace and then run the article through a proper new article evaluation process? NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft space is a good idea, I was about to propose this myself. Restored and moved there. Draft:Deer Lake School Happy editing :) --Tone 16:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johan Ernst Nilson

Hi! I thought this one might be worth a relist in light of my recent comment—there's currently no corroboration for the main affiliation given for keeping the article. czar 21:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed this one was a bit thin, but I am not a big fan of relisting for the third time - unless you are willing to provide more input? --Tone 22:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't push it—just thought that the participants might have wanted to respond before it closed, considering how it looks like it was kept on shaky ground (and that after the nom was chastened, in my opinion unfairly). Besides sticking around for responses, wasn't planning to add much more myself unless prompted so will leave the call to you! (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 05:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamish Thompson

Hi - Would you mind explaining how this page differs from, say, the page on Mark Borkowski? Florapostewrites (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Each nomination is separate, I can't draw any comparison here ...--Tone 07:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I would argue that the Hamish Thompson's article is very similar in content/achievements to Mark Borkowski. If one is seen as Wikipedia-worthy, why not the other? is all I'm saying.Florapostewrites (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding draft shiwani chakraborty

Can you please review it for me. And how it can be moved to main page ...If this article meets the Wikipedia's guidelines Khusin26 (talk) 14:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you link the article? --Tone 07:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article draft shiwani chakraborty Khusin26 (talk) 10:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shiwani_Chakraborty Khusin26 (talk) 10:09, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please help in editing this article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Shiwani_Chakraborty Khusin26 (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article ¡He matado a mi marido! Deleted

Hi Tone, Hope this message finds you well and in good health. I'm writing because I saw that an article pertaining to the film ¡He matado a mi marido! was deleted due to questionable notability and "no critic's reviews at Rotten Tomatoes and no external reviews listed at IMDb" The film was reviewed on Rotten Tomatoes and does have other reviews online that perhaps are not linked to the imdb page but exist. (https://www.metacritic.com/movie/he-matado-a-mi-marido!) The film was also released in more than 20 countries including the U.S and latin america (se https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt4930292/?ref_=bo_se_r_2) and has a considerable latino following because of the actors involved. Is there a way to reconsider the decision to delete the article? I think it's important to champion latino films in the US that were created within a society that oppresses them. Thank you for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borolandi (talk • contribs) 14:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sure, it is important to have articles on latino films, as long as they meet the notability criteria. Are there enough 4rd party sources available to establish notability? If so, I can move the article to the draft space where you can improve it. --Tone 16:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

Red Phoenix

Euryalus • SQL

Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

GB fan

Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

There is an open request for comment to decide whether to increase the minimum duration a sanction discussion has to remain open (currently 24 hours).
Speedy deletion criterion T2 (template that misrepresents established policy) has been repealed following a request for comment.
Speedy deletion criterion X2 (pages created by the content translation tool) has been repealed following a discussion.
There is a proposal to restrict proposed deletion to confirmed users.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

Special report: Wikipedia and the End of Open Collaboration?

COI and paid editing: Some strange people edit Wikipedia for money

News and notes: Abstract Wikipedia, a hoax, sex symbols, and a new admin

In the media: Dog days gone bad

Discussion report: Fox News, a flight of RfAs, and banning policy

Featured content: Remembering Art, Valor, and Freedom

Traffic report: Now for something completely different

Gallery: Photos of threatened species from iNaturalist

News from the WMF: New Chinese national security law in Hong Kong could limit the privacy of Wikipedia users

Recent research: Receiving thanks increases retention, but not the time contributed to Wikipedia

Essay: Not compatible with a collaborative project

Obituaries: Hasteur and Brian McNeil

In focus: WikiLoop DoubleCheck, reviewing edits made easy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page for Robert Dorigo Jones

Hi Tone,

One of my associates told me you are listed as the person who deleted the Wikipedia page for me (Robert Dorigo Jones) the day before my birthday (it was deleted on July 26).

If that is true, can you please tell me why you did that? If you didn't do it, can you help me find out who did and why it was done?

Thank you.

Regards,

Bob Dorigo Jones 73.144.177.21 (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Belated happy birthday! The article was deleted because it was nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Dorigo Jones. The issue was that the article did not demonstrate the (required) notability for an article, as well as the lack of third-party sources. I hope that helps. Best, --Tone 16:18, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

page for Anna Burdzy

Hi, I see you have deleted the page for Anna Burdzy - Miss Universe Great Britain 2017 stating you think there are no credible sources that she won. Here is the link to the Miss Universe webpage showing she represented GB and placed in the top 16 of Miss Universe. Please can you reinstate the page? https://www.missuniverse.com/contestant/1000236 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.154.154 (talk) 10:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the article should have several independent (3rd party) sources covering the topic. The website of the competition does not count as such. --Tone 11:21, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

hi, thank you for your reply. please see following http://leicesterupdates.com/25-year-old-from-leicester-wins-miss-universe-great-britain-2017 https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/mr-nottingham-finishes-third-mr-208566 https://www.legalcheek.com/2017/07/miss-universe-2017-beauty-queen-representing-great-britain-is-a-nottingham-university-law-student/ https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/beauty-pageants/foreign-pageants/miss-universe-great-britain-2017-is-anna-burdzy/videoshow/59650467.cms https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/miss-great-britain-2017-anna-burdzy-is-named-a-top-16-news-photo/879860282 https://pressat.co.uk/releases/human-rights-law-student-to-represent-great-britain-at-miss-universe-2017-0f2d6ed7e93eed07d1e5bbf9f557ab26/ https://m.beautypageants.in/miss-universe/miss-universe-great-britain-2017-is-anna-burdzy/videoshow/59650635.cms https://thegreatpageantcommunity.com/2017/07/16/anna-burdzy-crowned-miss-universe-great-britain-2017/

would the above help in reinstating the page? Abcd1234.11 (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you instead discuss this with the editor who nominated the article for deletion? I just closed the discussion. --Tone 18:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Erokhin

Hi! You deleted the article Dmitry Erokhin. Could you please send me a copy of its edit history? It is because Erokhin is creating paid articles in ruwiki and I wonder whether certain other users who create paid articles in ruwiki are related to him. Wikisaurus (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, how can I send you the copy of the edit history ... would you like me to temporarily undelete the article so you can have a look? --Tone 11:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A case for reinstating the Wikipedia page for Robert Dorigo Jones

Dear Tone,

The purpose of this note is to present a case for reinstating the Wikipedia page for Robert Dorigo Jones, a best-selling author whose book was published by one of the largest publishing companies in the world, Hachette. His work has also been featured on the editorial page of USA Today, by John Stossel on his FOX News program for 10 years (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaoOfswnojA), and on TV programs in at least five countries on three different continents and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGp4M9DCQaI

Dorigo Jones is considered one of the leading authorities in America on how excessive litigation has affected families, communities, professionals, job providers, governmental units and non-profit organizations. He is currently the president of Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch, a non-partisan issue advocacy organization that has recruited prominent community and business leaders from across Michigan for its board of directors. Its website can be seen at: https://www.lawsuitfairness.org/about and his book is available on many websites including Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/Remove-Child-Before-Folding-Stupidest/dp/0446696560/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=remove+child+before+folding&qid=1596670151&sr=8-1

His op-eds have been featured in the largest newspapers in Michigan including the Detroit News, Detroit Free Press, the Lansing State Journal https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/opinion/contributors/viewpoints/2020/04/22/frivolous-lawsuits-hurt-michigan-families-and-communities-viewpoint/2988535001/ as well as Newsmax: https://www.newsmax.com/insiders/bobdorigojones/id-454/

As president of a non-profit organization that is challenging one of the largest and most power special interest groups in America, the trial lawyers association, radio and TV hosts and producers have relied on his Wikipedia page for nearly 20 years when preparing for his interviews on their programs. Removing his page will put a small but respected organization at a distinct disadvantage when trying to give a voice to thousands of victims of lawsuit abuse across America.

One of those victims was a food bank operating in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Dorigo Jones helped the founder of the food bank get an article on the front page of the largest newspaper in Michigan when it was a victim of a frivolous lawsuit — a lawsuit that was eventually dismissed. See cite here: https://www.overlawyered.com/tag/beaumont/page/3/

Without Dorigo Jones’s efforts, thousands of victims of frivolous lawsuits filed by millionaire personal injury lawyers will not have a voice in the media. For ten years, Dorigo Jones wrote, produced and hosted a syndicated radio commentary that profiled these victims. We believe his efforts warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Please let us know if you have any questions or need more cites. Thank you for your consideration.73.144.177.21 (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you instead ask the editor who nominated the article for deletion? I just closed the discussion. --Tone 10:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tone. Who has the final say on this? If you are the one who deleted the page for Robert Dorigo Jones, why should we deal with the person who suggested it be deleted? Seems like you have the final say, and we think we've made a very strong case. We are concerned the person who made the suggestion is just going to refer us back to you. Really appreciate your thoughts on this. 73.144.177.21 (talk) 22:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am the admin, I estimated that there is an agreement on the reasons for deletion. These reasons were brought forward by the person who initiated the nomination. So, it's really them that you should talk to first. --Tone 08:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afd closure

I was wondering your rationale for deleting the COVID-19 pandemic in the Commonwealth of Independent States article. The comments after relisting had 2 keeps and 1 delete, and while I understand that wikipedia is not a democracy, the deletion reason of the one person who voted delete the second time was addressed by removing that content, obviating the objection, meaning that the only unaddressed responses after the relisting supported keeping the article. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at all the arguments, not only those after relisting, and I believe the arguments to delete were stronger. --Tone 07:31, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, once you remove the arguments that said they wanted to delete the article because it just summarized the response of other countries (since the sections that summarized the countries' responses were deleted), only 2 !votes actually supported deletion and 6 supported keeping the article which is a pretty clear consensus. Zoozaz1 (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. The removal of all country-specific content left the article with minimal content. Which comes back to the original reasons stating that the article is not needed. --Tone 10:26, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harley Fresh

Tone My article has been deleted after I added what the nominators want. The nominators also have less knowledge about this subject and rely in outdated sources such as https://allworldceleb.com/mrfreshasian-net-worth-wiki-bio-age-height-real-name/ . If there is any problems I will fix them, please restore my article.

Artice link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harley_Fresh

Best regards, Kalabsm Insta

Kalabsm Insta, that "and my team" doesn't sound good. Drmies (talk)

Hi, the article was deleted because there was a strong consensus to do so. If you believe you can address the issues, I suggest you rewrite the article in the draft space. If all is fine, it can be then moved to the mainspace. --Tone 08:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tone Can't the page be restored as no consensus. If the admin is in a disagreement --Kalabsm insta

There was a clear consensus to delete, restoring it as a "no consensus" would not make sense. Really, go with the draft approach, the best way to move forward. --Tone 09:08, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tone Can I get copy of the work at least --Kalabsm insta —Preceding undated comment added 09:14, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I left it on your talk page. --Tone 09:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close question & STEP Bible afd

Hi Tone, I am wondering why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/STEP Bible as "redirect", when all the !votes were for "merge" or "keep". Cheers, gnu 57 11:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is an elegant way to keep the content of the article so that the merge can be performed when someone is willing to do it. The consensus was against keeping the article as it was. --Tone 12:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dealing with this afd. There was a small typo in the target of the redirect - The SWORD Projec instead of The SWORD Project - which I have corrected. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for fixing it! --Tone 12:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Severn Valley (Cthulhu Mythos)

May I ask why you closed this as redirect to Lovecraft Country, when the result appears to have been no consensus and, as was pointed out, Lovecraft Country is a highly inappropriate target, given the Severn Valley is not part of Lovecraft Country and the article doesn't even mention it? Please reconsider this. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I instead redirect to Ramsey Campbell? The consensus was certainly not to keep. --Tone 10:45, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was certainly no consensus to redirect either. No consensus defaults to keep, as I'm sure you know. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took the action that I though best represents the compromise of the discussion, also taking into account the strenght of the arguments. --Tone 13:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how, given the keep arguments included references to plenty of sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will relist it so that I remain neutral on the outcome. Fair enough. --Tone 08:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley

Really? Consensus to redirect here? Please explain. I see clear consensus to keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Tone 13:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you have this much consensus, your close appears, I'm afraid, much like a supervote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:41, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I believe I made a good call. I understand your point, though. --Tone 09:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that I'm really not sure you can say that WP:NOTINHERITED (an essay in any case, even if generally true) applies to members of families like this one. Every member is notable in their own right, not because they're related to a specific person, but because they are members of the best-known and most written-about royal family in the world. Given this and the fact that a clear majority wanted to keep the article, I think siding with the few who wanted it deleted or redirected is not really a viable option. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, some of those comments were keep or redirect. In any case, with the recent series of nominations about nobility, I often checked for an alternative, where there was some substantial content beyond "was born, got married, had children". If the article can be expanded to some degree, that would be a much better argument in favour of keep. If there are sufficient sources, I am sure this can be done and then the redirect can easily be reverted, outside the AdD process. --Tone 09:22, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernhard Landauer

Bernhard Landauer, - you closed the deletion discussion initiated by a user who has not even a talk page entry (I welcomed them now), and with practically no participation, and the really relevant project, Opera, not notified. Can you please revert the close and relist properly? I haven't seen the article, but the singer - with several links to notable recordings - is most likely notable, and the sources just need to be found. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can do it. I know you are the proper person to make the notability assessment in this case. --Tone 09:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did what I can do for the moment (having to expand and nominate for a friend, and reference and nominate for myself for DYK today, + RL). Please check if you can unceremoniously close that nom for a 2006 article with versions in several languages, sigh. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I'd still prefer not to close straight away, but I'll leave a note on the nomination page that you improved the article a lot. --Tone 11:11, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it was a nom out of process, - I mean just request more sources would have been a possibility, no? Will you please notify project opera, to make them laugh again, because we just had a silly nom for a composer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley. 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. Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

News and notes: The high road and the low road

In the media: Storytelling large and small

Featured content: Going for the goal

Special report: Wikipedia's not so little sister is finding its own way

Op-Ed: The longest-running hoax

Traffic report: Heart, soul, umbrellas, and politics

News from the WMF: Fourteen things we’ve learned by moving Polish Wikimedia conference online

Recent research: Detecting spam, and pages to protect; non-anonymous editors signal their intelligence with high-quality articles

Arbitration report: A slow couple of months

From the archives: Wikipedia for promotional purposes?

Obituaries: Marcus Sherman, Jerome West, and Pauline van Till

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Goldberg (surgeon)

I was surprised to see this closed as keep when there were 4 deletes (5 with me) vs 3 keeps, 2 of which were SPAs and the other's argument that an OBE was sufficient to pass PROF was refuted. The SPAs didn't present any secondary sources demonstrating "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" and yet you seem considered their argument stronger than nearly everyone else who had evalulated the sources available and concluded that PROF was not met. SmartSE (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giving it a second thought, I still believe that there is a chance that WP:PROF is met, but perhaps it's better to TNT the article altogether and start anew. I will revert my closure and relist. --Tone 08:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tone, hope you are well. I have responded to various commentators on W:PROF. I think that this meets WP:PROF but some commentators seem to be very emotive in their discussions which seems wrong. They have not explained why this does not meet WP:PROF even if they question WP:BIO. SpeccledCT(talk) 10:35, 03 Sept 2020 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I think it is close but I have relisted it to generate more consensus. --Tone 10:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

Eddie891

Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

SQL

Guideline and policy news

Following a request for comment, the minimum length for site ban discussions was increased to 72 hours, up from 24.
A request for comment is ongoing to determine whether paid editors must or should use the articles for creation process.
A request for comment is open to resolve inconsistencies between the draftification and alternative to deletion processes.

Arbitration

A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
An open request for comment asks whether active Arbitrators may serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or Ombudsman commission.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you reopen and relist Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khemed?

An identical article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Theodoros was just redirected. I think this would benefit from more discussion, I haven't noticed this AfD and I'd like to comment on it; one keep argument is invalid and the other lists sources that IMHO don't discuss the subject sufficiently. With 2 delete votes (given the default one from tne nom) and 2 keep votes this should have been at best closed as no consensus, and best, it should be just relisted. Also ping nominator User:Goustien. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Khemed

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Khemed. 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. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments at del rev, would you be so kind and relist this? If no votes are added we can close it again as no consensus, through I do stand by my view that the deletion rationales are significantly superior to keep ones :P --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and redirect yourself, it is not a particularly controversial move. If people disagree, then we can return to discussion. At least this is the route I would prefer here... --Tone 18:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dasha Nekrasova

Hi you saved this page previously from being trolled with bad faith nominations, see the history of nominations for deletion for both this page and Red Scare (podcast). I think a previously blocked user has tried submitting it for deletion again under a different name but they've messed up the formatting, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dasha Nekrasova (3rd nomination). Can we get a speedy keep on this one too, or at least get the formatting fixed so more people can vote on it? I can't figure out what they've done. Thank you!Pinchofhope (talk) 07:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page of Robert Dorigo Jones

Dear Tone, We are writing to follow up on a note we sent to you more than a month ago when you deleted the page for Robert Dorigo Jones. You asked us to contact the person who nominated the page for deletion, and we did that, but we have not received a reply. We believe this page was nominated for deletion by someone who was ignoring Wikipedia’s guidelines for notability, and we have waited more than a month for a response or explanation. Now, we are reaching out to you again to see how we can move this discussion forward so the page can reinstated. Below, you will find the note we 73.144.177.21 (talk) 18:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)sent to Johnpacklambert:[reply]

Hi Johnpacklambert,

The purpose of this note is to present a case for reinstating the Wikipedia page for Robert Dorigo Jones, a best-selling author whose book was published by one of the largest publishing companies in the world, Hachette. Wikipedia administrator, Tone, suggested contacting you about reinstating the page.

In addition to his book, Dorigo Jones’ work has also been featured on the editorial page of USA Today, by John Stossel on his FOX News program for 10 years (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaoOfswnojA), and on TV programs in at least five countries on three different continents and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGp4M9DCQaI

Dorigo Jones is considered one of the leading authorities in America on how excessive litigation has affected families, communities, professionals, job providers, governmental units and non-profit organizations. He is currently the president of Michigan Lawsuit Abuse Watch, a non-partisan issue advocacy organization that has recruited prominent community and business leaders from across Michigan for its board of directors. Its website can be seen at: https://www.lawsuitfairness.org/about and his book is available on many websites including Amazon: https://smile.amazon.com/Remove-Child-Before-Folding-Stupidest/dp/0446696560/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=remove+child+before+folding&qid=1596670151&sr=8-1

His op-eds have been featured in the largest newspapers in Michigan including the Detroit News, Detroit Free Press, the Lansing State Journal https://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/opinion/contributors/viewpoints/2020/04/22/frivolous-lawsuits-hurt-michigan-families-and-communities-viewpoint/2988535001/ as well as Newsmax: https://www.newsmax.com/insiders/bobdorigojones/id-454/

As president of a non-profit organization that is challenging one of the largest and most power special interest groups in America, the trial lawyers association, radio and TV hosts and producers have relied on his Wikipedia page for nearly 20 years when preparing for his interviews on their programs. Removing his page will put a small but respected organization at a distinct disadvantage when trying to give a voice to thousands of victims of lawsuit abuse across America.

One of those victims was a food bank operating in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Dorigo Jones helped the founder of the food bank get an article on the front page of the largest newspaper in Michigan when it was a victim of a frivolous lawsuit — a lawsuit that was eventually dismissed. See cite here: https://www.overlawyered.com/tag/beaumont/page/3/

Without Dorigo Jones’s efforts, thousands of victims of frivolous lawsuits filed by millionaire personal injury lawyers will not have a voice in the media. For ten years, Dorigo Jones wrote, produced and hosted a syndicated radio commentary that profiled these victims. We believe his efforts warrant inclusion on Wikipedia. Please let us know if you have any questions or need more cites. Thank you for your consideration.

Please stop copy-pasting the same text over and over on my talkpage. The proper way here is to start the article in the draft space WP:DRAFT and then have it evaluated. --Tone 08:47, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

requesting undelete to redirect

BDD's August 27 proposal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories was actually requesting a soft-delete (a redirect) not a hard delete.

Since there were aside from the two keeps also two "merge" requests (TFD/Pickle) and six more "redirect" ones (Ivan/PK3/Woko/Maile/Djflem/Prima) I'm wondering if it (and talk page) could be undeleted so that the history is retained, but that the page be redirected to Eastman's section as BDD proposed, and locked so that it stays a redirect. WakandaQT (talk) 22:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's ok as it is - everything relevant is already in the other article. Is there anything specific in the history that you would want to preserve? --Tone 08:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WindScan

Hi Tone, would you mind helping me understand why you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WindScan as keep? Besides the nomination by Fgnievinski there was only one iVote, mine, which was Delete. There was a comment from the creator of the article stating that external references had been added, however, as far as I could tell, these references did not even mention the topic ( WindScan ). Also, as I pointed out, the creator of this article appears to also be the creator of this product. Wouldn't this constitute a conflict of interest issue? Thanks in advance for the clarification. Regards, --Alan Islas (talk) 19:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, that was apparently the wrong button. Thank you for noticing. I will correct myself, it should be delete. --Tone 21:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see, thanks for looking into it! Regards, --Alan Islas (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Thomas Hruz

User:Asdasdasdff has asked for a deletion review of Thomas Hruz. 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 15:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you very much about your work about world heritage, you made a lot FLs and nice list. Chinese Wikipedia community are translating back. Nice to see your next article. Cheers! --Wright Streetdeck 10:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, appreciated! --Tone 12:49, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minimon and Maximon

Hi, I saw that you closed the AfD for Maximon as delete, but you left the article for Minimon stay. That was supposed to be a bundle nomination of both articles for deletion, I'm sorry if I did it incorrectly. Tercer (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I thought I deleted it. Fixed, thanks for heads up ;) --Tone 17:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work! Tercer (talk) 17:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fredie Blom

Hi, and I hope all is well. I don't think we've interacted before, so it's nice to 'meet' you as well. (for full disclosure, this was linked by Abishe on the Wikipedia discord earlier today). I saw Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fredie Blom, and took a look at the sourcing. While I agree the consensus there was clearly to 'delete', I think that Blom has enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Would you object if I re-wrote the article as a draft and went through AFC? Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC) (Cross posted @ User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, go ahead, this is the appropriate way to proceed. Good luck! --Tone 20:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've thrown together a stubby draft over Here. I think there's enough coverage, including: two BBC articles, several Agence France-Presse articles, and quite a few from the leading South African newspapers, that is spread out (mostly over 2018-2020), that GNG is met here and it isn't a case of him only being notable for one event. Would you object if I submitted it for review through AFC now? Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can submit, but I will remain neutral. --Tone 18:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of micronation currencies

I'm puzzled by the closing note for this AfD. There were no !votes for redirect, two deletes, two merges, and one, "I'd like to merge but I don't think it'd work" comment. This makes the redirect closure look like a supervote. If you have a further rationale, would you mind expanding your closure with why? As it is, the result looks anomalous to the discussion. Thank you in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I often close the "merge" results as redirects. This way, the history is preserved and a merge can be done smoothly. Closing as a merge, there is just a big banner added to the article which, with the absence of interested editors, tends to stay around for a long time. --Tone 21:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Thanks for the explanation. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hi Tone,

I noticed my Wikipedia page has been deleted by you. Just wondering why.

Thanks!

Shihab Rattansi

rattansis@aljazeera.net

Hi, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shihab Rattansi. Best, --Tone 14:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state highways in Kentucky shorter than one mile

This close violates WP:CWW because it does not preserve attribution, which a redirect would preserve. Can you please reconsider? --Rs chen 7754 18:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point, redirecting instead. --Tone 18:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of AfD discussion

Hi Tone.
I noticed that you deleted the page Buja Music Awards per the outcome of its AfD discussion, but not the related pages Buja Music Awards 2019, Buja Music Award for Best Collaboration and Buja Music Award for Song of the year. I'll put my hands up to the fact that I was a bit sloppy when adding these subsidiary pages to the nomination, so the bundling was a bit disjointed. Anyway, what's the best way to move forward: can they simply be deleted based on the !votes at that discussion, or do I need to re-nominate them, either at Articles for deletion or at Miscellany for deletion?

Regards, ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson House, London AFD closure

I see you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson House, London with a "redirect" decision and then implemented that by redirecting it with no merger of any content. That was not the right decision, there was only one redirect vote, to a different target, then there was my comment and merge vote and 4-5 other merge votes and one Keep outright. Would you please revert your close of the AFD. If you want to assert that a merge is the same as a redirect I will certainly dispute that. And AFD decisions matter. You gave no explanation why you took a decision contrary to all of the votes after the merger target article was recreated. --Doncram (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, I often close the "merge" results as redirects. This way, the history is preserved and a merge can be done smoothly. Closing as a merge, there is just a big banner added to the article which, with the absence of interested editors, tends to stay around for a long time. I hope this makes sense. --Tone 16:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not what should be done. If a merger is indicated, the merger should be done by the closer or the closer should put the proper banner in place, else there is no indication that unmerged info is available to be merged. If you are not willing to perform all types of closings properly then you should not be closing AFDs. About this case, will you please now revert your close, perhaps with proper explanation to perhaps be placed on the Talk page of the AFD, and leave the AFD to be closed by another editor instead. Please do consider this to be my request to you required before I should raise this to wp:DRV. Whether you agree or not to my request, I may take further action. --Doncram (talk) 07:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way you wrote this was unnecessarily harsh. I checked again, the target article is much shorter than the article to be merged, so I will revert and close as merge - this is one of those rare cases where a merge banner actually does something good. I still believe that for less controversial cases a redirect is in a suitable close. --Tone 09:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a couple of reverts but now it works :) --Tone 09:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider relisting

Hello, I'd like to ask you to consider relisting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Gilewska instead of closing. I'll understand if you don't think a relist is justified, but I wanted to request you consider it. Best wishes from Los Angeles, // Timothy :: talk 18:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! Let's use the time it is relisted as a mean to find more sources. After all, the keep !votes were mostly "surely sources exist". Relisting. --Tone 18:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will try and find sources. // Timothy :: talk 18:52, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

When turning articles into redirects, remember to change the redirects to those articles as well so we don't have double redirects.

Usually, a script does that. Let me know if I missed anything. --Tone 05:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly Restore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Freeman

Hi,

The page ' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Freeman ' you deleted before I started updating the proof of Dr. Joel A Freeman's work and notability. He is now 66 years of age and most of what he has accomplished with the National Basketball Association (NBA) and other things happened back in the pre-digital era. So, therefore, his digital record is not as robust online as it should be. Kindly restore the page.

The K-12 Black History 365 curriculum is now gaining a lot of attention from public schools across America. And since Dr. Joel Freeman is the Co-Founder and Co-Writer of the curriculum, his name is associated with all of the recent online activity surrounding the curriculum. And they are planning a lot of future events that will show up online. This project can actually become one of the leading aspects of his profile.

The ISBN number for his books is ISBN:9780989850490 with the title "Black History 365: An Inclusive Account of American History (Texas Edition)".

IMPORTANT POINT: Mr. Joel Freeman has coauthored a Black History 365 textbook and curriculum for public schools across America. There are over 15,000 school districts in America. This curriculum is already being adopted by many schools across the country.

It's a major accomplishment. After putting in 12-16 hour days for 2+ years He has co-authored (with Dr. Walter Milton, Jr.) a 1,248-page textbook for 9th-12th Grades. Plus, they will have the K-8 curriculum ready for January 2021.

Here is the latest news about the curriculum being adopted by schools in Amarillo, Texas -- https://abc7amarillo.com/news/local/black-history-is-american-history

You can go to their website to get the right wording, but he is thinking that the main information on that page can be redirected to this Black History curriculum -- www.BH365.org

And here are some other links that corroborate the reality of the Black History 365 curriculum project :

https://newsone.com/3846295/black-history-textbook-bh-365/

https://urbanfaith.com/2020/07/black_history_365.html/

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2020/06/09/new-school-curriculum-aims-to-fill-in-the-blanks-about-untold-aspects-of-black-history/

https://www.eagnews.org/2020/06/new-black-history-365-curriculum-aims-to-expose-the-good-bad-and-the-ugly/

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/black-history-365-in-partnership-with-urban-one-inc-commemorates-juneteenth-with-the-launch-of-a-new-black-history-curriculum-301079780.html

https://defendernetwork.com/news/national/new-textbook-makes-black-history-relevant-365-days-of-the-year/

https://www.buzzsprout.com/428596/4311923-launch-special-interview-with-dr-walter-milton-jr-and-dr-joel-freeman-of-bh365

https://njurbannews.com/2020/06/black-history-365-urban-one-inc-launch-new-black-history-curriculum/

https://praiserichmond.com/1547027/the-evolution-of-teaching-black-history-to-american-students/amp/

https://www.blogtalkradio.com/joycebarrie/2019/02/20/black-in-time--dr-joel-freeman-and-dr-walter-milton-jr

PAGE 5 -- http://www.theaustinvillager.com/pdfs/2020/2020feb14.pdf

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/269-black-history-matters-365-68515765/episode/launch-special-interview-with-dr-walter-68527396/

https://podcastaddict.com/podcast/3025847

https://money.yahoo.com/black-history-365-partnership-urban-181900591.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS91cmw_c2E9dCZyY3Q9aiZxPSZlc3JjPXMmc291cmNlPXdlYiZjZD0mdmVkPTJhaFVLRXdqLWxMVDFydHpyQWhVbWxuSUVIZkhmQjlzNEZCQVdNQVY2QkFnSUVBRSZ1cmw9aHR0cHMlM0ElMkYlMkZtb25leS55YWhvby5jb20lMkZibGFjay1oaXN0b3J5LTM2NS1wYXJ0bmVyc2hpcC11cmJhbi0xODE5MDA1OTEuaHRtbCZ1c2c9QU92VmF3Mm12Z0pLN1VVZDhIcTBvNEVTUTAyNA&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABK0SKu2oRrtFSZY--zowKxPowJk0ZAkBas6wNiWDyqMATo-4f1RwWfs6zbZzf2fuxD7HRnZf4BymmIIkMG2hQebzt64UE-pEGwtkynsE3tI8UyEhs3CpcAXHmyU15vpFkRcSIlLmhInuQOwIpb-FWhArm2mNYFCMGRrdUeY6Zmc

The Black History 365 curriculum project is a comprehensive solution for the education gap in America.

BELOW ARE SIX ADDITIONAL LINKS with additional corroborated items to include in the biography:

You can check these 6 links to understand that he is an expert in Black History.........own a comprehensive Black history collection (3,000+ documents and artifacts, oldest piece is dated 1553......Documents and artifacts from his collection have been showcased at the United Nations, Clinton Presidential Library, US Department of Justice, White House Communications Agency, Secret Service......has co-written a book, Return To Glory with a foreword written by NBA star, Julius "Dr. J" Erving.... has developed a presentation titled: "A White Man's Journey Into Black History".....

[Copyrighted text redacted] ( www.FreemanInstitute.com/WMJstory.htm )

2.... United Nations exhibit (mentioned in second and fourth paragraphs...Joel Freeman of the Freeman Institute Black History Collection, Mr. Freeman, Freeman Institute Foundation)-- https://www.un.org/press/en/2011/note6296.doc.htm [Copyrighted text redacted]

3.... United Nations exhibit (Freeman Institute, Mr. Joel Freeman, President & CEO of the Freeman Institute) -- https://www.un.org/en/events/slaveryremembranceday/2011/events.shtml [Copyrighted text redacted]

4.... United Nations exhibit (third paragraph: Freeman Institute Black History Collection) -- http://www.informafrica.com/apo-press-release/honouring-the-heroes-resisters-and-survivors-an-exhibition-on-slave-trade-opens-at-united-nations/ [Copyrighted text redacted]

5.... United Nations exhibit (second paragraph: Freeman Institute) -- http://www.easternct.edu/pressreleases/2011/03/14/professor_displays_art_at_united_nations/ [Copyrighted text redacted]

6..... Exhibit at the Clinton Presidential Library (second paragraph, The Freeman Institute® Black History Collection) -- https://www.clintonfoundation.org/jazz-through-eyes-herman-leonard [Copyrighted text redacted]

ROSETTA STONE: Here are two links about a presentation he did at the National Museum of Language regarding the Rosetta Stone:

--https://languagemuseum.org/rosetta-stone-modern-spin-joel-a-freeman/

-- https://languagemuseum.org/june-explore-rosetta-stone/

One of his replicas was exhibited at the Albany Institute of History and Art:

-- https://www.albanyinstitute.org/tl_files/pressreleases/2013_11_27_rosetta_stone_replica_added_to_exhibition.pdf

-- https://cryptologicfoundation.org/visit/museum/acquisitions/acquisitionarchivessection/codeandcipher_items/rosetta_replica.html

[Copyrighted text redacted]

Thanks, Amit J.

Hi! Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joel Freeman to see why the article was deleted. The proper way to proceed here is to start the article again from scratch in the draft space and then it can be evaluated if it can be moved to article space. --Tone 08:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemmersbach

Hi @Tone: I think this Afd has been forgotten. scope_creep^Talk 20:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of page named "Teja Sajja"

- Hi, I need this page to be retrieved and I see it was deleted post a discussion. I see you deleted it so please let me know how we can work this out to put it back up. Your help is greatly appreciated, thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igmedia89 (talk • contribs) 21:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, why do you need the page to be retrieved? It was deleted following a discussion. --Tone 06:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tone, this is an actor's page that previously had incomplete information and I was asked by him to have the information updated. After adding the latest information as given by him, I see that the page was deleted post discussion. Do you think adding references to the information added will help in having his page republished or should I create a new page altogether? Please let me know. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igmedia89 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way to proceed is to rewrite the article in the draft space, then it can be evaluated and moved to article space if everything is ok. --Tone 20:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of article, consider relisting

Hello Tone, I'd like to ask you to consider relisting Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Northern_Somali_Unionist_Movement instead of closing as I have cites additional sources from my research today. I can understand that might think a relist is not justified, but I'd like to request you consider it. Please let me know, many thanks. SultanSanaag (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as the discussion pointed out, there were other problems with the article, not only the sourcing issue. The way to proceed it to start the article anew in the draft space, then it can be evaluated and, if ok, moved to the article space. --Tone 08:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uzair Merchant Deletion Follow Up

Hi Tone,

I noticed you had deleted Uzair Merchant and bKreativ pages. Is it possible I get the information that was written plus the references used? I will restart writing both the pages as drafts, if that is okay.

Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GurmeetKRi8 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I left the old content on the draft talk page. What was the exact title of the other one? --Tone 21:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it was bKreativ and Uzair Merchant. Was able to find the Uzair Merchant draft, please let me know how/when I can access the material for bKreativ Productions!

Thanks a lot once again -Gurmeet KRi8

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

Special report: Paid editing with political connections

News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

Featured content: Life finds a Way

Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

Traffic report: Is there no justice?

Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

Special report: Paid editing with political connections

News and notes: More large-scale errors at a "small" wiki

In the media: WIPO, Seigenthaler incident 15 years later

Featured content: Life finds a Way

Arbitration report: Clarifications and requests

Traffic report: Is there no justice?

Recent research: Wikipedia's flood biases

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Osama Com Laude

Hello, is Osama Com Laude substantially different from the version you deleted in July following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osama Com Laude? Thanks, Captain Calm (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, the new version is slightly longer and with some more references, but essentially the same. I just had a quick look. --Tone 08:58, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TFL notification

Hi, Tone. I'm just posting to let you know that List of World Heritage Sites in Finland – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for October 26, 2020. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 01:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case of Bad NAC

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metro Maalai was closed and speedy kept by the nom even though one delete !vote was present. As far as I am aware, this is contrary to Afd policy. Cheers!! TheRedDomitor (talk) 02:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not ideal, but not particularly controversial, I'd say. --Tone 08:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article that needs merging

The result of this "List of unsolved deaths (before 1900) AFD" was to merge to the List of unsolved deaths as you know since you closed the AFD. You will see that (right here: List of unsolved deaths (before 1900)) there is now a notice above the article that was added on September 24 that says "If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use the destination article's talk page", yet no action has yet taken place. Davidgoodheart (talk) 03:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, feel free to start the discussion. This is not up to me, I just closed the AfD. --Tone 08:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

Ajpolino • LuK3

Jackmcbarn

Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM

There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment found consensus that incubation as an alternative to deletion should generally only be recommended when draftification is appropriate, namely 1) if the result of a deletion discussion is to draftify; or 2) if the article is newly created.

Technical news

The filter log now provides links to view diffs of deleted revisions (phab:T261630).

Arbitration

The 2020 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place from September 27th to October 7th.
Following a request for comment, sitting Committee members may not serve on either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee. The Arbitration Committee passed a motion implementing those results into their procedures.

Miscellaneous

The Universal Code of Conduct draft is open for community review and comment until October 6th, 2020.
Office actions may now be appealed to the Interim Trust & Safety Case Review Committee.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article

As you deleted Amman (TV series), Can i create this article with references. Ppkalabika (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you start the article in the draft space first. --Tone 18:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kamala Harris citizenship conspiracy theories. 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. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:31, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why Sababbi Mangal Page was deleted

Can you please inform Why Sababbi Mangal Page was deleted? What should be made to the page to retain it on Wikipedia. It is very inspirational for all students because he given his whole life for students to develop and invent various brain power boosting methods. He is an inventor, record holder, author, neuroscientist, philanthropist, and spending his life for social activities only. so I think it must be on Wikipedia that motivates people around the world. you can see his whole profile on https://www.nicelyapp.com/our-founder.

Please guide.

Thanks and Best Regards, Rinku — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rinkumaurya (talk • contribs) 08:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN

Hi there, thanks much for posting the Nobel Prize in Physics / Roger Penrose article at ITN. Please can I request you to click on 'give credit' on the article. I think this might have been inadvertently missed out. I am trying to catalog my work here at WP:ITN and hence the request. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for 2020 Kyrgyzstan protests

On 7 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2020 Kyrgyzstan protests, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:16, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Emmanuelle Charpentier

On 8 October 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Emmanuelle Charpentier, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Ktin (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Guns

Hi Tone. Would you mind elaborating on your closing statement for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Guns? Specifically I'm wondering how the !votes were weighed and which/how WP:PAGs applied. The reason I ask is that I'm considering requesting review of this AFD at DRV. The summary of my DRV argument would be that the topic doesn't meet the standards of WP:V/WP:NOR because there are zero secondary sources available. Of the seven sources put forward [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], all of them are reproducing all or parts of a speech Four Guns gave (the subject matter of the speech wasn't Four Guns himself, but the oral tradition of his tribe). One of those sources questions the Four Guns speech transcript, writing: [p. 75] With the possible exceptions of Pushmataha (Choctaw) and Four Guns (Sioux), these speeches are authentic, accurate transcripts, obtained from highly reliable sources ... Four Guns' speech is simply too pertinent to omit ... [p. 76] as one who shares the deepest concern for truth and accuracy of the spoken word, this series will be limited, excluding Pushmataha and Four Guns, to manuscripts from highly credible Native American sources. I don't see how we can have a policy-compliant article on this topic without any secondary sources, and none of the keep !voters appear to have addressed this in the discussion. But perhaps I've missed something and I'd be interested in reading your thoughts. Thanks, Le v!v ich 04:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for critical evaluation of the sources. The way the nomination went, there is no way I could close it as a delete. He had a role in his tribe, his sayings are a part of the oral tradition of the tribe, this is reported in several books, with various authors giving it different weights. Do you have a better suggestion? I am open to a merge to some other article, since his speech is the main point there. --Tone 08:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree delete is out; I shouldn't have voted delete, I should have voted merge. As for a target, how about Oral tradition#Native America, where Four Guns's speech is already mentioned? Le v!v ich 16:48, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds reasonable. But please suggest this on the talkpage first. I remain neutral on the merge discussion. --Tone 17:11, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to, but I don't think I can propose a merge on the talk page following a "keep" AFD result. When I've done this before, a number of editors said it was improperly re-litigating the AFD (many of the same editors who participated in this AFD). They said (and will say again, I think) that consensus was that the topic should have a stand-alone article, so any post-AFD merge/redirect proposal is disruptive. Hence, in order to propose merge on the talk page, I think there needs to be a "no consensus" close or at least an explicit statement in the closing statement that it's OK to discuss redirect/merge despite the keep closure (although in the past, even when a closer has said it was OK in their closing statement, I've still been accused of disruption for bringing a post-keep merge proposal). I guess it's about whether the closing statement "result was keep" means "keep as stand-alone page" or just "do not delete", you know what I mean?

Nevertheless if you think things are fine as they stand, I'll go ahead and make the merge proposal, but I wanted to throw out the options of saying something about a merge proposal in the closing statement, changing the result to no consensus, or relisting? Le v!v ich 17:51, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will add a comment that a merge is a possible alternative that should be discussed in the closing statement. That should do. --Tone 18:32, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I posted the merge proposal. Initial responses have been predictable, e.g. [8]. :-) Le v!v ich 00:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'll remain neutral on this one ;) --Tone 07:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing less than a conspiracy to undermine the consensus of an AfD and a direct attack on American Indian heritage and ancestry. Shameful!--Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a conspiracy and the closure was a keep. --Tone 17:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was closed as a keep but then you edited your decision after the fact to allow them to further attack the article by suggesting a merge a day after that was refused by a consensus. This is a travesty of the AfD process and a direct undermining of a consensus decision. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above discussion. Levivich raised a rather valid point based on the sources, which would not result in a delete anyway. As you see on the talkpage, the consensus is also against a merge (an option that should be raised in the first place instead of deletion), so the article is safe. --Tone 14:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not the result of either decision. It's that the option to merge could have been proposed during the AfD but wasn't. The nominator for this proposed merge has recommended such on other articles. The fact a merge was suggested so soon after the conclusion of the AfD undermines the process. It follows the same line as nominating the article for deletion, again, right after the AfD was concluded. The article was discussed, debated and a consensus decided upon the fate of the article. To then ask a consensus to come back and argue the same points to save the article again undermines the original consensus. The proposal to merge should never have happened or, at the very least, had happened after some time expired and done so properly and not initiated on a user talk page. You closed the the AfD as a keep...period. Nothing was added to that decision at the time of closing. To come back and edit the closing after the fact is a bit disturbing and a breach of trust among the editors who formed the consensus. --Tsistunagiska (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider your AfD close

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former TheCoolTV affiliates (2nd nomination) was closed as delete despite only one other editor participating (with a highly generic rationale that ought to be disregarded altogether), and despite the fact that this seems to be wildly inconsistent with the decision in a similar case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former rebroadcasters of CBAFT-DT.

It should probably have been relisted. But even if it really needed to be closed quickly for some reason, no consensus or merge (the latter per WP:ATD) would appear to have been vastly preferable options. Modernponderer (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think that the nomination has a serious chance of a different outcome after a longer discussion, I am willing to relist it. --Tone 09:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please relist it. Thank you. Modernponderer (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, relisting. --Tone 13:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Administrator changes

John M Wolfson

Bduke • Nilfanion • Philosopher • Rspeer • Yunshui

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

TonyBallioni

CheckUser changes

EdJohnston • Oshwah • Yamla

Yunshui

Oversight changes

Anarchyte

Yunshui

Guideline and policy news

Community sanctions now authorize administrators to place under indefinite semiprotection any article on a beauty pageant, or biography of a person known as a beauty pageant contestant, which has been edited by a sockpuppet account or logged-out sockpuppet, to be logged at WP:GS/PAGEANT.

Technical news

Sysops will once again be able to view the deleted history of JS/CSS pages; this was restricted to interface administrators when that group was introduced.
Twinkle's block module now includes the ability to note the specific case when applying a discretionary sanctions block and/or template.
Sysops will be able to use Special:CreateLocalAccount to create a local account for a global user that is prevented from auto-creation locally (such as by a filter or range block). Administrators that are not sure if such a creation is appropriate should contact a checkuser.

Arbitration

The 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections process has begun. Eligible editors will be able to nominate themselves as candidates from November 8 through November 17. The voting period will run from November 23 through December 6.
The Anti-harassment RfC has concluded with a summary of the feedback provided.

Miscellaneous

A reminder that standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. (American Politics 2 Arbitration case).

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 November 2020

News and notes: Ban on IPs on ptwiki, paid editing for Tatarstan, IP masking

In the media: Murder, politics, religion, health and books

Book review: Review of Wikipedia @ 20

Op-Ed: Anti-vandalism with masked IPs: the steps forward

Discussion report: Proposal to change board composition, In The News dumps Trump story

Featured content: The "Green Terror" is neither green nor sufficiently terrifying. Worst Hallowe'en ever.

Traffic report: Jump back, what's that sound?

Interview: Joseph Reagle and Jackie Koerner

News from the WMF: Meet the 2020 Wikimedian of the Year

Recent research: OpenSym 2020: Deletions and gender, masses vs. elites, edit filters

In focus: The many (reported) deaths of Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yasmina Siadatan

With your latest deletion (perfectly reasonable) this article is now only seven sentences long. Baffled why some voted against article deletion.Tomintoul (talk) 10:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't answer that :D Remember, I deleted the List of The Apprentice (British TV series) candidates . --Tone 10:42, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ITN images

Hi Tone, hope you're well. I saw your note at ITN/C regarding protecting images at Commons. For a while now we've had a page at Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection where you can add an image, wait about 10 minutes, and a bot protects it for you at Commons (and it gets listed on Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en). It's much easier than the old method of uploading and protecting a local copy, and doesn't require you to have protection rights at Commons. Give it a go if you like next time you post an imaged story, and let me know if you need any help. Best wishes, and thanks for your great work at the main page. Step hen 00:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hint! I've seen something about a bot easrlier but I did not look more in detail. Good to know :) --Tone 07:51, 12 November 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) 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2020

News and notes: Jimmy Wales "shouldn't be kicked out before he's ready"

Op-Ed: Re-righting Wikipedia

Opinion: How billionaires re-write Wikipedia

In the media: Relying on Wikipedia: voters, scientists, and a Canadian border guard

Featured content: Frontonia sp. is thankful for delicious cyanobacteria

Traffic report: 007 with Borat, the Queen, and an election

News from Wiki Education: An assignment that changed a life: Kasey Baker

GLAM plus: West Coast New Zealand's Wikipedian at Large

Wikicup report: Lee Vilenski wins the 2020 WikiCup

Recent research: Wikipedia's Shoah coverage succeeds where libraries fail

Essay: Writing about women

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meshimeshikoko

Hi Tone. We have never crossed paths on the webs within this enormous and cavernous dungeon. So, pleased to 'meet' you. I see you have had an interaction with User:Meshimeshikoko. I just followed up on his comments in edit summaries about his friend Wikireverse-ho. The latter stopped editing the day before Meshimeshikoko appeared on the scene, both given to the use of ALL CAPS in their edit summaries, not to mention the various comments that Meshimeshikoko left on Wikireverse-ho's talk page and references o him in edit summaries. Keep well. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for keeping an eye on it ;) --Tone 17:36, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AFD

Hi Tone,

I am contacting you regarding the deletion today of the page of Mr. Zack Friedman. The proposal for deletion appears to have been put up by someone trying to attack Mr. Friedman personally. This person, named bizmilk3, never commented on anyone else before or after and his comments didn’t appear objective or in good faith. Bizmilk3 also stated incorrect statements such as not having reliable secondary sources when I found multiple independent sources of major publications. There were 4 people who said delete. After reading these comments, I went thru the article and cleaned up sources and made sure to take out any language that wasn’t neutral to improve the article. There are sources to CNBC, Bloomberg, Newsweek and many other reputable sources that are independent and diverse and not related to mr. Friedman. He wrote a bestselling book that Apple named one of Fall’s biggest audiobooks and has over 100 million readers at Forbes as a notable journalist. This is in addition to her career as a financier and ceo. I respect your process and role and administrator at Wikipedia. Respectably, I think this page should be a keep as this is a notable person. If there are rewrites to do, I would volunteer to improve the page. It’s been on the site for 8 years and seems weird to take down suddenly. Thx for your time. Good day. Terjar12 (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC)T[reply]

Hi, the consensus to delete was pretty clear. Also, I should point out that you don't have any edits outside the article in question so it seem unfair to accuse Bizmilk3 of being a single-purpose account. The proper way here is to rewrite the article in the draft space and if it is deemed by the community to meet the standards, it can be moved to mainspace. --Tone 10:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tone,

Thanks for the reply. Understand, it just seems unfair that a notable person with a Wikipedia article for 8 years gets deleted after a random person who seemed to attack him personally.

I’ll volunteer to rewrite the article. Where is the draft space to write it? Thanks Terjar12 (talk) 14:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DRAFT for instructions. Cheers :) --Tone 16:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TFL notification – January 2021

Hi, Tone. I'm just posting to let you know that List of World Heritage Sites in Montenegro – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for January 11, 2021. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 December 2020

News and notes: Year-end legal surprises cause concern, but Public Domain Day is imminent

In the media: Concealment, data journalism, a non-pig farmer, and some Bluetick Hounds

Arbitration report: 2020 election results

Opinion: How to make your factory's safety and labor issues disappear

Featured content: Very nearly ringing in the New Year with "Blank Space" – but we got there in time.

Traffic report: 2020 wraps up

News from the WMF: What Wikipedia saw during election week in the U.S., and what we’re doing next

Recent research: Predicting the next move in Wikipedia discussions

Essay: Subjective importance

Op-Ed: An unforgettable year we might wish to forget

Gallery: Angels in the architecture

Humour: 'Twas the Night Before Wikimas

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Administrator changes

Hammersoft

Andres • Brion VIBBER • Rkitko • Thatcher

CheckUser changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek • Primefac

Oversight changes

Barkeep49 • BDD • CaptainEek

Joe Roe

Guideline and policy news

Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RDs

See top thread at Wikipedia talk:In the news/Archive 80. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, thanks, I missed that one. I like it :) --Tone 19:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugandan Election on the Front Page

Hello Tone, I just wanted to say that I feel like the representation of the recent Ugandan "election" on the Front Page's "In The News" section is misleading and implies a few things that are not true. There is significant evidence the election was rigged and international election observers were not allowed to observe. ^[1] ^[2] I believe the wording should be changed to reflect the likely election rigging. I saw in the edits that you put quotes around "re-elected" so I don't know if you already intended to but it does not show up that way on the front page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Desertambition (talk • contribs) 18:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this was discussed at WP:ITN, where it was decided that we should go with the present blurb. Feel free to reopen the discussion there. --Tone 18:36, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

your assistance please...

You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexey Kryukov (historian). I like to request userification, talk page too, please. If, after my review, I decide there is nothing worth salvaging I'll place a g7 on it.

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 19:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, done, see User:Geo Swan/Alexey Kryukov (historian). --Tone 19:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! Geo Swan (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of World Heritage Sites in Hungary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gothic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Erica Nlewedim

Hello Tone, thank you for all the work you do at wiki. I noted that you voted to delete the page Erica Nlewedim last year because she did not meet the notability criteria. I have however updated the page in light of recent events and will appreciate your review of the page for possible publishing. Thank you --Kemmiiii (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see someone already rejected the draft? --Tone 10:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Fafangel

Hi Tone - hope you are well. I saw your edit on Mario Fafangel's article and didn't realise it was at AfD. It's been there since 8th Jan, but appears to be malformed, and isn't on any daily log. I've never seen this before, so what happens in this instance? Is it OK to close it? I've also added a few extra sources to the article. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fair to close. The notability has been demonstrated (participant at the Olympics). However, I think the article should be moved to Mario Fafangel (born 1914) or similar since this name is today more associated with his grandson, jr. I let you decide. --Tone 18:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, I didn't check the history of the page move before "fixing" the nomination and then realized it's the wrong article. I fixed the nomination page and closed it as procedural close. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled deletions at Rocco Siffredi awards AfD

Hi there, I notice you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards and nominations received by Rocco Siffredi and deleted the page per the outcome. It has been several hours, so I was curious if you noted it was a bundled AfD, and that

should be deleted as well? Zaathras (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to ask the same question but Zaathras beat me to it. Thanks all. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I thought they would get deleted automatically when closing the AfD. Deleted manually now. --Tone 09:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, thank you for your admin work. :) Zaathras (talk) 14:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2021

News and notes: 1,000,000,000 edits, board elections, virtual Wikimania 2021

Special report: Wiki reporting on the United States insurrection

In focus: From Anarchy to Wikiality, Glaring Bias to Good Cop: Press Coverage of Wikipedia's First Two Decades

Opinion: Wikipedia's war against scientific disinformation

In the media: The world's press says "Happy Birthday!" with a few twists

Technology report: The people who built Wikipedia, technically

Videos and podcasts: Celebrating 20 years

News from the WMF: Wikipedia celebrates 20 years of free, trusted information for the world

Recent research: Students still have a better opinion of Wikipedia than teachers

Humour: Dr. Seuss's Guide to Wikipedia

Featured content: New Year, same Featured Content report!

Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2020

Obituary: Flyer22 Frozen

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quod Financial Wikipedia page

Hi Tone,

I believe that you previously blocked / deleted Quod Financial's Wikipedia page. I just wanted to ask what the requirements are to get that page back online. Can that go through you?

Regards, Recardo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recardo.hatoum (talk • contribs) 08:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quod Financial. The way to go ahead is to prepare a WP:DRAFT and have it evaluated by another editor. Good luck! --Tone 09:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Administrator changes

Hog Farm

Mattflaschen • Nandesuka • Savidan • Wangi

CheckUser changes

Berean Hunter • Xeno

Oversight changes

Someguy1221 • Xeno

Arbitration

The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of World Heritage Sites in Slovakia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slavic.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sally the Flightpal

According to this edit, the edit history of Sally the Flightpal needs to be preserved, since content from that page was copied into Larry Gaye: Renegade Male Flight Attendant.

I recommend that the page be restored and turned into a "locked" (protected) redirect, with the reason for protection being the outcome of the AFD.

For the sake of completeness, I recommend that the article's talk page also be restored. Whether it is turned into a redirect or not is up to you.

Since the outcome was "delete" I see nothing wrong with revision-deleting all revisions except the one that was current as of 00:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC). This will serve the purpose of letting people see the names of the editors and what was copied from the old page while honoring the intent of the "delete" outcome. Another option is to change the outcome to "redirect, preserving history" or "redirect and lock, preserving history."

Courtesy ping to the other participants of that AFD: @Onel5969, Rorshacma, Piotrus, and Alalch Emis:. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 15:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:50, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I will recreate and redirect. Thanks for pinging me. --Tone 16:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents. In general, I prefer SOFTDELETE, so I am fine with the history being restored and the article turned into the redirect. Restoring (keeping) talk pages if they contain any discussion is also good practice. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please put Rush Limbaugh back on RD

Hi, Tone.

I think the discussion was about adding a blurb, not about removing his name from RD altogether.

Thanks.

--71.241.227.125 (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems so many new RDs were added recently that it was removed because of that. Recently, RD has a fast turnaround, not much to be done here... --Tone 19:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blurb

Thank you for publishing the new blurb. For the Patriarch blurb, did you look over the blurb wording and linking concerns highlighted by a number of editors? I wasn’t sure what exactly they meant but if you could double check that would be appreciated. I think they wanted List of heads of the Serbian Orthodox Church linked as the article with Serbian Orthodox Church being the link name, instead of general Serbian Orthodox Church to specify the subject matter. The beginning with Patriarch was only mentioned once in the blurb unless you meant the article. Cheers OyMosby (talk) 16:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got to this now, I am not sure if you still would like any changes to the blurb? --Tone 09:06, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes to the link. It’s why I mentioned it as multiple editors mentioned it on the nomination page. Also shouldn’t the picture of the mars rover stay as that is a bigger news? Should be listed first. Regardless much more news is coming so the whole box will get refreshed each day anyway. OyMosby (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I piped the link. Cannot comment on the image update. Otherwise, it will be faster if you use WP:ERRORS for quick fixes, in case I am not checking the talkpage. --Tone 17:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant piping to the Serbian Orthodox Church wording not the 46th Patriarch. Since the church itself isn’t the news but the Patriarchs. I appreciate your help and noted for the error page! Cheers OyMosby (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annova Systems

Following your closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annova Systems can I please request a userifcation of article and associated talk page as I may use for basis for an article on Openmedia. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take care of it straight away. --Tone 18:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2021

News and notes: Maher stepping down

Disinformation report: A "billionaire battle" on Wikipedia: Sex, lies, and video

Opinion: The call for feedback on community seats is a distraction

In the media: Corporate influence at OSM, Fox watching the hen house

News from the WMF: Who tells your story on Wikipedia

Recent research: Take an AI-generated flashcard quiz about Wikipedia; Wikipedia's anti-feudalism

Featured content: A Love of Knowledge, for Valentine's Day

Traffic report: Does it almost feel like you've been here before?

Gallery: What is Black history and culture?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Keenan

Hi Tone,

Could you possibly restore this page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Keenan which was deleted and allow it for draft article? I missed the deletion talk. I can then provide comments and references for it. Much obliged. NatrualEdit1888 (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll restore and move it to draft space, you can have a look there. I think if the sources are properly addressed, the article can be ok. --Tone 21:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TFL notification – April 2021

Hi, Tone. I'm just posting to let you know that List of World Heritage Sites in Poland – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 9. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 00:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 March 2021

News and notes: A future with a for-profit subsidiary?

Gallery: Wiki Loves Monuments

In the media: Wikimedia LLC and disinformation in Japan

News from the WMF: Project Rewrite: Tell the missing stories of women on Wikipedia and beyond

Recent research: 10%-30% of Wikipedia’s contributors have subject-matter expertise

From the archives: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes

Essay: Wikipedia:The Free Encyclopedia

Obituary: Yoninah

From the editor: What else can we say?

Arbitration report: Open letter to the Board of Trustees

Traffic report: Wanda, Meghan, Liz, Phil and Zack

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Petr Kellner

On 29 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Petr Kellner, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 23:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Patria case for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Patria case 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/Patria case until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 13:59, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

News and notes: WMF board elections and fundraising updates

Special report: Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification vote underway, new Council may surpass power of Board

In focus: How the Russian Wikipedia keeps it clean despite having just a couple dozen administrators

Discussion report: Wikipedians are hung up on the meaning of Madonna

In the media: War and information in war and politics

Sister projects: On editing Wikisource

Obituary: Hanif Al Husaini, Salazarov, Hyacinth, and PirjanovNurlan

Opinion: Etika: a Pop Culture Champion

Gallery: Spokane Willy's photos

Op-Ed: Why you should not vote in the 2024 WMF BoT elections

Crossword: On a day of independence, beat crosswords into crossploughshares

Humour: A joke

Cobwebs: Counting to a billion — manuscripts don't burn

Recent research: Is Wikipedia Politically Biased? Perhaps

Traffic report: Talking about you and me, and the games people play

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of List of World Heritage Sites in Tunisia

Congratulations, Tone! The list you nominated, List of World Heritage Sites in Tunisia, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Hey man im josh (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/jan/17/bobi-wine-party-challenge-museveni-uganda-election-victory

[2] ttps://www.cnn.com/2021/01/18/africa/uganda-election-internet-intl-hnk/index.html

[1]

[2]