User talk:Alex Shih/Archive/2018

Draft:paysafecard
Hi Alex Shih - the work on Draft:paysafecard I had announced to finish by the end of 2017 is somewhat more, and more complicated, than I had expected, and the time budget I was able to use is somewhat less. Please can I ask for some extension, like mid-January? And provided you have the time, can you give some feedback on where the draft got so far? One specific question: A disadvantage of paysafecard is the rather low payment volume (€ 1000). To illustrate this, I wanted to link the list of payment methods accepted by gambling website bet365, where paysafecard is least by far. But bet365 is on the global blacklist and can't be linked (google will help you easily when you want to check that). Is there still a way to include this fact? --KnightMove (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your diligent work on the article. Please take your time, as long as it is in the draft space, I am not too concerned. I am not familiar with the subject, so I will ask for second opinions and get back to you. Happy new year. Alex Shih (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Sanctions
By the way, I got your email, plenty to come, but in the meantime, one thing your esteemed group did was to contact me privately and not show me all the evidence, far from it, and then one-way IBAN'ed me. That's something that must change, (not to mention the Arbcom case where individual Arbs gathered their own evidence for the purpose of sanctioning me without even letting me see it, ever!). So, yes, there's a few things we can discuss, and I'm happy to do that. In the meantime, please recognise that I'd like to see the Arbcom reforms be conducted in public. I have nothing to hide, and if there's one massive issue with the general population of Wikipedia and Arbcom, it's communication. E.g. sending off your clerks to do the dirty business and giving them no answers to any questions, such as "why did you delete that?". Rest assured 2018 will be Arbcom's least comfortable year ever, and I plan to be at the head of that spear, but there's much more to worry about, so let your colleagues know that all the bad behaviour, private wheeling-and-dealing etc will become subject to the scrutiny of the community, rightly so. That you still have an Arb who freely provided links to oversighted material is beyond my comprehension, but hey, happy 2018. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Should be a great year. Alex Shih (talk) 01:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

EPUAP
Quo vadimus? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This looked and still looks awfully like commissioned work when you consider the style of writing, the timeline of events, and the subsequent response by the creator. But what makes this sensitive however is that it's not very obvious, and involves established contributor. I am going to ping for quick opinion, if possible, about posting this in WP:COIN. Alex Shih (talk) 04:24, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I saw your ping, one moment please. ☆ Bri (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ambiguous. Obviously the first paragraph is copied from the government website, but it is PD and declared as so by the creator on the talkpage. I don't see any smoking guns, and the creator's history is kind of sparse on creations for someone who does it for income. I'm dropping into the middle of all this so maybe I'm missing the "not very obvious" clues? ☆ Bri (talk) 05:02, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking it out! You are probably right, I was just suspicious that 1) The article is outside of the normal editing areas of the creator 2) Was created after long absence. As there are insufficient evidence, I'll decline the CSD tag. Alex Shih (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2017). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Muboshgu
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Anetode • Laser brain • Worm That Turned
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg None

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news
 * A request for comment is in progress to determine whether the administrator policy should be amended to require disclosure of paid editing activity at WP:RFA and to prohibit the use of administrative tools as part of paid editing activity, with certain exceptions.

Technical news
 * The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey results have been posted. The Community Tech team will investigate and address the top ten results.
 * The Anti-Harassment Tools team is inviting comments on new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools for development in early 2018. Feedback can be left on the discussion page or by email.

Arbitration
 * Following the results of the 2017 election, the following editors have been (re)appointed to the Arbitration Committee:, , , , , , ,.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!
Just a quick word of thanks for your contributions to Milhist Good Article Nomination reviewing over the last three months. Cheers, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs)


 * You are too kind! I haven't done anything except for two reviews. I am still learning the ropes, so if you have any advice about GA reviewing, please let me know. Cheers to you too, Alex Shih (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Hazem Farraj
Hi, I improved the page Hazem Farraj, and then you deleted it. I see the tag of G11, but I was wondering why the page was deleted, even when there was no live deletion notice and when it had been significantly improved. Thank you. Potatornado (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Despite of your improvements, the article was still very promotional and does not meet the standards. By the way, your response here is not really convincing in my opinion, so moving forward, I think your edits may be scrutinized slightly more than usual (by myself or others), which I apologize in advance. Alex Shih (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Just an honest question
Genuinely out of curiosity, what sort of criteria did you use for checking the users waiting to get on the AFCP list? Primefac (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 500 mainspace edits and good standing; did I overlook something?? If so, my bad. A couple of them were inactive recently/relatively inexperienced, but I thought I will just keep a closer look. Alex Shih (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You accepted an editor who has applied four times now (rejected the first three) because I felt they did not meet the last three criteria for joining the project. I won't contest their addition, but if we're both keeping an eye on their activities hopefully we'll be pleasantly surprised at what we see. Primefac (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see it now; I had a double take initially, had I known about the rejected requests I would have taken a deeper look and probably reject, sorry. AfC is not somewhere I usually check (unless if someone brought it to AN, which I thought was slightly overreaction), so a question: I generally have very liberal approach when it comes to user permissions, and I feel like AfC script not being an official user group, I tend to scrutinize less compared to reviewing NPR. Is this understanding okay, technically? Also, is it possible to have something similar to rfplinks and a bot that checks previously declined requests/criteria? Anyway, thanks again. Their second NPR request was declined by the way. Alex Shih (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * To answer your last question first, there isn't really, other than the list I keep in my head of "people whose names sound awfully familiar". I suppose I could keep a "declined" list but that seems a bit like gravedancing. I do maintain the request archives, which are handy for double-checking previous requests.
 * I don't mind a lower level of scrutiny when it comes to AFCP, since pages will be seen by an NPR, and the last three criteria are mostly checks so that if someone starts screwing up (or hasn't demonstrated they know what they're doing) we can quickly/easily remove them. It's just easier to ding someone before they join rather than clean up their messes ;) Fortunately there have only been 2-3 editors where that has happened, but it makes me a little more cautious I suppose.
 * And yes, posting to AN was kinda silly (the AFCP tab was literally the next tab I was going to check after checking AN), but your assistance is appreciated . Primefac (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

{talk-page-visitor} @: I didn't know articles gone through AfC end up in NPP queue. I always thought, editor(s) work on the draft and other editor approves it. As it goes through the eyes of multiple editors (at least two, including the creator), I thought it doesnt end up in NPP queue. On a completely irrelevant note, it was because of Lex that I got page mover flag. special:diff/789481333. Now in the hindsight, I think any other sys-op would have declined my request. And I turned out to be a sort of good page-mover. But being cautious is always a good thing. :) — usernamekiran (talk)  20:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, all articles (barring those created by admins and autopatrolled users) get reviewed by NPRs, and they don't patrol the Draft space; the first time it "pops up" on their radar is when a draft is accepted to mainspace. Primefac (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

ARCA
I don't envy you for looking into the alleged infobox wars which date back to 2005, a time when I didn't even know what Wikipedia is. We had a case in 2013, my first (and only as a party) arb case. It should have been about the introduction of infobox opera which was welcome by some (such as me) and hated by others. Old stuff came up that was before my time, and that I still don't understand. Anyway, the template is well established, and it could all be over. I have cordial relations to the other parties, we write articles together. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC) For recent examples: Basilica of St. James, Levoča, Weichet nur, betrübte Schatten, BWV 202 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gerda, I've been reading the old stuff today. My initial thought about what makes this complex is that the scope goes far beyond infobox themselves. Hopefully in this new year, this can be resolved once for all in a cordial fashion. Challenging, but worth trying. Alex Shih (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I read my old stuff again, and was surprised how little changed. I just added what Opabinia regalis and Voceditenore said, more recently. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * My - optimistic for no reason - belief is that if everybody would assume good faith and not edit war (sticking to 1RR and WP:BRD), the problem was solved. - In the former case, adding an infobox was sort of criminalized, while nothing was said about reverting. They should be treated equal, both not criminal. Why infobox edits can't be treated like other editing, has been a riddle I haven't been able to solve in all these years. - Have you looked at Talk:Michael Hordern? Solid communication on the talk, and all was peaceful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Not sure how much these examples will help, but thank you! I am thinking (out loud) along the lines of discretionary sanctions/edit notice that includes established criteria on how to challenge established consensus over infobox on that page, with links to centralized discussions. Anything challenge that doesn't meet the criteria should be thrown out. I think these concrete measures would help down the line. Alex Shih (talk) 07:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I gave an example for collaboration with Smerus, and one for collaboration with Nikkimaria, two of the parties in the 2013 case. We respect each other. I don't add infoboxes to opera articles Smerus writes, and not to articles Nikkimaria writes, unless it's a Bach cantata (example above), for consistency with other articles on the topic. - I think, key line: "Giving readers the option of obtaining whatever information they need in either way is ideal." - What would you suggest to be sanctioned? The question where an infobox went that was there for ten years? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Alex. Sorry to join this discussion without being invited. My approach to the problem is strictly pragmatic. Most of my new articles are biographies. In most cases, the basic information which could be included in an infobox appears at the very beginning of the lead. I therefore see little need to duplicate it in a box, particularly as there are different boxes for the various occupations. It takes time to put them together and maintain them for career developments, death, etc. Furthermore, Wikidata is increasingly becoming a repository for the kind of details traditionally displayed in infoboxes. Whenever I create a new article, I make sure the essential details are added to Wikidata. One of the main advantages of this approach is that other language versions of Wikipedia can draw on the details. With time, a user-friendly tie-up with Wikidata could be envisaged for the EN Wikipedia. I should also point out that I don't mind at all when others add infoboxes to my articles and I do use them when I am working articles up to GA or higher. But in 95% of cases, I simply save time by not adding them to Start and C Class articles. I would be interested in hearing how your work on infoboxes evolves. The priority for me is to avoid the kind of violent disputes which in the past have driven away some of our finest editors.--Ipigott (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh no it's an honour, thank you! I've been stalking WiR for the longest time, but not motivated enough to contribute more. I think pragmatic approach is good, my goal is also to firmly establish a mechanism that would stop drive-by additions/comments that easily escalates into violent disputes, and I think WP:ACDS is a good start. And then to establish criteria for infobox inclusion (it's already being done, just needs to be standardized). Any challenge for including/not including infobox that doesn't meet the established criteria should be dismissed immediately. I am not counting on Wikidata that much, as there are some controversies surrounding them. Alex Shih (talk) 12:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your approach looks good. One additional consideration you could bear in mind is that most new Wikipedia editors are strongly encouraged by WikiProjects such as AfC to create infoboxes from the start. Particularly for women editors who often have little interest in technical requirements and just want to write running prose, this is an additional hurdle which discourages many from continuing. It could be avoided until they gain more experience. In any case, good luck with your approach. Let me know if you need any help.--Ipigott (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I could offer help creating those infoboxes, or making models, - actually you may find some useful models to copy from among existing articles. Use infobox person for all people, - the specialisation doesn't show to the reader anyway, and it's decent, with no added colours. My recent DYK, Catherine Foster, could be an example, for example ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Epiphany: DYK ... that while the Three Kings bring gold, incense and myrrh to the manger, the singer of "Ich steh an deiner Krippen hier" offers spirit and mind, heart, soul and courage as gifts? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes,, this is certainly a case where the infobox considerably enhances the article. Very well presented.--Ipigott (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't mean to point out the infobox, though, but the importance of spirit and mind, heart, soul and courage. I, but some still think it's practical to blame me for everything going wrong in the field. Well, they can't blame Andy (who was almost banned because of discussions like this, - disruptive??) who has abandoned the topic even sooner. - Yes, sure, I keep watching, and I keep thanking those who think as I do: that it's right to serve both the quick reader and the one looking for detail and background. - Alex, if I was you, I'd wait until the RfC ran its course. (I won't participate, because the question asked is the wrong question.) I'd also talk to Worm That Turned who wrote the infoboxes case, and Opabinia regalis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Today, I remember missing a friend who did a lot to increase my spirit and mind. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * O God, how much heart ache. Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Friendly vision, I wrote the article with the programmatic title on 2 January, after Sing a new song on New Year's Day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I just now noticed Mary Shelley, - perhaps go mediate? I stress: I noticed. While some participants in the war I believe doesn't even exist will be sure that the disruption (? of adding an infobox and beginning a discussion, a disruption?) is due to my behind-the scene flash-mobbing I say that I didn't know the article, nor the editor. I don't care if the article has an infobox or not, but don't like the style of the discussion. Perhaps go mediate? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no war and no mediation is needed, Gerda. I think you are simply trying to be your disruptive best by stoking the fires elsewhere.   Cassianto Talk  13:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This post was made just prior to the one above re: "mediate". You seemed to care enough to make a record of it, but then you state here that you don't care....We hope (talk) 14:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Today: dissipate, you sorrowful shadows, mentioned above as a collaboration of people with different views. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It's strange; when I looked at this earlier I didn't see anything, but apparently since then the conversation has taken a different turn; I will read again later to see if I can contribute. I think it'll help me to be more insightful if I could contribute positively to resolving some of these discussions. Alex Shih (talk) 08:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex, when the author died in 2014, I was shocked. I watchlisted all her FAs then, and nominated some of them for TFA, successfully. Some had an infobox, some not, that was of no concern to me then, nor is it now. - What concerns me is what happens when an editor who may not even be aware that there's a conflict zone around infoboxes is treated. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex, I am known for my seemingly unrelated comments. I have a friend who is a physician. She was trained that when you come to the scene of an accident, don't look first at those who shout, - the victims who can't speak anymore will need help more urgently. - I decorated my talk for 2018. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is very philosophical; I think I know what you are referring to. In Chinese we have a saying: severe illness requires strong medicine. I've read Moxy's comment; I'll try to make sure things turn for the better for 2018. Alex Shih (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Did you read the thread? Did you read the thread about collapsing infoboxes (or better not), 2013, where Moxy said how much he trouble he has to click on the show button of something collapsed? - Off for the day, on vacation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * In Exile, and patiently waiting, - now back from vacation ;) - Two more people to invite are Iridescent, author of the TFA today and former arbitrator who seems able to retrieve everything from the past, and Voceditenore who moderates infobox disputes for project opera. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gerda, more input is always welcomed. I think I am starting to get familiar, baby steps. Alex Shih (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Take small doses, more is not healthy ;) - I have a cordial discussion with Cassianto on my talk, which may be of interest to your thoughts. Without repeating too much: I suggested that we might be in a better mood if all involved would stop looking at others as "insane", "obsessed", "fanatic", you name it. - For dessert: take a look at Imogen Holst, TFA to be on her 110th birthday, a model, by Brianboulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was reading that exchange, and "cordial" was certainly not the word that came to my mind. I am trying to establish a way in which new readers can be properly informed of previous Infobox discussions, and increase admin clerking to ensure Infobox discussions are about the article, not Infobox in general. Once we have a proper system, I think less frustration would occur, which ideally would hopefully reduce uncivil discussions; if it doesn't, then I can move on to act accordingly. Alex Shih (talk) 12:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Uninvited olive but watching discussions: There is a fundamental issue which must be remedied. Unless its not there will always be discord. If there is discord there will sanctions and trouble - an escalating situation.

Some believe an info box is a repeat of article information and therefore expendable. Others believe the info box is a format which is a subset of the article or even separate from an article that perhaps can stand alone. The infobox is seen as a help to the reader who wants to quickly scan while those who see the article's integrity as primary maybe over the reader's needs (not true for everyone) will dislike the info box and how it looks or what it adds. Until this can be settled everything no matter how well thought out or complex will be a bandaid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleolive oil (talk • contribs) 18:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

E-mail
Is it possible for me to ask why you need to contact me via E-mail?--WaltCip (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * About one of the edits at ITN/C that may concern you. But if you are retiring, then the point is moot. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I feel particularly embarrassed about my prior conduct both on Wikipedia and ITN/C. My contributions have not exactly been beneficial to Wikipedia, so I decided to retire. At some point down the line I may want a clean start, but for now, I'm admitting my mistakes and taking a voluntary departure.--WaltCip (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's fine. I don't think it's a concern, but feel free to let me know when you want to return or opting for clean start. Take care, Alex Shih (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Luke Shen-Tien Chi
Hello Alex,

Can you pleased kindly take a look at Luke Shen-Tien Chi. Thank you so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.108.240.143 (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * Responded. Alex Shih (talk) 09:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain I know what this is in regards to, I'm thinking you can head off an edit war by talking to her on her Facebook page where she is at this moment expressing her anger over the issue. Otherwise you're going to need to lock the page. Just go there Ebrockway (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , posting Facebook accounts on Wikipedia is very likely a violation of OUTING, and suggesting that we take our Wikipedia problems to Wikipedia is foolish. I mean, it's kind of silly to talk about outing in this kind of case, but linking it to other social media is just not a good idea, IMO. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Might be connected: . Primefac (talk) 20:28, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The e-mail was unrelated. I've seen the OTRS ticket, and unblocked the account accordingly, tagging with OTRS ticket number for reference. Alex Shih (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Far be it for me to call you out on this, but I don't see any confirmation that the user is linked to the account... Primefac (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, by OTRS ticket alone, perhaps no. But I've read through the Facebook threads, and I think this is certainly genuine. Feel free to revert if you disagree. The account should be re-blocked again with a different reason if it makes any more edits against NPOV and COI. Alex Shih (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, fair enough. I'll throw in the FB post to the ticket just to put all the pieces together. Primefac (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. And thanks to for bringing this to our attention! Alex Shih (talk) 20:54, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems to have calmed the waters, whatever you did. Ebrockway (talk) 23:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Sock
Hi. I dont remember why I have watchlisted. You recently blocked him for socking. Would it be possible for you to tell me who is the master? Thanks, — usernamekiran (talk)  20:10, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's probably the master account. As Floquenbeam‎ have many followers, it's easy to get mixed up sometimes though. Alex Shih (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Will you be responding to my email?
Or did my email (sent 27 December) not arrive? Banedon (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry it went into the spam folder for some reason, I'll read it now and respond. Alex Shih (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably nothing, and—if it is—you'll likely be aware
This isn't you, is it? It also links to 's sandbox. Just aroused my suspicions slightly. – Sb 2001  01:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That's been taken care of for now. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:46, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Joseph2302
Hi Alex, will you be logging the restrictions at WP:EDR? --Neil N  talk to me 05:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I hope that this all works out. Although I do not know all the details, recent events have been pretty disconcerting. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry I had to leave midway through. Thank you. The editing restriction has been logged here. Courtesy ping to, , and  to inform this update. And , I agree, I think this will work out though; the UTRS appeal was very heartfelt. Alex Shih (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Alex. I trust you and hope that you are right. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We've been here before. I would suggest this is the final, final warning. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure that "heartfelt" is the impression left on me by his appeal, but it contained all the right elements that one should remember to include on such occasions. Anyhow, we'll see how the return of the repentant sinner plays out. Favonian (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Addition to Chinese and Japanese Wikipedia
Hi ,Alex Shih I'm working on Publishing Bottega Veneta from English into Japanese and Chinese and was wondering if you have time to help me out. I found your username on Wikiproject Translators and saw that you're fluent in English, Chinese, and Japanese. I have a paid COI regarding Bottega Veneta, but my main concern here is ensuring that the information available in English is available and up to date in Japanese and Chinese. I have a translated version of the article on. Would you mind reviewing it for accuracy as well as its compliance with Wikipedia guidelines? Thanks!--Chefmikesf (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Generally I do not help paid editors, especially if you are canvassing with a large number of other volunteers. But since I have worked in luxury goods, I am naturally interested in Bottega Veneta so I don't mind doing minor copyediting in Japanese and Chinese when I have extra time. Since there is no draft namespace on Japanese Wikipedia, please move your article to the mainspace or else I cannot edit them. As a rule of thumb, I would follow the general layout of other articles for Kering; for instance, I would copyedit the first sentence to ボッテガ・ヴェネタ（BOTTEGA VENETA）は1966年に設立されたイタリアのファッションブランド、皮革製品として世界で知られている.As for Wikipedia guidelines, different projects have different standards, and for ja.wiki the translation is passable at the current state I think, but there are a few nuances that needs to be fixed. Lastly, please make sure your account is not shared by multiple people, because whenever if you say "we" (in your response to others) it will naturally raise suspicion. Thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Alex ShihThank you for the honest feedback and criticism. I appreciate your interest in the Bottega Veneta brand as well as your understanding that Japanese and Chinese Wikipedia users would have interest in the article. My sole interest is to provide the information to all languages that the brand represents. I see your point regarding the perception of canvassing. I face a number of challenges as a COI editor on the English Wikipedia, the first of which is finding editors who are even willing to talk to me in the first place. The additional challenge of finding editors that can also translate into specific languages makes collaborating with willing translators even more difficult. I’m currently looking over your notes and I'm going to have the sandboxes copyedited by a more advanced translator. Once I have completed this step may I reach back out for your review and assistance with publishing?Chefmikesf (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. Alex Shih (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

NPR
Hi Alex. The next election for NPR coords is due to take place in about 3 - 4 weeks. The election pages are being prepared. I'm wondering if you would be prepared to do the honours as one of the 'election commissioners'. It needs someone neutral. The tasks only involve ensuring the candidates are admissible, closing the nominations at the cut-off date, monitoring for dups/socks and striking any other inappropriate votes, and tallying up and announcing the results. I managed the previous one, it's not a lot of work. has agreed to be the other commissioner. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Is that a 'yes' ? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. Thank you! Alex Shih (talk) 03:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Hi Alex, hope you're having a good day. I'm approaching you on this matter as you're an experienced user and have the checkuser access. I suspect several socks at a merger discussion on an India topic who're voting to not merge. The IP's are of suspect as well, with the WHOIS tool geolocating 4 of the 5 to the same city. Hope you could help so if there are socks involved, their votes can be struck off. Thanks, MT TrainDiscuss 11:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for your message. I think this has already been taken care of; without looking too much further, this is probably a case of cross-wiki and offline canvassing, so more likely a case of WP:MEAT. I've blocked all 7 single purpose accounts in that discussion based on behavioral evidences only; if similar disruptive editing returns, please file a SPI report instead as the range of IPs involved here is beyond my capability. Best, Alex Shih (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

User
Thank you for your actions to moderate the behavior of the Quixotic Potato. As I mentioned on this talk page, I find the user's signature very insulting and inappropriate, along the lines of WP:IU, which also applies to signatures. How would you address it? ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps by refusing to re-litigate something which was discussed at AN/I less than one month ago, at the end of which the complainant was told by another admin to "'"...?  :)     >SerialNumber  54129''' ...speculates 15:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Jeez, I think that's a little insensitive. Wasn't aware it came up before, and still strongly disagree with that decision, but I won't push it I suppose. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:27, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It was, perhaps, a trifle brusque ;)    >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 15:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am probably not the best person to answer this question, as I have never heard of triple parentheses prior to this. I personally wouldn't think too much about it, but I'd like to refer this to who is much more experienced, wiser and equipped to answer your question in a satisfying manner. Alex Shih (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 15:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I suggest that anyone concerned about the triple parentheses read 's user page from beginning to end. It will take some time, but you can skim certain parts. You will come away with a better understanding of this editor's world view, and you will be absolutely convinced that this editor is not anti-Semitic or sympathetic with the alt-right. The editor clearly added the triple parentheses as an act of solidarity with Jews who are harassed by the alt-right. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  20:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of Christianity quotes, but nothing mentioning struggle of Jews whatsoever. Someone can be anti-Nazi or anti-homophobia or whatever; they could still easily have hatred for any other group. But regardless of intent, I don't think it should be used in usernames or signatures. I think many other Jews agree with me that it shouldn't be used at all. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 20:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, . The Quixotic Potato's user page includes quotes from such well known Jews as Albert Einstein, Jonas Salk and Jon Stewart. He also includes ten quotes from the Jewish rapper Soul Khan. The user page makes it clear that this editor is anti-fascist, and no friend of the alt-right. If you want a blanket ban on editors using the triple parentheses in signatures, then take that to a broader discussion, where I will speak in opposition as a Jew. But any claim that this editor supports the alt-right will be rejected by all intelligent people. Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Speaking of strange signatures, mj, I cannot even figure out how to ping you. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  21:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the ping and signed, should be working now. Thank you for your sensible replies; I have learned something new. Alex Shih (talk) 04:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel very bad about how this situation escalated out of control, Alex. I hope that The Quixotic Potato can do what is necessary to make amends. Thank you for fixing my botched ping. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  05:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Quixotic
That user is now deleting my comments: 1 and 2

I said to him there: "I'm not sure if you can use WP:NOBAN, I doubt you should have a right to here as this is a discussion about your block for actions harming me. Also, this is the main discussion for these conflicts, which I shouldn't be banned from just because we're in conflict. If so, then I'd strongly urge us to all stop conversation on this page and move it to a more centrally-located forum, one where Quixotic can't remove our comments or ban us from writing here."

We have to move this this discussion elsewhere, if it is to continue. Posted to Jytdog's talk as well. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 17:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I believe he should additionally be blocked from using the talk page. He's not contesting his block, he's continuing to argue with Jytdog and I with great incivility. This is going nowhere. ɱ (talk) · vbm  · coi) 17:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no need to post in neither of their talk pages nor to continue with that discussion, as I am only concerned about editing behaviours at the moment. I'm currently discussing this with other functionaries. Alex Shih (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * He is continuing to harrass, insult, and accuse me on his user page, which I wouldn't want to just leave unanswered; I'd hope you'd understand. I await further decision on how this should go... ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Well; you could stop emailing him! ;) That would give him one less thing to talk about   >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 18:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I only did that once to ask where he found my name. He just said Google. I'm kinda skeptical he actually did, but that's not the point I guess. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What also should I do about his initial controversial edit, adding the two tags to the Interactive Brokers article? I wrote it very neutrally and factually; there's no bloat or inaccuracies or irrelevancies, especially if you read closely. His comment was "The lede starts by claiming that they are the largest this and the largest that, and what follows is a lot of nonnotable detail about how one genius against all the odds defeated the evil bureaucracy that would not allow his computers to rule the stock market."
 * I'm primarily a historical researcher; I don't write fluff. Nearly all of my edits here are as a volunteer (over 99% of 22,000 or so). I've written FAs and hosted and led Wiki meetups. This tagging just seems like aggression against companies and people paid to write about them, however 100% neutrally they do it. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please post to WP:COIN to have the maintenance tags removed. My advice is to avoid commenting on your own writing style; let another editor comment on these qualities. I'd like to take the liberty to ping another editor,, who is very resourceful for this specific situation. Alex Shih (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll look forward to seeing what Thryduulf will say. I just thought because this blocked and aggressive editor did it for no good-faith reason, it may simply be reverted. I did state commentary on my editing as many details may not always apparent unless you look at the scope of all of my work, but I understand how it may be better to allow for more outside analysis. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

(responding to ping) I've read this talk page section and don't understand the situation based solely on that. I don't have time at the moment to do any more research into what is happening but I will take a look when I can (probably tomorrow UK time) if my input is still desired at that point. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be nice, thank you. And yeah the conversation is a little muddled, but the edits I'm contesting are 1 and 2, made by the problematic editor The Quixotic Potato. I tried to have him revert those edits here, but he refused and this all spun out into a mess from there. ɱ  (talk) · vbm  · coi) 18:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Move protection on User:Sro23
Hi! Do not forget whether you set semi-move-protection or not, non-autoconfirmed/confirmed account and ips can not move page at all, so I suggest you increase move protection, thanks! Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

question
Alex, a question, which is the correct, and polite way, to act if you find a info in an article that is not sourced? removing it or adding the template citation needed? Elisa.rolle (talk) 13:00, 15 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Can a source be easily found? -> Yes = Add source
 * Is the information about living persons, especially contentious material, and sources cannot be immediately found? -> Yes = Remove, consider posting a note, but not the full text on the talk page, consider requesting revdel if it is particularly egregious.
 * Does the information seem likely to be verifiable, and can a source be easily found by someone who speaks a related language or has additional access to academic journals etc? -> Yes =
 * Does the information seem dubious on its face, and sources cannot be easily found, even with someone who speaks a related language and has additional access? -> Yes = Remove, consider moving the material to the talk page.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   13:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * GreenMeansGo pretty much summarized it all. Personally unless if it's obviously libelous or unsourced bold claim, I would add the cn tag, make a note at article talk page and notify the main contributor(s). I think that's the ideal etiquette, but it's rarely followed. Alex Shih (talk) 14:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you. It was the first case, the reliable source (an obituary) was easily found on google simply searching for the name. it was the first result on google, but I forgot to include it when I listed the name of one of the son (and it was an important detail in the contest of the article). I agree that, unfortunately, there are editors that just prefer to delete the infos (without alerting the main editor). Just wanted to understand if that is polite/policy behaviour... Elisa.rolle (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, for whatever it's worth Elisa, it's been a delight having watchlisted your userpage over the past six months or so and catching here and there all the great work you've been doing. You are probably tied right now for the top spot as the absolutely most productive brand new editor I've had the pleasure of meeting so far. Adityavagarwal has got some mighty stiff competition, just saying :P.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   14:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the mention, . I have reviewed few of her DYKs too, for QPQs, and it is just extraordinary of her to write such fine articles in so less time. She has more than 700 new articles, so I better not have any competition with her (or I am bound to lose...).  Adityavagarwal (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

When you write in an article about someone that he has an adopted son living in Thailand, which is not in the source given, and a Google search does not return this information (the 6 hits I got included enwiki and some Findagrave page you wrote, and another page by you, and yet another one by you, so four of the six hits were all by the same person anyway; the other two mentioned his name, but not that he was an adopted son or that he lived in Thailand). So no, it was not the first case, it was personal information about a clearly non-notable BLP which could not be confirmed by a simple Google search, and where even your search only confirmed one half of the information. Please be a lot more careful when writing about living people, and consider not including information when the person is not a notable person in their own right and the information is not really relevant for the article you are writing (e.g. for this article, the fact that he had an adopted son is noteworthy if you have a reliable source; the fact that that son lives in Thailand is not noteworthy though, and in this case not verifiable). Fram (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , would you mind not using my talk page to scold another editor? Although I must say, that was very pleasant and I think I can agree with almost everything. Alex Shih (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't do it behind someone's back at least. It's not the first time there have ben problems with Elisa.rolle's editing, and apparently not the last time either, considering how she just dealt with this request I made, which she "solved" by linking to this, which resolves to this. So it is important that she doesn't walk away from this question thinking that her approach was the right one, or that others feel she or the article had been treated badly. Fram (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

AfD discussion
You closed Articles for deletion/Authority Nutrition as delete, but as per this is now a part of Healthline. Do you feel that is appropriate for this to become a redirect? --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am personally against it due to concerns of WP:R #4 (taking the history of the page into consideration). Alex Shih (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

an help for Sabrina Ferilli into japanese
Good morning from Coreca, a little while ago I translated サブリナ・フェリッリ (Sabrina Ferilli into Japanese), I was wondering if you could give us a hand. just and no more than 10 minutes of your precious time, a rereading here and there. I apologize if I have been too pressing, but I hope I can do something for you. a greeting from Calabria! --Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 05:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Like I was saying earlier, I need reliable sources in order to help you effectively. Alex Shih (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Good evening,

well, there are many sources in the Italian wikipedia, and on the web, ask me what you need and I'll find them. thanks again for the trust.--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Warnings added by TQP
Hi, Alex. I followed your recent interactions with The Quixotic Potato with some interest, as this editor had begun hounding me in December 2017 (here and, for example). TQP had focused on me because of my status as a COI contributor, notwithstanding the fact I disclose the clients I represent and never edit directly, but propose changes on talk pages only.

Shortly before the block, TQP made content changes to several pages I had previously worked on, and in most cases, I don't have strenuous objections to these edits. However, on two pages (Michael J. Saylor and The Glover Park Group) they left warning templates even after making changes. I can't help but feel the tags were intended not to help improve content, but to punish me. In both cases, my disclosure has long been prominently featured on their respective talk pages, and in neither case did TQP explain the continued need for these tags.

Given the above, would you be willing to consider removing these templates? I should note, since there has been a lot of discussion previously on the Saylor page, so I'd be happy to go back there and open a discussion if you'd prefer not to get involved. However, I wonder if you might at least take a look at the GPG page where there's been no discussion at all. Thanks for your consideration. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am generally very uninterested in getting involved with your articles or any other paid editors; I am mostly dealing with editing behavior only. With that being said, The Glover Park Group looks like a case of tag bombing to me, so I'll take a look and address my concerns on the article talk page. For Michael J. Saylor, there are enough administrators following the discussion, and I don't think my input is needed there. Alex Shih (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Alex. I appreciate you getting involved to the extent you have, and your note on the GPG talk page is well-considered. Good starting points for future improvements. Best, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 19:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Once these concerns are addressed I'll remove the neutrality tag. Alex Shih (talk) 05:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Reminder about Blocking consultation
Hello again,

The discussion about new blocking tools and improvements to existing blocking tools is happening on English Wikipedia and is in the final days. Also there is a global discussion about the same topic on meta.

We contacted you because you are one of the top users of the blocking tool on this wiki. We think that your comments will help us make better improvements. Thank you if you have already shared your thoughts. There is still time to share your ideas.

If you have questions you can contact me on wiki or by email.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Premature close
I reopened the discussion, because I don't think this is a dispute resolution thing, this is a stop-messing-with-the-process thing. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Responded at user's talk page. Alex Shih (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Cary Grant -- AGAIN!
Hi Alex, before I lose my fucking temper with the people over at the Cary Grant talk page, could you please close this? It is nothing but a continuance of the same subject and the users there are using it as a loophole to keep the trouble going after the consensus did not fall in their favour. If Baseball Bugs carried on this discussion after your archiving, he'd have been rightly reprimanded for it, as per the archiving instructions. I don't see how starting the same subject in a different section is in any way different.  Cassianto Talk  13:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Alex the purpose of that discussion, after your "no consensus" close, is to discuss just what the last consensus was. If we're not going to discuss that there, where does it get discussed? Now people are edit warring and archivng the discussion. sheesh. People should not be blanking that discussion, which is what out-of-sequence archiving amounts to. Coretheapple (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And, that starts with comments like Editors who want an infobox are apparently under the false impression that Wikipedia is supposed to serve its readers. and When there's no infobox, I assume some control freaks have expunged it, and I look elsewhere on the internet...... Winged Blades Godric 15:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Point of order: It is not an "active discussion"; it is the active re-litigation of a closed discussion. There is a world of difference; hence my (non-out of process) archiving. When tempers boil over (again), you will regret unarchiving it, but by then it could be too late. It is a shame no-one seems able to move on.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 15:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The substantive comments should be ignored and we need to focus on what the last consensus was, as the close was no consensus. Remember? Interested parties don't determine what the previous consensus was unilaterally and then blank the subject when it is discussed. Coretheapple (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Quick point of order (again)- to clarify, they didn't.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 15:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Now this. Look, if the previous consensus is quite so clear, what is wrong with discussing it? I can understand why there is so much talk of taking this to arbcom. Some of the tactics here are pretty deplorable. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The situation has been explained to you more than once. To confirm once more, to stop you edit warring further: the last review process was in 2016; there was no infobox at the time and the article has remained without one ever since (with the exceptions of temporary additions/removals). There is, therefore, no consensus to add an IB to the article. I hope this is now crystal clear. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The "situation" should be dealt with on the talk page, of which no one appointed you, an interested party, Discussion Czar. Coretheapple (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks: I make no claim to anything of the sort. The situation appears to be clear to all but one or two people and this has now been explained and clarified. - SchroCat (talk) 15:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from edit warring and unilaterally shutting down discussions in which you are participating. Please revert your including that discussion in the previous hatted RfC. It was not part of the RfC. Coretheapple (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

1. I have not edit warred (no reversion by me or removal of material); I think you are confusing my actions with your obvious warring. 2. No. The section was a wiki-lawyering extension. I will leave it up to Alex Shih to decide whether to re-open, comment, or leave as it is. (The question has been raised, and does not need repeating, rehashing or existing as a further point of argument.) - SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for you guys  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   17:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Every once in a while I de-watchlist something, and that is exactly how I feel. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather on the nose, what :)   >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 17:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was asleep. Let me take a look and clarify the closing statement. Alex Shih (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Asleep? If I had to come back to this, I'd probably buy morphine :)    >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 21:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. I have clarified my closing statement. Courtesy ping to, and . My personal view of 's contribution to the "Going forward" section is borderline disruptive, and if similar editing behaviour continues I will issue a friendly warning. Alex Shih (talk) 05:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Alex, thank you, but I could have said at the beginning of the RFC it was a waste of time. I hope you got an insight in all this to how annoying it is to constantly have to deal with infobox pushing and time wasting arguments. It should have been dealt with years back. Sanctions should be imposed an editor's frequently involved in pushing them. I hope arb can resolve this.♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Claudia Cardinale the latest one. ♦ Dr. Blofeld  08:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail

 * Responded. Let me know what I need to do and I am more than happy to help with the logistics. Alex Shih (talk) 14:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Page move request
I suggest you to help to move an article Arancha del Toro to the initial article Arancha Solis. The page creator created a duplicated copy of Arancha Solis as Arancha del Toro. When I proposed it for a speedy deletion the the page creator requested me to redirect rather than to delete this page. As I don't have the Page mover right I suggest you to help me out in this situation. Thanks in advance. Abishe (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this wasn't your intention, but "I suggest you to help" comes off as rather rude. I will fix it this time, but take more care in how you approach other editors. Alex Shih (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for granting Reviewer right
Dear Alex, thank you very much for your trust and granting me right of reviewer. I will do my best to follow guidelines and rules of Wikipedia for carrying out reviewer right YosyISR (talk)
 * Good luck. Feel free to let me know when you need help. Alex Shih (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear Alex Shih (talk) thanks a lot again. I have checked this link - Special:PendingChangesand could not find edits that require review or yesterday only found one. I guess there are not a lot changes that require review? or i am looking in wrong place? thanks in advance for your time YosyISR (talk)
 * I think that's the right place, the backlog for pending changes are usually not that bad. Alex Shih (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Dear Alex Shih (talk) thanks for reply and support YosyISR (talk)

The Gnome
Hi, might I suggest you be a bit more robust with this? All it takes is one person to react to this comment on the Shelley talk page and then you have another volatile situation going on, which is no good to anyone. I shan't bother to waste my time on Gnome's moronic need to be reverted, in order to feed his insatiable appetite of wanting to piss people off, so I've left a note here and on 's talk page. At the very least, I think the comment should be collapsed and the thread archived to stop people reacting to this.  Cassianto Talk  10:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll be on mobile for a while, but I do plan to archive the thread when I return home; another administrator has already commented on the nature of these off topic remarks; I think more clerking is required in these Infobox discussions. In return though, may I ask you to defer these comments to administrators in these situations, instead of taking the initiative to remove the comments yourself? I think that'll be better for everyone involved. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 12:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you may and if it helps the cause, I will. Also, when you're able, could you post a link where I need to be to offer my two penn'orth with regards to the infobox case you asked me about the other day? Many thanks.  Cassianto Talk  14:46, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, feel free to post them to my notebook at User talk:Alex Shih/ArbNotes/Infobox. I am trying to gather opinions from every perspective there. Thanks again! Alex Shih (talk) 05:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Wow. Cassianto requests of an admin to intervene on account of a comment I made - and starts insulting me in that very request! ("Gnome's moronic need", "appetite to piss people off", etc). Amazing! What am I supposed to do with the barrage of personal invective directed at me? The last thing I desire is start a complaint against Cassianto for bullying and being peristently uncivil. Tell me. -The Gnome (talk) 16:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * So to describe how you're making me feel (pissed off) is now an uncivil comment to make? Ok, well in that case, you're making me feel wonderful. I cannot describe how happy you are making me by opening up week-old discussions only to bait and fan the flames. There, is that better?  You seem to want to close down discussion by pinning the civility flag to the mast, every time you hear something that you'd rather not.  I would suggest that if you don't like hearing the truth, don't go fishing for it in disputes.   Cassianto Talk  18:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC
 * Compare what you write ("moronic need", etc) and what I write (try and find one single word like these in any of my comments) and then perhaps you'll understand the difference between us in civility. Feeling "pissed off" for something (such as me expressing my views on the pro-infobox editors' behavior) is no excuse for using such language. But we've been there already. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to respond to the accusation leveled against me on the talk page of an admin and I'm off topic?! I guess I'm losing what little English I know. Ah well. -The Gnome (talk) 07:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought I'd seen most things on here, but never in a million years did I ever think I'd be taken to ANI by someone who loves infoboxes sooo much, that their willing to report my loathing of certain infoboxes over the fact that I've never interacted with them. As I said on there. Words fail me! BTW, Alex, thanks for the fix on my John Johnson DYK nomination. I can't believe it's only my second nom in 8 years! I may even put an infobox in, if I consider it to be worthwhile enough. As has been proved at ANI, much stranger things have happened!  Cassianto Talk  23:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, I don't blame you, the DYK process makes very little sense that sometimes I wonder if my efforts are worthwhile. I will take a look at the AN/I post later. Alex Shih (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We've now started with the personal attacks.  Cassianto Talk  00:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing rights of semi-protected article 'Hokushin Ittō-ryū'
Hi Alex, please help me to understand wikipedia editing rights for the english article 'Hokushin Ittō-ryū'. I looked into the previous edit-war and wondered how is it posssible to edit this semi-protected article as like as the unregistered or registered user, named 'Clorine 22' did in the past days? See here

I thought that 'semi-protection' means that an article is protected against editing by socket puppets, registered and unregistered users which are not admin, isn't it? Thanks for helping, DalmatianGuard (talk) 18:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you associated with any previous accounts? Alex Shih (talk) 10:19, 23 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not associated with any previous accounts regarding this article. I'm just a usual reader, who wondered about this edit war and recent updates on this koryu article. DalmatianGuard (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Thanks for your answer to my question on the Reference Desk. Gmc600 (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Disappointing
It's disappointing that you seem to have been swayed by a mixture of half-truths and straight untruths written about me by mcandlish; I have previously pointed out to him when he has posted such lies about me before, and yet he continues to restate them. I do not propose to take part in the discussion there, but rather than accepting unquestioningly what he has written, it would be best to look at his "evidence" in a more questioning frame of mind, rather than accepting them at face value. As I have not been named as a party (and as the Arb filing is nothing to do with me), I find it odd and disconcerting that you have added my name in your comment as if I am a party. Can I suggest you remove my name from your statement, or at the very least strike it. - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I think my comment was along the lines that I will examine the evidence presented before deciding if a case is warranted. Alex Shih (talk) 11:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I repeat: I am not a named party in the process, so it's not appropriate to include my name in your comment. By highlighting my name you are giving undue weight to a comment that contains lies and half-truths. - SchroCat (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Complaint
Hello, I want to complaint about admin after his sarcastic tone against me, which I believe breaches Wiki rules. Do you know what I can do? The admin is from Azerbaijani Wikipedia--Azerifactory (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Azerifactory. The English Wikipedia can't affect anything on azwiki. It seems you've already started a thread here, which is the correct place to ask.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   23:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the GA review of Mogilev Conference; much appreciated! K.e.coffman (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, thank you for your patience! Alex Shih (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Wing Bowl
Hi Alex Shih. Was wondering if you’d mind taking a look at Wing Bowl? An IP was blocked yesterday by for edit warring over a content despite multiple editors besides myself advising them to discuss on the article’s talk page. The IP kinda made it clear on their user talk that they are not really interested in establishing a consensus for including the material, but feels that the onus is on others to do so in order to remove it, and they would likely continue to try and re-add the content if unblocked. Anyway, the IP’s block runs out, a new account shows up and the first edit made is to restore the disputed content. This seems like one of those cases where WP:QUACK is so strong that an SPI might not be needed. I have posted something already on Oshwah’s user talk about this, but would like one more opinion as to whether an SPI outcome would be pretty obvious as to be unnecessary in this case. — Marchjuly (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, SPI is not needed. The SPA account has been blocked. Thank you! Alex Shih (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look. I have a feeling that whomever was behind the accounts will probably be back to try again not only at Wing Bowl, but also the other account the SPA added content to. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

feeling
Dear Alex, I really want to assume good faith, but sometime it's difficult. I created an article for the Hypocrites' Club; all the members had a Wikipedia entry other than Arden Hilliard. Therefore I researched him, and found out that he was a good friend of Evelyn Waugh and participated to the movie The Scarlet Woman, which is an important step in British early movie history. I wrote the article, but was not able to find a date of death. Someone put a "possibly living people" tag that was indeed unrealistic. Another user remove it, fine, but with the same edit grouped all sentences into one, making the readibility sort of strange. I changed it again and was reprimended since they said it was again a wikipedia policy (!?!) and they grouped it in a different way ; at this point I sort of accepted the regrouping, and moved a sentence about the mother above since it was related to the family. At this point the user decided to put an AfD on the article:. Sorry but it appears that, since I did not silently accepted what seemed to me an illogical edit, the user decided to delete the whole article... if they really were of this idea, they would have put the AfD before, wouldn't have? --Elisa.rolle (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand. I don't think there were any bad faith involved though; more of a "the more I look at it, the more I don't think this subject is notable" type of case. I'll take a look too when I can. Alex Shih (talk) 06:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Good to see you back man
That is all. G M G <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   00:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was reading your TFA yesterday on my mobile but didn't feel the need to pile on the cake throw. I'll be focusing on writing for a while also. Alex Shih (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, everybody ought to do a little bit of writing. Keeps you grounded. Don't tell anyone, but even Jimbo has messed around and managed to get himself almost 2k mainspace edits over the years.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk   14:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Barbara Spofford Morgan
Alex, sorry to be a bother, but again, I'm trying to be accomodating and it's not easy. I wrote an article for John Spofford Morgan. If you just google his name "John Spofford Morgan", you will see how many hits his name had, 51.000. Indeed he did not accomplished much if not marrying his male partner after 64 years they were together. But indeed, 51.000 hits! Anyway while writing the son, I found out the mother was an interesting character herself, Barbara Spofford Morgan, and she did accomplished much. So I wrote her article as well. Now one user said the son is not notable. I do not agree (51.000 hits and 649 books even if not specifically on him) but I proposed a merge of the son on the mother, with a section at the end. They are indeed all buried together, mother, son, son-in-law, therefore is an interesting, and more complete, article. If we put a redirect from the son to the mother, we do not loose the info on the son (remember 51.000 hits). But then another other removed the section about the son. I reverted the edit. It's not unrelated. Many people search for the son name, and while he may be famous just for his marriage, he is famous... therefore I think a section on the mother article is the least we can have, if we delete the page on him. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also like to add, that, if a removal of "sourced" content is necessary, the editor wishing to do so should at least search for consent on the talk page, especially if they are not the main editor of the page... In any case I do not agree on the removal, but if I was involved in the decision I would find it more respectful. I'm really trying to be patient, but some unpoliteness I see in Wikipedia is really hard to bear. Elisa.rolle (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That editor was me., if you add irrelevant content (such as the biography of a relative) to a biography, you can expect it to be removed, because that isn't something we do. It looks rather as if you are trying to sidestep the deletion discussion, much as you did by moving content to a page on the wrong villa when I started Articles for deletion/Mary Farhill. May I suggest that you let this deletion discussion run its course, and then abide by the decision of the community? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have kindly proposed something on the deletion page, and waiting for it to take its course. Indeed I have not blanketed John Spofford Morgan and if it will survive, I will remove the summary content from the mother's page. If not, that summary is the least we could have to my opinion. It's me that kindly ask you to wait for the decourse of the AfD process. I did not point it was you cause, what you did with the Mary Fairhill's articles was something I did not like, but at the end, I was tired, and I removed the page from my watchlist to let you do what you wanted. This is the second time I found your approach harsh and unpolite. But I really want to have good faith. And that is the reason why I suggested that if content removal should happen, than search consensus on the talk page of the article. If you are, as you said, a page watcher, and you are watching my pages, I would kindly ask you to be more respectful of the work of another editor. And btw this discussion should not happen on Alex's talk page, if you have something to tell me, tell me on my talk page. Or on the talk page of the article. Elisa.rolle (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * And BTW, I did not move content on the wrong villa as you said. Here is the proof, but as I said before, I was so tired of your approach, that I removed the page from my watch list and let you reduce to a stub. If you want to re-add the content that I had correctly created, you are free to do so. Above is your book reference: Villa Palmieri, Fiesole in this moment has the wrong name of (it's not James Ludovic Lindsay, 26th Earl of Crawford) and not reference to Mary Fairhill or Granduchessa di Toscana. Meanwhile Boccaccio was not in Villa Palmieri but Villa Schifanoia. In another reference I found that Villa Il Palmerino was indeed part of Villa Palmieri, and originally it was one property, later divided and finally sold to Vernon Lee Elisa.rolle (talk) 00:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , it is probably rude to continue this on Alex's talk-page, so I'll try to be brief. Neither source you cite says that Farhill ("Fairhill") was at Il Palmerino, the book clearly says that she was at the Villa Palmieri, which is several kilometres away (I don't know how well you know the area of San Domenico and the hills below Fiesole; I am very familiar with it). If the Villa Schifanoia dates to the fifteenth century, how could Boccaccio (d. 1375) have been there? Your apparent failure to examine what sources actually say makes me wonder whether your seemingly very valuable contributions to this project need to be more closely examined. Alex, please excuse me, I'm done. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The Florentine Villa: Architecture History Society published by Routledge. Enough said. You proved again to be rude. And the comment on the AfD for JSM unnecessary. Elisa.rolle (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it'll take me a while to read over this. I'll comment on the AfD if needed. Alex Shih (talk) 04:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Alex, please remember that I was willing to proceed with the delete of the page with a merge to the mother. The son is not probably entitled to a own page, but he was featured by the New York Magazine for his marriage and it's in official document of the Library of Congress for his activity in regards of his grandparents. A section and redicted to the mother, according to me, was a good compromize. Receiving delete comments that seems more direct to me than the article, see above, commenting on my capacity to use reliable source when the source was a work from the Architecture History Society published by Routledge or those by another commenter that has more than once expressed opinion on my activity (and on your page too), seems unfair on the article itself. Again I'm willing to delete the article, with a merge to the mother, and I should highlight both article are written by me, the content is sourced, and therefore I think I have to say on how the article is more complete or not. No one search for the mother, but when the New York Magazine article of John Spofford Morgan, which was reblogged many time, surfaces, many search for him. Elisa.rolle (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, that didn't end well (at all). I do apologise for getting into an extended and futile argument on your talk-page. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've always admired and respected your work. Elisa.rolle is an editor that I've worked with since July last year; I am aware of the issues, I've tried my best to cleanup close paraphrasing on occasion, but other issues are sometimes just too much and makes me feel helpless. I appreciate the professional approach by many editors and the countless hours they have spent to maintain the quality of this project, but sometimes I feel as if the human aspect of the project is gradually slipping away. Sorry about my rambling. Best regards, Alex Shih (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right, it's a constant worry, particularly in clean-up work of all kinds. I think we have to accept that some people will make an effort to listen to reason (or rules or whatever), and that others just will not. I'm afraid the determination of this particular editor to continue arguing in the face of the evidence suggests that she is firmly in the latter group. Nevertheless, every editor lost is one fewer, and has to be counted a failure. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting a page move
Hi. Can you please move this page Rafael Lima Pereira to Rafinha (footballer, born April 1993)? [The mentioned footballer is known as Rafinha only]. Although the page was known by the latter, recently it was moved and I dont seem have that power to undo this change. RRD (talk) 07:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅ but you should've been able to do it yourself; you may also want to note WP:RMTR as the central place for technical requests for moving pages Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Samuel Boateng
Please restore Samuel Boateng so I may make a proper article about him. Trackinfo (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would you want/need a promotional page to be restored? For topics with questionable notability, please start a new draft instead or replace/improve the current one. But if you want to bypass both the AfC and NPR process (since you are autopatrolled), there isn't really anything stopping you. Alex Shih (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what was written about him before.  There is a lot of confusing information out about that name.  I found him athletics results, but I also find a football player, an Apprentice contestant and a copyright lawsuit attributed to that same name. Trackinfo (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. The current deleted page is about the Apprentice contestant. If you are writing about someone else, feel free to go ahead to and start a new page there. Alex Shih (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Chongqing Negotiations
Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Magog the Ogre (t • c) 05:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied, thank you. Alex Shih (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
 >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 08:38, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder! I will continue part II soon. Alex Shih (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alex. I've got involved in the slightly bizzarely-titled 'Darnhall and Over villages' dispute with the Abbot of Vale Royal abbey' at the moment :)    >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 16:48, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * But not that involved.  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 19:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Request undeletion of Vijayraj Singh
Dear AlexShih,

I would like to respectfully request undeletion of my created page titled: Vijayraj Singh which was deleted around September 9, 2017 before i was able to make an appeal for restoration. The individual in question is a published author and a known public figure in the ciy of New Delhi. Moreover, the individual is the Chief Author of the Annual Status of Women Reprort published by the Indian National Congress, the pricipal opposition party in the Parliament of India.

I will leave a link referring to his latest published work below: Silence of Thunder Vijayraj Singh Publisher: Rupa Publications (1 December 2017) Sold by: Amazon Asia-Pacific Holdings Private Limited Language: English ASIN: B078SBB5YK (Amazon Link: https://www.amazon.in/Silence-Thunder-Vijayraj-Singh-ebook/dp/B078SBB5YK/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1517820708&sr=8-1&keywords=vijayraj+singh)

Thanks and regards, Yours Sincerely, Manepada (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Manepada

Dear Alex, please respond if i have to re-sructure the page from scratch and create it again. Manepada (talk) 06:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Manepada

Mail
~ Winged Blades Godric 18:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Responded. Alex Shih (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your promptness is highly appreciated:) ~ Winged Blades Godric  18:27, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Quick note
I've left a comment for you at UTRS regarding an appeal you've reserved.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't know what I was thinking. Fixed. Alex Shih (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool beans.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 18:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Azd0815 block
Hi Alex. I'm not sure if you were aware, but is the new username of, who has a substantial history of useful contributions going back to 2007. With that in mind I can't see how a WP:NOTHERE block is warranted. I haven't reviewed the dispute between him and in detail, but there definitely seems to be two sides to that story, with Dom making a number of unwarranted accusations of bad faith across various talk pages. Would you be willing to unblock Azd0815? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:23, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Unblocked. I think the strings of edits over the past month have been highly problematic, with the bogus AIV report (although in hindsight, it may have been retaliatory to Domdeparis's similarly problematic report) right after 's warning being the tipping point. But I'll take a step back, seems you are speaking to already and have a stronger grasp of the situation. Thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Aceman626
Please remove talk page access on User talk:Aceman626; violations of WP:NPA after final warning. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 03:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Revoked. Thanks again for that input, I thought it was really helpful (although the kowtow reference made me smile a little bit). Alex Shih (talk) 04:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Mass deletion noms.
Störm mass-nominated several articles over the past week, and I have evidence that the same pattern of quick, successive nominations within minutes is present. While you may be better able to judge the technicalities, could you please check if he has gamed his current restriction and advise preventative action if necessary? Thanks Alex,  Mar4d  ( talk ) 07:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've never crossed my limit of 5, check here. If you've some sense (I don't know from which region you belong) then you'll know that I have long maintained two articles like User:Störm/Articles and User:Störm/new. I don't care your such revenge-like complains and you should see my AfD stats too. Have a good day. Störm   (talk)  08:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is an example of a particularly terrible nomination: Articles for deletion/NayaTel. Clearly the user still has no idea of AfD process, and what he's talking about. I have yet to delve into all the other nominations, I suspect they were nominated in similar jest. What happens is that so many articles end up being deleted, because very few people do source checking before voting (see example provided) and obviously no one has time to do this user's homework unfortunately.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 09:03, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at this when I get home tonight, thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm...I don't see anything remotely actionable in the recent bunch of his noms.And, this and this look awfully worse from a seasoned contributor. ~ Winged Blades Godric 04:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I won't comment on 's recent contributions; I've left a note for  Alex Shih (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
 >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 09:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I promise to finish this review when I get home tonight, as long as I am not too intoxicated. Alex Shih (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Heh :) Never let it be said that I come between a man and his drink! It is Saturday night after all.  Just a reminder really, I've got plenty to be getting on with...and anyway it could be worse :D Sláinte!   >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 11:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

UTRS Request #20545
Greetings, Are you still actively reviewing this appeal, please? Just Chilling (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, my apologies. Responded. Alex Shih (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Champa Sharma
On 27 August 2017 you deleted a page Prof. Champa Sharma for G11, unambiguous advertising. As a new page reviewer (looking at the rather distant backlog), I find an article Champa Sharma was created later the same day. I reckon it is promotional but what I don't know is whether it is substantially identical to the original. The creator is a single purpose, CoI editor. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The version I deleted was quite different in the sense of being far worse. Champa Sharma should probably be nominated for deletion via AfD in my opinion. Alex Shih (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Cesilia Mambile/sandbox


Hello, Alex Shih. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Home Lander (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * ... and why Twinkle decided to leave you this message I'd love to know. Home Lander (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, that's why I don't use Twinkle. Alex Shih (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Viability of indef EC protection for Korean influence on Japanese culture?
Since 2014, the page has seen slow-motion edit-warring from Korean nationalist SPAs, most of which are autoconfirmed because for some reason they were never blocked (despite some of them engaging in overt racism). Before 2014, it was also subject to slightly higher-pace edit-warring from Japanese nationalist SPAs. Because the accounts are all confirmed, semi-protection (which has been in place for nine years) hasn't been doing any good. But do you think it's worth requesting an increase in protection when the edit-warring is this slow?

(I'm posting this here rather than RFPP because I just want a second opinion on whether it would be a good idea and/or viable. You're arguably too WP:INVOLVED to do it yourself anyway, since I thought of you based our shared history with Korean ultranationalist/racist SPAs that were able to get by semi-protection.)

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * There's probably not enough recent disruption to justify indefinite EC protection at that page right now, although I do agree it would be a good idea. Right now the only source of disruption appears to be, which should be blocked for POV pushing and failure to understand copyright policy at their next offense (since the previous edit received arguably insufficient warning and is now stale). Alex Shih (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

welp
I guess they won't need to send me any emails. Cheers -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Acknowledged. Alex Shih (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

AWB
It is okay that you declined my request. I don't mind. However, with some good behaviour, is there a chance that I will get it back soon? Maybe in three to six months time? I am not going to ask for it back immediately. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am thinking probably a minimum of three months. If I was you, I would use other automated tools for the time being. If you don't run into any issues during that time span, then it might be a reasonable idea to ask again. You should probably ask a different admin when that time comes though (not me). Alex Shih (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For now, I will use WPCleaner. I work very well with WPCleaner! Lots of kind editors thank my edits with WPCleaner and it appears in my notifications! Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If you could help me with the sorting of archives.
Hey! Alex, I can’t get my head around sorting my user talk page archives. I tried doing some stuff but couldn’t manage to put an automated system that would store the contents into archive. I thought to ask you. Thanks! Dial911 (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've responded on 's talk, since it's a bit text. Primefac (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

User:64.203.196.159
... isn't actually blocked, as far as I can see. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe they are User:FirstTroll. Dorsetonian (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, turns out to be autoblock. Blocked by now. Alex Shih (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Yangtze River Crossing Campaign
— Maile (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Talkback
 >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 16:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Slimey grave-dancing and IBAN violations
I sent you mail. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Responded. Alex Shih (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Dreadstar
Thank you for removing speculations about Dreadstar's death. I miss him (look for his supportive edits in my "blushing" section), and the circumstances of are among the memories I don't want to see revived. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * It is too bad the Montanabw could not restrain herself from continually identifying him by name, after I was so careful not to. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I have NOT identified Dreadstar "by name," only by his wikipedia editing username. I am rather discouraged that such distortions are being made.  Lynn, please redact your inaccurate accusation.   Montanabw (talk) 19:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * On the page in question, I simply referred to the "blocking admin" in a discussion over RO. You came on and identified who it was. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 19:25, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That was a username and in the context of addressing your block and unblock.  Montanabw (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Russell Brunson
Wondering about your thoughts on the Russell Brunson page. I noticed you deleted it. I imagine the page was promotional, but I do know his books are widely read. Any thoughts?

Dotcom Secrets, for example. Pilot333 (talk) 21:50, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, if you feel they meet the notability guideline for authors and can find supporting reliable sources, feel free to create a draft and submit them for review. Alex Shih (talk) 04:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

CheeseCakeWolf
Hi! I am looking into whether or not I can get some sort of fix going over the Terri Doty problems, and I was wondering if the CU block of User:CheeseCakeWolf was due to socking in regards to NotMizukaS, or if it was a broader issue. I figure if this has been over multiple accounts then there's not much to be done, but if it was a one-off it may not be a lost cause. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes. If they submit an unblock request adequately explaining why they intentionally created an account with questionable username, concurrently edited with two account in the same article in a very disruptive fashion, then I wouldn't be opposed to unblock. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 04:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's at least something. :) - Bilby (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2018
News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2018). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Lourdes†
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AngelOfSadness • Bhadani • Chris 73 • Coren • Friday • Midom • Mike V
 * † Lourdes has requested that her admin rights be temporarily removed, pending her return from travel.

Guideline and policy news
 * The autoconfirmed article creation trial (ACTRIAL) is scheduled to end on 14 March 2018. The results of the research collected can be read on Meta Wiki.
 * Community ban discussions must now stay open for at least 24 hours prior to being closed.
 * A change to the administrator inactivity policy has been proposed. Under the proposal, if an administrator has not used their admin tools for a period of five years and is subsequently desysopped for inactivity, the administrator would have to file a new RfA in order to regain the tools.
 * A change to the banning policy has been proposed which would specify conditions under which a repeat sockmaster may be considered de facto banned, reducing the need to start a community ban discussion for these users.

Technical news
 * CheckUsers are now able to view private data such as IP addresses from the edit filter log, e.g. when the filter prevents a user from creating an account. Previously, this information was unavailable to CheckUsers because access to it could not be logged.
 * The edit filter has a new feature  that edit filter managers may use to check if one or more strings are all contained in another given string.

Miscellaneous
 * Following the 2018 Steward elections, the following users are our new stewards:, , , ,.

Obituaries
 * Bhadani (Gangadhar Bhadani) passed away on 8 February 2018. Bhadani joined Wikipedia in March 2005 and became an administrator in September 2005. While he was active, Bhadani was regarded as one of the most prolific Wikipedians from India.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Bottega Veneta
Hello Alex, I hope all is well in your world. I have a far better translation of the Chinese Bottega Veneta page. I Believe I have properly inserted the references and links in the correct places but any feedback is appreciated. Do you think this draft is ready to be integrated to the Chinese Wikipedia?Sandbox Chefmikesf (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There may be too much unnecessary information, but looks fine for Chinese Wikipedia. Since there is already an existing article at zh:宝缇嘉, you may want to try and merge your sandbox draft to the article that is already in the mainspace. Once you do that, I'll take another look. Alex Shih (talk) 04:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback Alex. The language barrier is a large contributor to my lack of confidence integrating the articles together. As I try my best to stay within bounds of Wikipedia's guidelines, I refrain from editing the article myself. This and the reason I stated in our first conversation are the reasons I reach out for your help.Chefmikesf (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will take a look in the coming days to see if it's possible to merge usable content into existing article. Alex Shih (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you
I am grateful for your kind post which was the initial one at my WP:AN. It is much appreciated. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 01:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, sir. Take care, Alex Shih (talk) 04:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Page protection
Hi Alex, Can you please protect the Carrie Bickmore & Tommy Little (comedian) pages? Thanks. -KH-1 (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * They've moved onto the Dave Hughes page. -KH-1 (talk) 04:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ideally a range block would be more effective but there is a wide range of IPs involved. Keep me posted. Alex Shih (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello
My apologies for being a bother, but you informed me about that my topic ban could be appealed to be lifted after 3 months.

Since over 3 months have now passed, I would appreciate if you could inform me about where to do so, what I should say, and if there is any likelihood that the appeal will gain a positive result for me according to your experience. I do not want to feel constantly attacked by some of the other participants like the previous occasion.

Thanks in advance for any help. David A (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. You will need to start a new topic at Administrators' noticeboard to appeal your topic ban. I haven't checked your recent contributions, I will do so when you file your appeal request. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay. Thank you. I am just worried that various people will show up to attack me, and possibly try to extend my ban period rather than lessen it. I am very tired and overworked in general, and do not have the time and energy to try to deal with that type of assault again. David A (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have written an appeal now. I hope that I have not made a mistake. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Topic_ban_appeal David A (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks fine. You may want to include some diffs to demonstrate "improved behaviour", but it's up to you. I personally wouldn't vote for the appeal, but I wish you luck. Alex Shih (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks anyway. David A (talk) 17:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Sorry about being a bother again, but if it is not too much trouble, would you be willing to delete the following page? I have understood that it is inappropriate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:David_A/Important_Fact_Links David A (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleted. I am sorry the appeal did not go well; I thought some of the comments were quite insightful for your consideration. Wikipedia should never really be a source of stress. For your future appeal, I would suggest involving yourself less and just let the discussion take its own course. Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am under quite a lot of stress from working hard and what I read in the news, so I am not so mentally sturdy when I feel publicly attacked on top of that.
 * However, I thought that the topic ban would stop automatically on May 25? I would still try to edit very little about Sweden though. Just a few relevant statistics from official institutions. David A (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I guess. Don't take anything personally. Although even when the topic ban expires, I think you should be extremely cautious. I would personally not edit the area until I am confident enough to convince the editors who were concerned with my editing. Alex Shih (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So I am not even allowed to insert a select few official extremely reliable statistics after May 25? Some people will spy on and viciously attack me at the slightest opportunity, even for such a small thing? I mean, the entire point of Wikipedia is to be a reliable assembly of accurate information. I feel very depressed about all this, especially as Snooganssnoogans has made such an enormous amount of agenda-driven edits, and never received a topic ban anyway. David A (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Did you know? comments
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll&diff=829751331&oldid=829699675&diffmode=source this edit]: did you mean to say that "Yoninah and BlueMoonset are pretty much what keeps the DYK project operating?" isaacl (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, these three editors have been around consistently for years now. Is this query about the fairness of the comment, or simply about my strange grammar? Alex Shih (talk) 05:45, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As currently written, your comment says that the editors in question "are pretty much what keeps the DYK project from continuing to operate", which means that the editors are preventing the project from operating. As this did not seem to match the context of your response, or the interactions with these editors on the talk page for the Did you know? project, I thought I would double check your intent. May I suggest that you consider rewording your statement? Thanks for your clarification! isaacl (talk) 06:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Taiwan–Ukraine relations
Hello Alex, I am an editor of Chinese wiki. I am expanding the Chinese article of Taiwan-Ukraine relations at the meanwhile. Just now, I translated a bit. However, English is not my native English. So I may ask to help for Proofreading. Someone persuaded me to seek you. The international relations are complicated as you know. Many professional terms and diplomacy. You ought to help here because you were born in Taiwan. Better than I do. --Beta Lohman (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I will look at it, thanks. Alex Shih (talk) 06:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * You removed the template as I managed to translate more. How pity.--Beta Lohman (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The under construction template technically should only be placed temporarily, not for a long period. If you have new translated text, please feel free to post them directly instead so I can help copyediting them. Alex Shih (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I only have a problem when editing. The Taiwanese government is the Republic of China. But it's not de-jure independent in the international laws. No idea to call it (ROC?), the relations should be country to country, not this case.--Beta Lohman (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Depends on the context, but the consensus here is to refer to the subject as Taiwan. I see your new translation, I will take a look at them. Alex Shih (talk) 16:41, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

User Vidal 1077
Hi Alex. You blocked back in August, so I'm hoping you might help. While I think he's working in good faith, his edits continue to show up in my regular searches for unreliable sources, and I'm not seeing any response to my concerns or anyone else's on his talk page other than to remove comments, though at least once now he used an edit summary. --Ronz (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, would you mind collecting a sample of problematic diffs and post them at WP:AN/I instead, since this appears to be something persistent? Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 18:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I was thinking as well. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Vipul D Shah
You blocked Vipul D Shah but he's still trying the same self-promotion using User talk:Vipul D Shah so it looks as if it needs talk page access blocked too. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 05:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Topic ban query
I need admin assistance in determining whether a user is still topic banned or not. Topic bans are not as easily accessible from regular system queries such as a search for a user's blocks would be. According to this diff which you closed in August 2017, the editor was topic banned from editing biographies from that date on. They have recently been editing the Dustin Hoffman page with an eye to removing sourced allegations from the article. Is this something you would know, or should I take this question elsewhere? Any information you're able to provide would be appreciated. Thank you!      Spintendo       17:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on Editing restrictions, the topic ban on all pages relating to biography has never been appealed by the user; therefore they are still active. The problem is with every ban there are limited exceptions; in this case, the user may claim they were removing obvious BLP violations. I don't think these are anywhere close to being obvious, and I am inclined to re-block the user for one or two weeks if they were blatant violations, which however doesn't really look to be the case at this very moment. If you are in a hurry, request for topic ban clarification can be done at Administrators' noticeboard or if you need urgent attention, at WP:AN/I. Right now for me these recent edits are in the grey zone, and I will keep watch if there are further developments (they are being relatively more rational compared to previously; but maybe I haven't read too much into these recent interactions, so if you think they are (once again) stepping into WP:IDHT territory, feel free to leave them a reminder/warning and mention my post here. Alex Shih (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you. The stuff that was removed was already problematic to begin with, which is why I, in respsonse to a COI edit request, was attempting to rewrite the information in a better way to replace it in the article. Based on the limited interactions I've had with this editor just starting today, I sense that there will be problems with trying to put it back, so I just wanted to know beforehand what my options were, if that scenario came to fruition. Hopefully it won't. Thank you !       Spintendo       21:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Ofo
Thank you for your analysis of the new Ofo (company) sources on User talk:螺钉. I'll link to your analysis from the talk page when I continue the POV discussion. Meters (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for your work. Alex Shih (talk) 00:28, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Eric Corbett and RfA
Hi. You wrote, "May I ask if you disagree with their answer to the question?" You can ask Eric, but he can't answer because he is topic banned from "making edits concerning the RFA process anywhere on the English Wikipedia. As an exception, he may ask questions of the candidates and express his own view on a candidate in a specific RFA (in the support, oppose, or neutral sections), but may not engage in any threaded discussions relating to RFA." From my point of view, all my conversations with Eric (principally at GA reviews or related discussions thereof) have been positive, but I realise my opinion doesn't align with everyone else; still, he has kept to his topic ban dilgently for six years, and perhaps it is time to think about revoking it? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder, it completely slipped my mind, I will withdraw my question. To be honest, the exception clause in this case is really counter-intuitive with the restriction. I agree it is time to think about revoking the RfA topic ban, but I have a feeling that the content of these recent questions two comments are somewhat reminiscent of the past and will probably lead to resistance by those with institutional memory. Alex Shih (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What recent questions? I very rarely ask any questions at all, and certainly have not done so recently. Eric   Corbett  14:57, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry I was referring to the oppose comments to the two current candidates, not questions, my mistake. These two comments strikes me as (excuse me) curt. On the other hand, other great content creators like (sorry for the ping) comments in a similar fashion on occasion anyways, so the RfA topic ban should no longer be necessary. Alex Shih (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It was never necessary, so nothing's really changed. And to be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less whether it stays in place or not. Eric   Corbett  15:29, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Those with institutional memory will recall that we already tried to get the ban revoked, but ArbCom was not willing to lift it without a request from Eric, which he declined to provide.  Hawkeye7   (discuss)  18:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ... and will continue to decline to provide. Added to which, my experience of such requests at ArbCom demonstrates to me that they can very quickly lead to a move to ban. So it's a "thanks, but no thanks" from me. Eric   Corbett  22:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

IP 96.10.12.142
Hi Alex. Do you have any suggestions on how to try and deal with ? Numerous attempts have been made to try and explain why their contributions to Floyd McKissick Jr. are problematic and to encourage the IP to discuss things. The article was even protected, but the protection expired and now the IP is back. I'm not sure if its the same person, but the article has IP editing issues going back quite a bit. Maybe instead of blocks, an extended type of page protection would help things settle down. -- Marchjuly (talk)
 * I have blocked the IP for 72 hours and semi-protected the page for a month. There seems to be a lot of socking based on the revision history alone, so I will take a look at that too. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 01:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for checking on this Alex. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Rector v. MLB
You are invited to join the discussion at Template:Did you know nominations/Rector v. MLB. Would you like to give a second opinion on this? Considering the nominator's requested date of April 2 is fast approaching. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I already expressed my opinion at WT:DYK. I think ALT2 looks better. Alex Shih (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I mean do the rest of the review for me? I feel a bit too burned out to finish the review right now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Editor review
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Iazyges&curid=44528323&diff=833011363&oldid=833007650&diffmode=source your comment on editor review]: as I imagine you already know, consensus was not the sticking point, but having people actually fulfill review requests. If you know enough editors who are willing to do reviews regularly, perhaps the initiative can be revived. isaacl (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I know, it's only one of the many points. I guess my main point was having editor review would have covered this grey area that involves the kind of editors who are not necessarily interested in adminship, wanted community feedback, and perhaps after the feedback could be persuaded into RfA. But nowadays there's no such venue (Teahouse is unfortunately only for new editors apparently), and there have never been enough editors (probably never will) to do such reviews (which is a shame; I've always enjoyed writing reviews). So the initiative would probably never be revived. The only option left for editors like Iazyges is to contact someone, which I think doesn't really work because usually editors wants to have opinion from a variety of different people. Mailer Diablo's final comment in this discussion reflects my sentiment. Anyway, cheers. Alex Shih (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * On a side note, that particular editor, having already started two polls, I believe is clearly interested in obtaining administrative privileges. Regarding editor review, if all we can get is reviews from a few people, so be it; it's still some feedback that editors can use. A big formal process is not needed; just a little maintenance: much like the optional RfA candidate poll, the requests can be cleared away after a fixed period of time. If there were no reviewers or just a small number, the requestor can try again some time later. isaacl (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

ARCA motion vote
Hey Alex, wrt the current ARCA, you abstained on motion 1 but supported motion 2 as your "Second choice". Did you intend to support motion 1, instead of abstaining? If not, what is your support vote for motion 2 second to? Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Kevin, sorry I was overthinking this; I was trying to refrain from voting for motion 1 but only imply my support for it by marking motion 2 as second choice, I guess it didn't make much sense. I'll fix it, thanks! Alex Shih (talk) 21:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)