User talk:Czar/2018 Jan–Apr

Goat Store listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Goat Store. Since you had some involvement with the Goat Store redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Michael Steinger
is a recreation of Michael S. Steinger, an article that you deleted after an AFD. The article was recreated. The article contains new things, but all related his representing someone in a case against Venus Williams. I nominated the new article for speedy deletion. Can you please take a look? I would also ask for both articles to be SALTED as we're likely to see it recreated again....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, it doesn't qualify for WP:G4 speedy as the content is mostly dissimilar and there are additional sources, so the live AfD is the best route. As for salt, I'd be more curious whether the previous article creator (, blocked for wanton promotion) is related to the new article creator , but not my area of expertise czar  19:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have done a little WP:DUCK hunting (Ryan kirkpatrick related.) but nothing stands out whether these two editors are the same person other than the articles on Steinger. It could be an office employee or two of his....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting Help on Image Copyrights & Permissions
Hi Czar-

Any help you may be able to provide for permissions on images on the Americo Mak article would be greatly appreciated. I have sent via email the permissions to permissions-en@mikimedia.org a second time. Not sure what I am missing, but I am not well versed with this in any event. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cstein99 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Replied on user talk page czar  15:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

histmove?
I rewrote Watch Dogs recently, and despite an incomplete post-release, I think the draft is ready to replace the current article, as the reception section in the article is incomplete as well. Are you able to help me with a histmove? Should I copy and paste first and then you move the history, or does the content move with the history? Cognissonance (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , the edit history at the current article overlaps with your draft history, so it's not a candidate for histmerge. My recommendation is to copy your draft atop the current article as a rewrite. Alternatively, you can copy it over as several smaller edits so the diffs will be easier for page-watchers to compare. If you'd like to preserve the edit history outside of your userspace, you can move the draft edit history to another reasonable redirect title (e.g., Watch Dogs (video game)), redirect that page to the current article, and acknowledge that edit history location in your edit summary when you add your revised content to the current article. Also, your draft uses some phrasing from the existing article, so it's important for your edit summaries to acknowledge the provenance of that language, per WP's cc-by-sa license. czar  15:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. The histmove was only important to me as far as keeping with the rules goes. As the overlapping histories disqualify it as a candidate, I'll carry out your first recommendation. Cognissonance (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Blanche Wheeler Williams
The article Blanche Wheeler Williams you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Blanche Wheeler Williams for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ruby2010 -- Ruby2010 (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Archival sources
In accordance withg your correct comments, I've removed all archival sources from John Olday. Regards, Bjenks (talk) 11:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Nabbit listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Nabbit. Since you had some involvement with the Nabbit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Structured Commons - Design feedback request: Multilingual Captions
Hello! You are receiving this message because you signed up for the the community focus group for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons.

The Structured Data on Commons team has a new design feedback request up for Multilingual Captions support in the Upload Wizard. Visit the page for more information about the potential designs. Discussion and feedback is welcome there.

On a personal note, you'll see me posting many of these communications going forward for the Structured Data project, as SandraF transitions into working on the GLAM side of things for Structured Data on Commons full time. For the past six months she's been splitting time between the two roles (GLAM and Community Liaison). I'm looking forward to working with you all again. Thank you, happy editing. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The Goldfinch
Hi Czar -- could you move Draft:The Goldfinch (film) to The Goldfinch (film)? Thanks! NathanielTheBold (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  02:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Detective Pikachu (film)
Hello czar! How are you man? I have been okay, and been away from the Wikipedia for a few months. Will you please do a histmerge of Draft:Pokémon (upcoming film) → Detective Pikachu (film) ? — Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 15:15, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done and welcome back! czar  02:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Advice on improving our recommending tool
Hi Czar,

Hope you are doing well! Thank you for using our tool, and giving us feedback for improvement. We've made some improvements, and are preparing to send another round of recommendations for your project. But before that, we are considering two possible factors to implement into our algorithms potentially, and wonder what's your opinion on them.

1. Small project promotion. An editor who has a wide range of subject interest can be recommended to multiple projects according to our current algorithms. When this happens, do you think it matters to make choices among those projects, i.e., should we prioritize on those smaller projects, just randomly choose one project, or do you have other thoughts?

2. Female editor promotion. Gender imbalance has been a long-term issue in Wikipedia which consequently caused the uncoverage of many female related topics. What do you think about the idea of promoting more female editors in the recommendation list? Bobo.03 (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) I'd want to be recommended for any WikiProject area relevant to my editing, big or small. It would be wise to factor in fatigue, though. Perhaps an editor with 50k edits is already aware but uninterested in WikiProject collaborations, especially if the editor hasn't responded to previous requests.
 * 2) My understanding of gender parity in WP editorship is that the deterrents are foremost behavioral (hostile norms) and secondarily a host of other factors. In principle, your thought is aligned with the WMF's goals for WP: prioritizing underrepresented user groups for friendly invitations to collaborate. But it's a matter of degree. If female editors are being inappropriately suggested for groups with which they share little interest, the increased number of invitations becomes harassment for the recipient and a waste of time for the sender. So it's a matter of math to determine how much to weight femaleness in the algorithm—I'd recommend a slight preference, but I'd also ask more active female editors what they think.  czar  00:53, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Great comments as you usually have:) Yes, those factors you mentioned definitely are something in our mind. Like, we won't recommend very experienced editors any more (the fatigue you mentioned). Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, btw, you signed up eight projects. Are you sure you want to receive recommendations for all those projects in the coming round, or maybe just two or three projects? Bobo.03 (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , I can handle the eight—I'm curious whether it'll be more effective at certain kinds of small projects. czar  11:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeh, that's something we want to see as well! We have quite some small projects this time. Bobo.03 (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Sexual addiction
Hi Czar,

Maybe it's the mobile view, but something's weird going on with Sexual addiction. It looks like a whole other article is incorporated into it, but I can't seem to figure out how to fix it. Have you seen this before? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC) soetermans
 * , by the description alone, I'd suspect transclusion as the culprit, perhaps some low-use template (navbox, etc.) with paragraphs of prose added as a test edit or spam. (It'd be helpful next time to quote some of the text that seems out of place.) In this case, there are two References sections with a bunch of duplicate ref errors, which led me to suspect that the Ref section is called prematurely. I use the "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" gadget, and I hover over the [edit] link next to that premature Ref section to see that it belongs to (or is being transcluded from Behavioral addiction. Scroll up a little and see  (added in May 2017). It was a transclusion of a specific section (Behavioral addiction) until that code was removed last month. But either way, we avoid this type of transclusion if only for instances like this. Better to either copy the section text and mention the source for manual update, or put the transcluded section text in its own template for transclusion in both articles. No idea how this has gone undiscussed on the talk page for so long... (Also note another transclusion on the page.) I reverted the basic transclusion.  czar  11:06, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That transclusion error was my fault since I didn't check what other pages transcluded that section when I changed the WP:selective transclusion markup in the behavioral addiction article; my edit to that article changed a section transclusion from the behavioral addiction article into a full-page transclusion of that article. I described what happened and provided the relevant links in the edit summary for this edit.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 03:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I would've copied the text, but I was on my phone (hence the double signature), which made it all the more difficult to see what was going on with the article. Sorry about that. Thanks for fixing it. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:07, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Meteos
Hey Czar. I've been thinking about how the Meteos article failed its FAC nomination due to it having a not being up to standard with its "Reception" page. I'm not exactly sure how to clean it up and make it be able to pass FAC. Can you help me out in any way? GamerPro64 03:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , it's more or less written in an "X said Y" fashion as a list of facts rather than an overview of the critical reception. I'd return to the reviews and see what they have in common. If they make common points, write those out, and group refs on that statement. Then find reviewer comments that explicate part of that group sentiment. For example, if the gameplay is novel for X and Y reasons (ideally not just "praised the gameplay"), say so, and then follow-up with specific examples from reviewers if relevant. Also not every statement needs to be attributed as opinion. The goal is to find ideas that can be reasonably written without mid-sentence attribution, which clutters the prose and can be an unnecessary caveat—e.g., try ideas in common with reviewers and concrete, declarative reviewer observations (not opinions). Also remember that the article's purpose is to inform a general audience, not list the specifics of everything a Meteos aficionado might desire. Ping me again after you've taken a pass at an edit? czar  11:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The Girl in the Spider's Web (film)
Hello czar! Please do the histmerge of Draft:The Girl in the Spider's Web (film) → The Girl in the Spider's Web (film) before November 13, 2017. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 07:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , has principal photography begun? If so, add confirmation to the draft. Looks like I'll swap the versions to repair the recent c&p move czar  11:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Recommending new editors to your WP Africa
Hi Czar,

Our system generated a list of potential new editors for your project. They may be interested in collaborating with your project members on your project's articles. As you will notice, the list contains both experienced editors and newcomers. Both are valuable for Wikipedia and your project. Please go ahead and introduce your project to them, and point them to some project tasks to start with. We also provide a template invitation message to make it easier to contact the potential new editors. Just click the invite link to write the invitation message.

We'd appreciate it if you could fill the survey to let us know what you think about our recommendations so we can improve our system. Please let me know below if you have any general feedback about our recommendations. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 05:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Recommending new editors to your WP Visual arts
Hi Czar,

Our system generated a list of potential new editors for your project. They may be interested in collaborating with your project members on your project's articles. As you will notice, the list contains both experienced editors and newcomers. Both are valuable for Wikipedia and your project. Please go ahead and introduce your project to them, and point them to some project tasks to start with. We also provide a template invitation message to make it easier to contact the potential new editors. Just click the invite link to write the invitation message.

We'd appreciate it if you could fill the survey to let us know what you think about our recommendations so we can improve our system. Please let me know below if you have any general feedback about our recommendations. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Recommending new editors to your WP Kurdistan
Hi Czar,

Our system generated a list of potential new editors for your project. They may be interested in collaborating with your project members on your project's articles. As you will notice, the list contains both experienced editors and newcomers. Both are valuable for Wikipedia and your project. Please go ahead and introduce your project to them, and point them to some project tasks to start with. We also provide a template invitation message to make it easier to contact the potential new editors. Just click the invite link to write the invitation message.

We'd appreciate it if you could fill the survey to let us know what you think about our recommendations so we can improve our system. Please let me know below if you have any general feedback about our recommendations. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Recommending new editors to your WP Books
Hi Czar,

Our system generated a list of potential new editors for your project. They may be interested in collaborating with your project members on your project's articles. As you will notice, the list contains both experienced editors and newcomers. Both are valuable for Wikipedia and your project. Please go ahead and introduce your project to them, and point them to some project tasks to start with. We also provide a template invitation message to make it easier to contact the potential new editors. Just click the invite link to write the invitation message.

We'd appreciate it if you could fill the survey to let us know what you think about our recommendations so we can improve our system. Please let me know below if you have any general feedback about our recommendations. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 05:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Greetings
HI Czar, thanks for the greetings and info about your WikiProject, I will certainly keep an eye on it, as I suspect there might be some useful cross over at times with WikiProject Collections Care. All the best, Dan Daniel Cull (talk) 13:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Structured Data feedback - What gets stored where (Ontology)
Greetings,

There is a new feedback request for Structured Data on Commons (link for messages posted to Commons:, regarding what metadata from a file gets stored where. Your participation is appreciated.

Happy editing to you. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:58, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Bad Times at the El Royale
Hello czar! Please move Draft:Bad Times at the El Royale → Bad Times at the El Royale — Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 06:23, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  10:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Recommending new editors to WikiProject Africa
Hi Czar,

Here is a new list of recommendations for project Africa. Sorry that I introduced some bugs in the previous version as I mentioned, but everything has been fixed (I haven't worked on your single-article edit suggestion yet). I might be sending one or two more new lists to you in the coming Mondays, and hope you'll find great new members!

Bobo.03 (talk) 16:14, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Recommending new editors to WikiProject Books
Here is for Books.

Bobo.03 (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Recommending new editors to WikiProject Kurdistan
Bobo.03 (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Recommending new editors to WikiProject Visual arts
Bobo.03 (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Czar:
Thanks for the good wishes. Been busy for a while but, interested in the subject matters outlined, will engage soon. Cheers! The Pudit (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

What do you think to bring back COTW?
Hi Czar,

I noticed that WikiProject Video Games used to have collaboration of the week (COTW) events a long time ago. Looks like the cost of coordinating to select articles to focus on was a main reason to make COTW stop, though COTW seemed pretty effective in engaging project members working together. I am thinking to create a tool to help recommend one or two articles to WikiProjects. Just wonder what do you think about it? Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , in practice, COTWs are rarely collaborations. It's relatively easy to queue up a list of articles that need help, but the issue is more that it's not fun or interesting to be assigned a task by a bot. Ultimately, few users will pay attention and even fewer will participate. Systems like this ultimately end up as busywork for the maintainer and do not spur other editors to increase their participation, which makes sense, really, as sprucing up a random article in a sea of more interesting articles is a time-intensive and relatively unrewarding backlog.
 * The choosing of the articles is rarely an issue, as far as I can tell—the issue is participation and, honestly, whether it's even enjoyable to edit an article at the same time as someone else (rarely is). In my understanding, personalized suggestions would go further, though not by much, and we already at least one bot for that. If the goal is to edit with a group goal, initiatives like the 10,000 Challenges and Art+Feminism have had more traction, but I'd attribute their success more to the social dynamic of working autonomously alongside others rather than mechanically fulfilling the backlog tasks assigned by a bot. BUT if you are looking for a new project, I know that most helpful for me would be something like this "wikifriends" proposal... :) which would make it easier to see what other editors are accomplishing and thus easier to offer support. czar  11:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I still have your wikifriend idea in back backlog. That would be great for power users in the communities I guess.
 * I understand the challenge of this attempt at this point, since I can feel the overall participation of WikiProjects seems sadly declining.. Recommending articles to projects is a new project I am thinking about, and the idea is beyond just having a bot sending articles. The goal I think is similar to what you described, we actually want to engage the community/project members in the algorithm design and training process. Project members can provide input to the algorithm design at an early stage, and tune and train the algorithms collectively to identify the articles they like to work on (more transparency than current editor recommendation). After three or four days (or a period decided by group members) after members provide their input to the algorithm, either a project member or a bot would announce final one or two articles for the week. So the recommendation in the end should be a personalized result of the group decision mediated by algorithms. More detail is still under development, but this is the big picture of the project I am planning. I can see some of your concerns like bringing joyfulness to editing cannot be addressed.. but do you think it would draw enough attention from some projects? Bobo.03 (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * , I think I said something at the outset of this project (could have even been on the phone? don't remember) about how WikiProjects do not function like clubs or anything like their external appearance to outsiders. Almost all WikiProject pages, in my experience, function foremost as noticeboards for editors to bring topical issues to others (style/standardization questions, editor issues, requests for third opinions and reviews). Secondarily, WikiProjects have all this infrastructure left from the mid-2000s boom: talk page classification banners, "member lists", sometimes COTW initiatives. My understanding is that these were poorly used in their time and continue to be poorly used today (i.e., they shouldn't exist). I'm afraid it would be a waste of time to resuscitate that infrastructure because I think the reasons it didn't work are systemic: those activities were never a match for spurring editor intrinsic motivation. (Tagging project importance is a timesink that doesn't encourage activity on top/high-importance pages; signing a member list is not translate to active editing or even useful newsletter signup capture for active editing; COTWs, to my understanding, have never been popular, as it doesn't tap into the reasons why editors edit and it turns out that editing—especially when it's mostly cleanup, really—an article at the same time isn't much fun.) So I wouldn't see the WikiProject initiative as having any magic collaborative effects that rally new users to tame the grand wasteland beyond, but alternatively, there is worth in asking how future tools can support the remaining editors who already work in the topic area with others, given that they are already stretched thin. (COTWs do not appear to be the answer to that riddle.) In terms of the old infrastructure, I think the WikiProject initiative would be best served by rapidly folding the outdated infrastructure and keeping the simplicity of unified noticeboards, but individual, active WikiProjects will decide for themselves (consensus) how to handle their fiefdoms.
 * Re: wikifriends, my hypothesis is that we can better retain editors when the (largely anonymous and thankless) work they do can be surfaced and acknowledged by their peers. I think the most important part of the invite trial you've done is that an editor feels noticed by a peer, such as myself. czar  11:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I totally agree with what you said. To be honest, I was also a bit hesitated about this new idea. This ongoing project, recommending new editors to projects, have been going for almost a year. I have collected some data and seen some positive results, but it's pretty slow. Editors are busy with many stuff and cannot respond to my requests in time or so which I totally understand and respect. Plus the general mood in Wikipedia now (not that many participants in WikiProjects), I can definitely see the challenges and potential of failure to continue related projects. But I still have a hope to help revive projects - maybe it's beyond the ability of any individual. Anyway, thank you for your thoughts again. I might not consider to work on the article recommendations for projects.
 * Also, when you have a chance, please don't forget to check out the recommendations I sent to your earlier. Thank you! Bobo.03 (talk) 18:14, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Probably for the best
If Mailer had won he would have been the first mayor of NYC who also stabbed his wife. PS thanks a lot for helping out the other day – wouldn't have been able to do it without you. Arispool (talk) 04:27, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Courses Modules are being deprecated
Hello,

Your account is currently configured with an education program flag. This system (the Courses system) is being deprecated. As such, your account will soon be updated to remove these no longer supported flags. For details on the changes, and how to migrate to using the replacement system (the Programs and Events Dashboard) please see Education noticeboard/Archive 18.

Thank you! Sent by: xaosflux 20:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Recommending new editors to WikiProject Africa
Hi Czar,

Here is a new list of recommendations for WikiProject Africa. Please take a look at it when you have a chance. Thank you!

Recommending new editors to WikiProject Books
I am also sending the recommendations to other projects.

Recommending new editors to WikiProject Visual arts
Bobo.03 (talk) 15:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Mile 22
Hello czar! Would you be able to a little bit of histmerge of Draft:Mile 22 → Mile 22 — Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  16:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , though I should add that it would be better to lose the dateline ("On X day, Y happened") format for purposes of better prose. Articles tend to accumulate that type of writing when announcements are added piecemeal, but the specific dates of the announcements rarely matter. Usually it's more important to generalize the dates (early 2015 or pegged in context of another event) so that the general reader can focus on the core details rather than the weeds. czar  16:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I am going to that. Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Bear with Me
I noticed in the protection log you fully salted Bear with Me. Would you be opposed to removing create-protection so I can move Draft:Bear with Me there, for AFC? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This article has been repeatedly recreated as promotional content across multiple titles over multiple years (begin with deletion history at Bear with me). I don't see how the current draft resolves the sourcing issues mentioned at its last AfD. The news pieces are either insignificant or recycled PR, the latter two Metacritic pages have nary a single reliable review (see WP:VG/RS), leaving us to write a Reception section based solely on one Hardcore Gamer review? Raised these same issues last December. I wouldn't accept the draft. If another admin wants to overturn the salt, have at it, but the article will go right back to AfD. czar  02:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't look at the sources too closely, but the coverage seemed just significant enough. Was the coverage insignificant? Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's my read, yes. Typically DOA when a contemporary game receives fewer than three reliable reviews czar  02:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You wrote "leaving us to write a Reception section based solely on one Hardcore Gamer review", yet there's also a review by AdventureGamers, which is considered a reliable site according to the link you've provided. (checklist) - https://adventuregamers.com/articles/view/31568 Kiksam (talk) 10:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a review by cubed3, which is marked as "situational" on the checklist: http://www.cubed3.com/review/4274/1/bear-with-me-episode-3-pc.html written by Adam Riley. Moreover, it is stated here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_2#Reliability_of_Cubed3 that Adam Riley is a reliable source, which was confirmed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_5#Cubed3 as "depending on the author". That would make three reliable reviews. Kiksam (talk) 12:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Reliability rests in the editorial body and its process, not the individual author. That's why we can accept self-published expertise under limited conditions but don't generally consider a NYT reporter automatically "reliable" when posting at a hobbyist blog (since the reliability rests in how the editorial body checks and approves the work, not necessarily the expertise of its gatherer). So the "depending on author" designation isn't a standard we keep. All in all, we're scraping the very bottom of the barrel with the above source discussion. Any claim to source sufficiency based on sites with volunteered reviews is grasping at straws. czar  10:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The game has also been reviewed by The Games Machine: https://www.thegamesmachine.it/bear-with-me/bear-with-me-recensione-pc/ which you consider reliable as evident on the sources talk page. CheersKiksam (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted., just to be clear, since this article has been deleted for promotional reasons so many times, do you have any affiliation with the developer or , the prior article creator? (If so, we would ask for talk page disclosure per our COI guidelines.) czar  10:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I can guarantee I have no kind of connection with either the developer or the contributor in question. I have created various other articles of other vgs which I believed merit an article, but also deal extensively in other topics, but from the same geographic area.Kiksam (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks., as requested, I've removed the page protection (salt) because it was solely intended to block promotionalism, and this draft looks fine in that regard. This said, I didn't mainspace the draft myself because I would disagree with the draft reviewer that it meets basic notability requirements, namely because the reliable reviews are too few to do justice to the topic. Many of these sources are up for discussion at WT:VG/RS. czar  14:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, thanks! Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Once more, this http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/bear-with-me-episode-1 Metacritic page also lists a review by the print version of the LeveL magazine. Shouldn't this also be considered a reliable source?Kiksam (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Print periodicals often have editorial review processes (before publication), especially if they've made it to issue #267, but it depends on the publisher. In any event, we know nothing from a listing alone. We'd have to see the actual review to know whether it's a short paragraph, multiple pages, or if it exists at all. czar  21:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * So, we must provide a scan to verify it?Kiksam (talk) 21:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're planning to use it, yes czar  21:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * On their website: http://www.level.cz/starsi-cisla/level-267/, so we can verify that it does at least exist. Kiksam (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the article deletion
I had forgotten why I stopped contributing regularly to Wikipedia. Deletion of my content without the chance of discussion or improvement is one of the many reasons (which I had seemingly forgotten). Now I know to not waste my time here anymore. Jotamide (talk) 21:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * By the same token, couldn't you have had a discussion prior to splitting to get opinions? WP:BRD, nothing wrong here on Czar's part. Redirects are not deletes. And nothing was really lost, since it can be restored to the main article from history if warranted. -- ferret (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * (The argument that redirection-is-deletion has never held water for me. The history is always available, to anyone, in that case, which is not so when the alternative is deletion. --Izno (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC))
 * If you're here to post of fictional character plot summary, yes, you're right that there are bountiful other projects on the Internet better suited for your interests, though I'd recommend refraining from collaborative projects if your above causticity is any indication. As for the rest, your edit history shows a clear understanding that the content is hidden but not vanished.  czar  14:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Robertson (ice hockey)
Can you restore the article Dennis Robertson (ice hockey)? I nominated the article for deletion in 2016 at Articles for deletion/Dennis Robertson (ice hockey) but he has since played in enough games to pass the requirements at WP: NHOCKEY. Joeykai (talk) 16:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , sure, but a little more info would be useful: what part of NHOCKEY does he meet and how? czar  09:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * NHOCKEY #2 is "Played at least 200 games (90 games for a goaltender) or achieved preeminent honors (all-time top ten career scorer, First Team All-Star) in the Mestis, Deutsche Eishockey Liga, Slovak Extraliga, HockeyAllsvenskan, National League A or the American Hockey League." Dennis Robertson has played 217 games in the American Hockey League . Joeykai (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ✓ done czar  14:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

First structured licensing conversation on Commons
Greetings,

The first conversation about structured copyright and licensing for Structured Data on Commons has been posted, please come by and participate. The discussion will be open through the end of the month (March). Thank you. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Czar,

This is Vicentia Gyau. Thank you for reaching out to me and thank you for informing me about the WikiProject Africa talk page. I will definitely put that page on my watchlist. The links you sent are interesting, thank you for sharing them with me.

Thank you once again for reaching out to me, I appreciate it. Vicentiagyau (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, Czar! Thanks a lot for care.:)) I appreciate it:)) In fact, I am not much of a wikipedista, I just hate seeing grammar mistakes. Again, thanks for your great job!--Marina Melik-Adamyan (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!
Hi, dear Czar, how nice of you to get in touch. I added the sites you mentioned to my bookmarks here. It's a great feeling to be able to connect and ask questions if neccessary. Right now i'm on my way to write a new article for the german wikipedia - and i'm translating the german article on Museum Wiesbaden for the english wikipedia-article, as this has been a stub. But i also added the Cleanup listing for further checking on it. I cannot work many hours a day, but i try to do my best to help! Kind regards, --Gyanda (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Question
Hi Czar--could you do a histmerge of Creed II and Draft:Creed II? Thanks! NathanielTheBold (talk) 17:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , done, though in retrospect, might have made more sense to have moved the mainspace stub anywhere else (e.g., Creed II→Creed II (film)) just to make way to mainspace the fuller draft at the proper title (e.g., Draft:Creed II→Creed II) since it's not like the two histories were continuous. Oh well czar  01:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted. NathanielTheBold (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Malformed AfD
Hi Czar, was wondering if you could figure out what I did wrong. Using the NPP curate tool, I nominated a page for AfD. It had been deleted once before, so there was a former AfD, so it should have come up as a second nom, but instead Articles for deletion/Top Secret (magazine) occurred. Don't know how to fix it. Hopefully you can.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , very strange. Might want to report it as a bug on the NPP curate tool page. But nonetheless repaired at Articles for deletion/Top Secret (magazine) (second nomination) czar  13:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Czar.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Artemis Fowl (film)
Hello! Please remove the first three edits from the Artemis Fowl (film) and do a histmerge of Draft:Artemis Fowl (film) into the article. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 11:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , this wouldn't be a clean histmerge so instead moved second version to a place where its edit history could be preserved or merged as needed (Artemis Fowl (2019 film)). Left a note at Talk:Artemis Fowl (film) for posterity. czar  13:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Re:Sources for Kinnara
Hello @Czar, i just like to give me an insight about this sources i will show tge references are for the Philippine section of Kinnara. In Philippines, there was a statue of gold kinnara at surigao dated back to 10th-13th century supported by citation from that source. Although it was comr from a valid source the user named  N0n3up keeps reverting the article on the version  s/he preferred. I dont want to get involve on to an edit war ,so i need some more famillar in wiki policies please treat this as a legal assistance, that n0n3up is the friend of gunkarta  which you previously given a warning  about edit warring. Also n0n3up is deleting every Philippine sections in India-related articles. I hope your answer will help. Thank you! (Kufarhunter (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC))

( Laszlo Legeza, "Tantric Elements in Pre-Hispanic Gold Art," Arts of Asia, 1988, 4:129-133.) (Kufarhunter (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC))

Ps: i hope Wikipedia cannot be altered by the members in authority to put the aritcles according  on their preferred  versions. (Kufarhunter (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC))
 * Your argument may have merit but I won't investigate as long as you continue to create and use multiple accounts. (And if there is a next time, I'd need a scan of the Legeza source.) czar  04:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Czar, don't fall for his/her tricks. Me along with Gunkarta and others have had to deal with this troublesome editor. There is no justification for his/her actions. I think there should be serious measures taken for this. (N0n3up (talk) 00:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC))
 * ? I had already brought it to Sockpuppet investigations/JournalmanManila, which I know you saw czar  01:58, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

eduprogram
Hello Czar, to follow up on User_talk:Czar/2018_Jan–Apr, this has been completed. Happy editing, — xaosflux  Talk 17:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Deeper (film)
Hello czar! Someone deleted the Draft:Deeper (film) a few days ago due to "not edited within six months." But now I have created the draft again as it got some news. Can you please restore it's previous deleted edits? Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 13:18, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  02:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kickstarter headquarters
The article Kickstarter headquarters you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Kickstarter headquarters for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Argento Surfer -- Argento Surfer (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Question about Dunia engine
I was wondering if your okay with it if I revert your latest edit on Dunia engine (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dunia_Engine&redirect=no). You deleted the previous page and made it redirect to Far Cry, stating that there were no credible sources/annotation (I can agree with that). I would like to add some proper sources and annotation, however, the best way to do that in my opinion is to revert your edit and then add the sources and new information. Hence why I am asking if your okay with me reverting your edit for this reason? Else I would have to restart the whole article, since it currently only has the redirect code. Dragnadh (talk) 15:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the heads up. What sources were you planning to use? I still don't see anything obvious that discusses the engine separately from the Far Cry series. If the article is missing anything major on the engine, I would first shore up those sections or, if absolutely needed, make a dedicated section within that article covering the engine technology. If there is enough content there to warrant a separate article, you could do a summary style split. If you just want the article history, there are a few ways to get it, mainly: (1) copy the wikitext from a previous version in the page history, start a draft in your userspace, and attribute the original authors, or (2) move the article w/ history to userspace for further work czar  02:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Multilingual captions testing is available
Greetings,

The early prototype for multilingual caption support is available for testing. More information on how to sign up to test is on Commons. Thanks, happy editing to you. - Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (film)
Hello czar! Please restore the previous edits of Draft:Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (film), it is going to film soon now. Thanks.-- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , ✓ done czar  14:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)