User talk:Dmehus/Archives/2019/November

Canvassing and Canadian Tire Financial Services RM
Hi Doug, I'd suggest reading the guideline at WP:CANVAS. Posting in unrelated RM discussions to say "please support my RM from X → Y" as you did here and here would be frowned on, both because it's not the right place, and because notifications should be neutral, rather than cajoling readers to vote a specific way. I would also be cautious about singling out specific users to invite to an RM - if there's any appearance that you're selectively notifying users that you think will be favourable to your hoped-for outcome, that can also present a problem. It's usually better to just let editors find the RM naturally. If you're really worried about low turnout, I recommend posting a (neutral) notice on a related wikiproject (such as WikiProject Canada in this case). Hope that helps. Colin M (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Colin. I hadn't realized such canvassing was discouraged. I'd only aimed to establish a positive rapport with BarrelProof and Trillfendi by showing them that, despite past disagreements vis-a-vis support/opposition on RMs, AfDs, or Wikipedia policies, that I can still be neutral in supporting their own RM (as applicable). Hope that makes sense.

Several follow-up questions for you to "pick your brain"...


 * 1) How come the WikiProject Personal Finance and Investment wasn't notified of the RM for President's Choice Financial -> PC Financial like Canadian Tire Financial Services->Canadian Tire Bank was? Is there some sort of coding that needs to be added? I can't seem to manually add it to WikiProject Personal Finance and Investment like I did with WikiProject Canada.
 * 2) In the PC Financial case, in a case where 1 supports (perhaps strongly) and 1 is a weak oppose, is it possible consensus could be determined as in favour?
 * 3) When you make/propose page move/merge decisions, how do you personally decide whether to be be bold and just make the move or initiate a discussion? WP:BRD seems to encourage the former, but part of me thinks it's better to have a discussion. Any insight appreciated. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * You're talking about the listing at WikiProject Finance & Investment/Article alerts, right? Looks like the PC Financial RM has been posted there now. I think it didn't show up immediately because the page only updates once a day, not in real time.
 * Sure, it depends on the individual closer and how they read the strength of the arguments. I'd say it's more likely in that case for the would-be closer to relist the discussion to get more input. If it were closed in that state, I think 'No consensus' would be the most typical outcome, but it very much depends on the specific circumstances.
 * That's a great question. The calculus of WP:BRD is a little different in the case of page moves, because, unlike with normal edits, reverting a page move isn't as easy as just clicking a button (especially for those without the page mover flag). I would tend to err on the side of doing an RM. If it does turn out to be uncontroversial, then it's not going to take up a lot of people's time (especially if you make a good case for the move in the nom, and provide the relevant data - pageview stats, ngrams, etc. - so editors don't have to do too much research themselves). i.e. if people think it's clearly a good move, they might just write something terse like "Support, per nom". And similarly, it would be easy for the closer to assess consensus. Another thing you can do if you're on the fence about whether a move requires the RM process is post an informal notice to the talk page, saying you're thinking of renaming the article to X. If you don't get any response after a week or so (or all responses are supportive), that's a pretty good indication that the move is uncontroversial. Though that only really works if the article isn't too obscure, and has a decent number of editors watchlisting it. Colin M (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Canvassing
You were warned above, and now you are doing it again, via ping and talk page message. That is not cool. You're not permitted to selectively recruit those who you think will agree, any more than you're permitted to selectively cite those who agree as if their opinion is the sole valid one. Guy (help!) 19:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I didn't interpret it as canvassing since it was included in Twinkle, so I assumed if I kept the statement neutral, that it was okay. While I didn't ping every editor to ever contribute to the discussion, I pinged a roughly equal number who supported both views. Nonetheless, I'll stick to the noticeboards and village pumps in the future. Thanks for the heads up. Doug Mehus T · C  20:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , of course you didn't, but, just like the warning above, it was. Guy (help!) 08:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , To be honest, and fortunately, it was a wasted effort because those that I pinged or notified either did not respond or declined to participate. Two of them I pinged because they either had never participated or had participated to the extent of removing some potentially controversial material that was in dispute between two or more editors, but were respected for their neutrality. Both, I'd add, either declined to participate due to being busy with other administrative tasks or did not respond likely for the same reason.
 * So that leaves, Petrarchan, who, admittedly, shares a similar view but who seemed appreciative when I'd included her in a previous RfC. Bilby was already there, so I didn't ping him. Drmies, I didn't read all his comments, but if I had to surmise, seemed slightly more on the opposing side of my own view. The other two or three others that I notified, as I recall, seemed they held a view opposite to my own, but I didn't really look at that so much as I read so little of the previous closed RfCs and discussions on the talkpage (I didn't even go into the archives).
 * Nevertheless, what I'm wondering is if this article needs a fresh set of editing eyes to improve it for neutrality and objectivity and I wonder if it might be best for Bilby, Toa, you, Calton, possibly Petra and David, and I to ignore the article for several months, let the results of the RfC and the peer review play out, which, in turn, would let a fresh set of editors set about to improving the article. Doug Mehus T · C  16:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Doug, would you mind summarizing this list of those you pinged and your take on their stance, for those of us not following closely along, and add it to the "canvassing" section at Attkisson Talk? That would (a) help viewers determine whether claims against you have validity, and (b) save you in the future if you find yourself at AE with an opponent using that section to prove you are problematic.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:23, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Following Guy and Toa objecting to my having pinged you, Bradv, and Diannaa, the latter two for their noted neutrality, and you because you appreciated my alerting you to this discussion in a previous RfC I initiated (see above), I just looked above at the earlier RfCs on this page and tried to send notifications to the other contributors to the discussion regardless of whatever view they took. If it helps, I didn't even read the previous discussions. Doug Mehus T · C  01:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you could put which editors you pinged or whose talk pages you visited, and anything you know or surmised about their views, like you did above in response to Guy, and leave it for all to see at the Cavassing section at Sharyl's talk page, it would be best. When I read your explanation to Guy, it seems clear that you did not ping people in a biased way. Also If someone uses that section to show you in a bad light one day, you should have your own explanation there, rather than to try and explain or defend yourself at AE when they won't have time or patience to look into your claims. I speak from experience.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Following Guy and Toa objecting to my having pinged you, Bradv, and Diannaa, the latter two for their noted neutrality, and you because you appreciated my alerting you to this discussion in a previous RfC I initiated (see above), I just looked above at the earlier RfCs on this page and tried to send notifications to the other contributors to the discussion regardless of whatever view they took. If it helps, I didn't even read the previous discussions. Doug Mehus T · C  01:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If you could put which editors you pinged or whose talk pages you visited, and anything you know or surmised about their views, like you did above in response to Guy, and leave it for all to see at the Cavassing section at Sharyl's talk page, it would be best. When I read your explanation to Guy, it seems clear that you did not ping people in a biased way. Also If someone uses that section to show you in a bad light one day, you should have your own explanation there, rather than to try and explain or defend yourself at AE when they won't have time or patience to look into your claims. I speak from experience.   petrarchan47  คุ  ก   01:38, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Senate composition
Something's not adding up correctly, as the change you made brings the total at Senate of Canada to 106. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Has the Senate of Canada's vacancy totals been updated to take into account Senator Richard Neufeld's retirement on November 6, 2019? Doug Mehus (talk) 03:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure. I've been trying to get the seat-composition consistent across the related articles. GoodDay (talk) 03:43, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Ah yeah, me too. It's good there's two of us doing that! Figured it out...I forgot to subtract 1 from the non-affiliated seat count re: Senator Tony Loffreda. Fixed. Doug Mehus (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

A slightly clearer explaination
Hello! My name is Yeetcetera and I've just seen your comment about the CU update - yes I was quoting his remark and I understand I should've italicised it, my mistake, i'm amid the floods currently happening in the South Yorkshire region, so my head is a little everywhere. I appreciate your fast investigation though, as well as your conclusion.

Thank you for you work! - Yeetcetera @me bro 17:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC) Doug Mehus (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for the clarification. I had started an WP:SPI investigation, but have untagged you from that investigation and requested withdrawal. Still, it's bizarre behaviour occurring in that WP:ANI report, eh? Doug Mehus (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly! A strange fellow he was, indeed. I appreciate you withdrawing the report, I'll leave my comment as is to not cause confusion what your comment was about. Thank you for being understanding! - Yeetcetera @me bro 17:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Assume you mean this reply here? Yeah, that's fine, no worries.
 * Happy editing,
 * Happy editing,

AN/I
You're right. Don't watch, don't participate, don't collect £200 but proceed directly back to the less dramatic areas of Wikipedia. AN/I is where you go if you're dealing with problem behaviour from another editor. Otherwise, leave well alone! All the best—S Marshall T/C 23:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yep. Totally see that now! Thanks. :) Doug Mehus T · C  23:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page
I am curious as to why you are removing this from user talk pages. I think that if editors add it, they do so for a reason, and not because they are unaware that it makes them Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page. bd2412 T 18:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * - Please do not make any further edits to my talk page. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 18:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , My understanding was that categories, when deleted, were to be emptied. Otherwise, what's the point in deleting categories if the pages will still be tagged with them? This seems silly. I was just trying to do some unloved cleanup that I noticed. Please assume good faith. I meant no harm; was just trying to do cleanup. Thanks. Doug Mehus T · C  18:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * - I am assuming good faith. All I've asked you to do is to stop messing with my talk page. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 18:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll reinforce that: stop messing with other editors' userpages.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I noticed you added this deleted category to your talk page when yours wasn't one I removed. Doug Mehus T · C  18:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was a response to your actions, a little civil disobedience. I suggest you revert your edits.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Dmehus, this matter has been discussed before. I am disappointed that you thought it advisable to busy yourself in this way.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 18:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Apologies. I had the best of intentions and wouldn't have done this if I'd thought it would not be well received. Clearly, I was wrong. Doug Mehus T · C  18:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You should revert your edits. May His Shadow Fall Upon You ● 📧 18:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, all done. Four editors reverted their own edits; I reverted 15 of the 19 edits I'd made, so should be covered now. Apologies.--Doug Mehus T · C  19:24, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

New Senate Group
Hey, just wanted to mention that the Senate Liberals disbanded and made a new Senate group according to this article, I remember you and User:GoodDay were among the ones who did some of writing for the new Canadian SG a few weeks ago, so I wanted to give you a heads up. I would do it myself but I'm a little busy right now.

P.S. This is a new account. I lost access to my previous one (without the number 2)

- MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 14:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Oh, wow, that was quick. Thanks, I figured this would likely come given their impending demise. Doug Mehus T · C  15:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm less busy now so I'm trying to help. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 16:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sure, do you want to work your way from the bottom of the membership list and update the Senators from the Senate Liberal Caucus as I've done for Jane Cordy and Dennis Dawson? Doug Mehus T · C  16:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm currently updating Day's page to mention that he's the interim leader of the PSG - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm doing his infobox right now - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Okay, sounds good. I ended up finishing that part. I added a logo for the group, following the licensing tags for corporate logos (i.e., IBM). Doug Mehus T · C  17:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Progressive Senate Group moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Progressive Senate Group, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... disco spinster   talk  16:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, it would've been sourced within the hour, which is why I hadn't started it as a draft. Nonetheless, the article is now fully sourced and, as time goes by, events happen, it will further build out its references like Independent Senators Group. Doug Mehus T · C  03:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

So busy
Hi Dmehus. I wish I had time to help you with the issues at Sharyl Attkisson, but I don't because there's nearly 60 copyright reports to assess today. So I won't be helping. If you could do me a favour and not ping me any more at this time, that would be great, because it's a distraction I don't need right now. Thank you, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , No problem. Thank you for letting me know, and yes, I can see there's quite a copyvio backlog. Doug Mehus T · C  13:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Remember when you asked me about a template for the Policies section
I know that it's currently in my sandbox. But, I found a template that would have worked if we kept it on the 2019 Canadian election page. Here :

I'm still of the opinion that it should be there to be honest, since having it on my sandbox is making it a chore to update(i.e I'm by myself). We also kind of had a consensus with just Walter disagreeing. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 00:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note : it mentions userpage because it's on here. It looks like this on a page. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 00:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Oh yeah, I think I've seen that as well. It looks like the template name is "Updatesection," which can be found at Template:Updatesection. So, to include it in an article, you just transclude it with . You can also use  . If you wanted to make a spinoff of that template, you could create a new one in the Template: namespace, or in your userspace. Doug Mehus  T · C  01:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure how to make a spinoff though. Do I copy the source from the original? MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I would just copy and paste the template into a new page, and then modify it as needed (i.e., logo, text, etc.) You'll need some coding experience to modify or create new parameters, though, but for your purposes, you can probably work with the parameters in the documentation. Doug Mehus T · C  02:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , there's apparently some similar templates, see : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Update, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Update_inline, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Update_after and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Expand_section. They're interesting. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I've seen "Expand section" as well, but not some of the others. Interesting. I wonder if they come in a toolbox template like the one I transcluded on my userpage, which you may find useful. Doug Mehus T · C  17:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , WP:TM has a comprehensive list of template messages, with a search tool, but not in a toolbox format. Nevertheless, it does seem to be exhaustive. Doug Mehus T · C  17:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

TfD closures
Hello! I saw you closing some TfD discussions today and just wanted to thank you for helping out with the backlog and give you some advise for the future. First of all discussions should almost always be open for 7 whole days, which some of the discussions weren't yet. It's unlikely anyone will complain but in the future it may be good to refrain for a few more hours. When adding Being deleted you also forgot one of the tags resulting in them not working and appearing in the article and finally, you missed adding ns=module when listing the modules at the holding cell. The XFD Closer gadget helps with most of these little things and makes the closing process a lot easier in case you want to try it. You can enable it in the preferences like twinkle. Again thanks for helping out and happy editing! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Oh, thanks. I just looked at the date and compared that to the TfD you closed for me. I will look into the XFDCloser gadget/script (I have DiscussionCloser), as I was closing manually via the instructions, which didn't mention the "ns=module" variable. I noticed that in looking at yours, after the fact. Perhaps we could look into updating the non-admin closing TfD discussions page? Doug Mehus T · C  13:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I will ask a second time, please do not close template discussions early. There is zero harm in letting the pages hit Templates_for_discussion/Old_unclosed_discussions before closing them. Primefac (talk) 03:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , sorry about that TfD...I wasn't sure whether the 7 day rule still applied with relisted discussions. That was my reason for not wanting the full 7 days in this instance. Now I know. I'll be mindful of this going forward and wait for it to hit that page (whether it be the first week or from a relisting). Doug Mehus T · C  03:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Senate of Canada
We use the election date for the beginning of MPs terms. As for senators? I'mn not certain :( GoodDay (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , For election dates of MPs, do you mean the first day on which the new Parliament resumes, the day on which the writs of election are returned by Elections Canada (i.e., release of full official election results), or the election night outcome? Assuming not the third option. As for Senators, thanks for the reply. Will have to investigate further. Doug Mehus T · C  21:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * For Canadian MPs, Wikipedia has been using the dates they're elected. New MPs in the 43rd Parliament have their terms as beginning on October 21, 2019. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Oh okay, that's the election night outcome. What about close races that aren't decided on election night? Will they get their term dates retroactived dated to that date, even if decided later by some sort of recount/court action? Doug Mehus T · C  21:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , every recount is done and it has had no impact on the results. Even then, the start would still be the 21st of Oct. MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 18:54, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * would know for certain. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We do use the date of the election itself for that purpose. The core problem is that there's no way to comprehensively or accurately source the exact date on which the new MP is actually formally sworn in — they're not sworn in via one giant ceremony conducted en masse, but each get their own private one-on-one swearing-ins that aren't even all on the same day (and are not the same day as the swearing in of the actual new cabinet, either). But not only do the media not cover each individual new MPs individual swearing-in as a standalone news story, even Parliament's website itself just denotes election day itself as the start of a new MP's term without taking any steps to document their specific official swearing-in dates. So all we can really do is use either election day or the date of the first actual sitting of the new legislature, because those are the only dates we can source anywhere — but consensus came down in favour of using election day, since that's the date that Parliament's website uses.
 * And a recount wouldn't matter, either: yes, the election date would still be used even if the person was found to have won on a recount after having initially seemed like the loser in the preliminary results. The final certified results are, after all, the actual count of the ballots that were cast on election day, and the preliminary count has no official standing independently of that, so the winner of the recount is inherently the person who really won the riding on election night even if the preliminary numbers initially appeared to indicate a different result.
 * Obviously practice is different for senators, since an election doesn't dissolve the Senate — however, I'm struggling to find any pages on the Senate's website that give any specific dates for an individual senator's term of service at all. I'm rarely involved in editing articles about senators at all except for sometimes creating the initial starter stub about a new appointment, and I've always stuck to just putting the year in the infobox instead of a specific full date — but if you have better luck finding pages that actually give specific dates for senators' terms in office than I'm having, then we should use the dates listed by those pages. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, that makes sense, and I get the whole point of not using the swearing-in date. Interesting that a consensus decision favoured the election night date over the new Parliament beginning date, but it makes sense.
 * Senators are a different matter, since their appointment date is tracked via the Canada Gazette, but how many editors want to track that down for every Senator? It does seem easier to use the nomination date from the PM's press release—unless the new Independent Advisory Committee on Senate Appointments easily tracks this for us, presumably, via some open data portal? Doug Mehus T · C  23:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , We could use the advanced search of the Canada Gazette and the following Boolean search expression: "Office of the Registrar General" AND Senate for all new Senate appointments. I'm not sure how far back the full text search goes back for that publication. Doug Mehus  T · C  23:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , We could use the advanced search of the Canada Gazette and the following Boolean search expression: "Office of the Registrar General" AND Senate for all new Senate appointments. I'm not sure how far back the full text search goes back for that publication. Doug Mehus  T · C  23:28, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Painting
Hi Dmehus

Please can I ask you to reverse your non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Painting, and re-open the discussion?

Discussion was still ongoing (3 post in the 8 hours before your closure, last comment less than 6 hours before your closure), and as I noted only 7 hours before closure in a post explicitly bolded as "Note to closing admin", I was working writing up a analysis of my finding that this particular portal is in fact spam. The methodology used by the spammer makes it quite laborious both to research and to document in a way which allows easy verification, and it has taken longer than I hoped to complete it, but when complete it will be a significant piece of new evidence. See my analysis of some similar issues at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Ships, which was a simpler case than this one.

I see no benefit in closing the discussion before that evidence has been posted and editors have had an opportunity to assess it.

I also think that this not an appropriate case for a non-admin closure. Per WP:NACPIT, non-admins are adised to "avoid closing such discussions" if "the nominated item is a controversial topic, or the discussion is controversial. This may be indicated by the broad topic area, related discussions, and previous XfDs (if applicable)." That is very much the case with regard to portals.

Please can you just reopen this one, and leave it to an admin to close?

Thanks. --02:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs)
 * , sure, I have no problem re-opening it. Do I just reverse my close?Doug Mehus T · C  02:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Done, I think. I simply reverted my three edits of each of the deletion page, the portal page, and the talk page. I will avoid closing, or even participating in, portal space discussions (though, in fairness, I thought that my never having edited in the portal space might have been a benefit in terms of impartiality—it's a heated debate). Any closures I undertake will be non-controversial ones and limited to the RfD space. Would you be willing to peer review some of my RfD closures in, say, 6 months time, and see whether I might be ready to undertake closures in another namespace? Doug Mehus T · C  02:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do I need to relist the discussion or anything, or can you take care of relisting? Doug Mehus T · C  02:43, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , sure, I have no problem re-opening it. Do I just reverse my close?Doug Mehus T · C  02:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, Doug, both the response and for the promptness.
 * I am not aware of any guidance on how exactly to do so. However, the process I most commonly see is a self-revert with an editsummary to the effect of "self-reverting NAC lose per this discussion here" with appropriate links. Sometimes a note is added to the discussion saying something like "closed by me then re-opened per [linked discussion]", but that's certainly not universal.  --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Please reclose the deletion request to your original close due to timing. BrownHairedGirl asked the closer to wait for an hour before closing the request. It was closed seven hours later without BrownHairedGirl either asking for additional time or posting an analysis. At the Wikiproject:Visual arts talk page I had asked BrownHairedGirl to post the analysis there, so project members could benefit from it. That should be the route to go now, let's all look at the analysis and work on what needs to be worked on (maybe BrownHairedGirl will join us). Reversing a good faith close because an editor asked for an hour, you gave them seven, and now they claim that seven wasn't enough, doesn't seems fair if objected to. But it may give rise to your agreement to this other option - let's take what I assume will be a well detailed and interesting analysis, and let the WikiProject and other editors work on it for those 90 days mentioned in the discussion and then we all can revisit this attempt to at least save one portal out of the hundreds being closed. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:48, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you that the timing was not a reason to re-open the discussion, but I had been wondering if it should even have been a non-admin close. While I think my closure analysis was considerate of the arguments in favour and against, given the controversial nature of the portal space, it seems likely might've just initiated a deletion review to overturn the decision. I think the decision could've survived a deletion review given that the arguments both sides were, though roughly equal on both sides, perhaps slightly favouring the way in which I determined the consensus to be; however, I'm really not here to make any "waves" and it seems like the best course of action was to overturn my closure. I should've stuck with non-controversial RfDs.

And your view of sound consensus as one based on the exclusion of analysis unfavourable to your view is not how WP:CONSENSUS works. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * or, do you guys think I made the right decision in re-opening my closure?Doug Mehus T · C  02:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No, please don't be afraid to jump on in and work with what turn out to be controversial, live and learn kind of thing. I might add that I'd pinged BrownHairedGirl at the WikiProject:Visual arts talk page to ask them to post their analysis there for continued work. With the energy being put into this discussion and attempt to once again delete the saved Portal it could be improved tremendously, and allowing other editors who want to benefit from an experienced editor's analysis seems the collab-centric Wikipedian way to go. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn my work took much longer than expected, and was interrupted twice. Hence the delay.
 * I have significant new evidence to add, and I don't see any benefit to anyone in going through the extra process of a DRV in order to have it discussed. (And yes @Doug, if this re-closed, I will go to DRV. Then we will have a long sidetrack of discussing process rather than substance, which is not a valuable use of anyone 's time).
 * I note Randy, that you chose to dismiss my comment without even seeing the evidence, and now seem keen to procedurally exclude the evidence. Exclusion of evidence is not a good path towards a stable consensus. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would surely like to see your analysis, and asked for it many hours ago in a pinged request to you from the WikiProject Visual arts talk page. But the discussion was closed well after the time you asked for. Why not use what you have written in a constructive manner instead of a deletion direction this time, it seems a good use of the energy you likely have put into it. The analysis exists, the discussion was closed, so let's all use it to build and maintain the encyclopedia. That also sounds like a stable consensus. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Randy, the discussion has been re-opened, so please allow it to assess my analysis. I understand that you want a particular outcome, but that is no basis for your unpleasant implication that my support for a different outcome is not constructive.
 * Yes, I think it would be wrong of me not to allow new evidence to be presented in light of any impediments that prevented BrownHairedGirl from responding. If I had closed it the other way, and you said you had new evidence, I would've re-opened it, and BrownHairedGirl would've had to live with it being re-opened. Doug Mehus T · C  03:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * BrownHairdGirl may want a particular outcome as well, I'll take their comments in good faith, but may I also explain what I mean by 'constructive': that this one time the analysis can be used to improve and maintain a Portal rather than delete it, which doesn't seem to me to be constructive at all (at least in how I spell constructive). No, the analysis is welcome, but they asked for an hour, the discussion was closed as 'not delete' seven hours later, and that close was entirely in good faith and well outside the time limit asked for. Asking for it to be opened again seems fine, if nobody objected, but I'm objecting that a good faith close can be overturned by a "more evidence will now be presented" request. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Randy, you believe that a keep is the desirable outcome for the good of Wikipedia. I believe that delete is a better outcome. I ask only that the evidence be presented, and that you kindly desist from describing a common outcome at XFD as not constructive. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Have other deletion requests, once decided, been reopened on the basis of "new evidence"? Or is this a precedent? That seems an important point, for it potentially allows anyone to say "I have new evidence" and overturn any close. There is one, as I mention below, in which new evidence was presented late within the discussion itself, the closer admitted they'd missed it, but nobody thought of reopening the discussion on the basis of "new evidence". What has been the precedent on this? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thank you. That's what I thought. I will note, for the sake of clarity, I do not take a position with respect to this portal or even all portals in general. I see merits to portals in terms of them being like fancy dab pages and navigational aids, but I also see the arguments of them suffering from both low pageviews and maintenance. No clear answers here.
 * , I will not necessarily rule out ever closing MfDs, but I do think that a non-admin close was, perhaps, not the best approach here given the controversial nature. (It may still survive. As I said, I felt the arguments in favour of keeping and deleting were nearly equally compelling.)
 * As BHG noted, a DRV (now I know what acronym means!) would just delay a final decision one way or the other. I'm not in favour of relisting too many times, either, as that just puts off a decision or a no consensus determination (see WP:RBIAS). Doug Mehus T · C  03:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you did close it, and since you reopened it again, and there has been a reasonable request of why your original decision should stick, I'd ask you to reclose it and let it go to further discussion if need be (although I think I've presented a fair and constructive consensus option above). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , True, but to what end? It's just going to go to deletion review. Doug Mehus T · C  03:26, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it would go to deletion review, it was a good close. Would be better to present the analysis of the Portal to the visual arts wikiproject, give them a few weeks or months to use the information in maintaining the portal, and the encyclopedia will be better off for it. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Randy, I woulkd take it to DRV on the basis that there was significant new evidence that had not been made available to the MFD. Since the evidence relates to a case for deletion, that evidence belongs at MFD.  It is up to the MFD discussion to weigh that evidence as it sees fit.
 * It seems to me that you are failing to distinguish between a) your desire for a particular outcome, and b) a valid consensus. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * But the discussion had been closed. Your new evidence (and you have yet to comment on why you wouldn't go the other way on this one, and let your analysis go to fix the portal instead of destroying it) wouldn't be a factor in a review, as it hadn't been a factor in the close. Is there a precedent for opening closed discussions on the basis of "new evidence"? If so I've never run across it, and would have used it myself in a major RfC in which the closer admitted they had missed major new evidence which had actually been added onto the end of the discussion before the close. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , It may well have been a good close that will result in the same outcome, but that's why I think it was preferable to re-open it. Think of this as a sort of "peer review" on the close. If, after several days, or at most one more week from a possible relisting, and considering any new evidence put forward by, the result is still a "keep," then that will validate the close. Even though there were technically more "keeps" than "deletes," I still considered the relative strength of the arguments on both sides to be "roughly equal"; on that basis, per WP:NACPIT, I probably shouldn't have been closing it as a non-admin—at least not certainly as my first closure of an MfD, which is a lower profile of deletion discussions.
 * can probably confirm better than I can, but I do not believe this would set any sort of precedent (deletion outcomes are, individually, not precedent-setting, as I understand it). It is probably uncommon for a close to be re-opened by a closer, perhaps, because editors/administrators are reluctant to question whether their closure was appropriate. could probably tell you better how often it happens, but as I said, I am confident this sets no precedent.Doug Mehus  T · C  08:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I really hope something is done with respect to better codifying the portal creation guidelines; guidelines on portal deletion; and the venue for deletion. Maybe it doesn't need a high profile AfD, but certainly something more high profile than the relatively low attended MfD and TfD spaces. Doug Mehus T · C  08:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * hope a joint reply to you both is OK.
 * It is uncommon, but not very rare for a XFD to be reopened. Until early this year, I used to follow CFD like a hawk, and it happened there a few times a year, for various reasons: closer hadn't spotted that discussion was ongoing, closer hadn't realised that they might appear to be WP:INVOLVED, closer was told that notification had been inadequate, closer accepted arguments that their close was misjudged, closer accepted that non-admin closure was inappropriate.  I don't do many RFCs, but in the last 12 months I have been deeply involved in two big ones which were re-opened after initial discussion was considered inadequate.  And I have seen it too at RMs.
 * Basically, re-opening is no big deal. Please remember that XFDs, RMs, RFCs etc are not some sort of competition.  They are attempts to weigh the consensus of the community, so if someone has something significant to add, we will reach a more solid consensus if the community hears what they have to say.  Sometimes re-opening changes the direction; sometimes it doesn't.
 * Please don't forget that "relist" is a common outcome at WP:Deletion review. That means that the discussion is re-opened, and relisted at the current day.  It has almost exactly the same effect as a the closer re-opening it, only with a long intervening wrangle about procedure rather than substance.  Process-wonkery is better avoided if possible.
 * We had portal guidelines until a few months ago, at WP:POG. They were flawed (tho there was much disagreement about which bits were bad), but after numerous unsuccessful proposals for changes at WT:POG, the portal fans got them delisted in toto.  So we are where we are.  Making guidelines will be slow and tedipus, because there while there is narrow community consensus against killing most portals, there is no clear consensus about what they are actually for.  Instead they have evolved on an ad hoc basis, and are now mostly the plaything of portal specialists with little or no input from editors who specialise in the given topic.  These portal specialists are really bad at seeking a broad consensus, and resentment at involvement by non-fans.  So they tend to have cosy discussions in portal-focused corners and react with bewildered fury when the wider community becomes wakes up to a problem and seeks a change of direction.
 * As to deletion venues, feel free to propose something at the Village Pump. But given the abysmal pageviews of portals (median pageviews May–Oct 2019 of currently-extant portals is only 25 views/day), I think there's a good case for arguing that they don't merit a more prominent deletion forum.  And this year, portals have been more than 50% of MFD business, so anyone interested in portal deletion discussion won't be wasting their time with a visit: I don't think that the list of open MFDs has been portal-free on even day since February. So I take the lack of participation as simply a reflection of the general lack of interest in portals from both readers and editors.
 * Anyway, as promised, I posted my log analysis at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Painting. Please could we discuss the substance there, and give Doug's talk page a beak from process-wrangling? --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We had portal guidelines until a few months ago, at WP:POG. They were flawed (tho there was much disagreement about which bits were bad), but after numerous unsuccessful proposals for changes at WT:POG, the portal fans got them delisted in toto.  So we are where we are.  Making guidelines will be slow and tedipus, because there while there is narrow community consensus against killing most portals, there is no clear consensus about what they are actually for.  Instead they have evolved on an ad hoc basis, and are now mostly the plaything of portal specialists with little or no input from editors who specialise in the given topic.  These portal specialists are really bad at seeking a broad consensus, and resentment at involvement by non-fans.  So they tend to have cosy discussions in portal-focused corners and react with bewildered fury when the wider community becomes wakes up to a problem and seeks a change of direction.
 * As to deletion venues, feel free to propose something at the Village Pump. But given the abysmal pageviews of portals (median pageviews May–Oct 2019 of currently-extant portals is only 25 views/day), I think there's a good case for arguing that they don't merit a more prominent deletion forum.  And this year, portals have been more than 50% of MFD business, so anyone interested in portal deletion discussion won't be wasting their time with a visit: I don't think that the list of open MFDs has been portal-free on even day since February. So I take the lack of participation as simply a reflection of the general lack of interest in portals from both readers and editors.
 * Anyway, as promised, I posted my log analysis at WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Painting. Please could we discuss the substance there, and give Doug's talk page a beak from process-wrangling? --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 09:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions
I see your very excited about the discussion aspects of Wikipedia and especially closing discussions, however I'm a bit worried about your knowledge of policy and general experience in these areas. If you continue like now I wouldn't be surprised if some of your closures end up at deletion review, which isn't fun for anyone. Perhaps limiting yourself to only one venue (AfD/TFD/RM/RfD) would help you become an expert in the subject area and make your !votes and closures better? I'm more than willing to help you there in whatever way I can so feel free to ping me a question and I'll do my best to answer. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC) Doug Mehus T · C  01:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sure thing. Which area do you suggest, primarily, I focus on? Do you tend to focus on TfD because it is the least controversial (and also tends to generate the least !votes per person)? I thought my closures so far have been fine. Is there any particular, so far, that strike you as problematic? Doug Mehus T · C  23:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Though, to be clear, even if a closure were to end up at deletion review, I take that as it maybe needed a second set of eyes and an illustrative example that one is not infallible. In short, I would see that more as a positive than a negative (as a reminder of where one erred), but that's just me. Doug Mehus T · C  23:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any closures that have been "wrong", but quite a lot of red flags. At Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 17 for instance I don't know the reason to keep/delete makes it look like you haven't fully understood the previous discussion; at Articles for deletion/Discovery One, it looks like there's some confusion about the SNOW clause since just one additional opinion shouldn't change it from no consensus to a snow keep. I've also seen a lot of major changes to !votes, which if done to closures may cause significant extra work since the old close has already been implemented. We all make mistakes, but currently I'm seeing a bit more than I would like.
 * Regarding which venue you choose; that's entirely up to you! I've been a big fan of TfD particularly because of it's smaller size, delete NACs as well as me enjoying implementing closes afterwards, but you may find something else more enjoyable. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 23:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Well, yeah, I'm avoiding AfD closes because it's so much more high profile (and, presumably, subject to higher deletion reviews). I tend to think I'd probably focus on TfD and RfD.
 * Regarding some of my votes, maybe I shouldn't have actually changed my !vote to "snow keep," but my understanding—and I thought I finally understood it—is it's when every comment with a clear position attached to it comes down in favour of one side. I probably should've left that as "keep". As to the subway station one, yes I know my keep rationale there is weak and it mainly stems from being less sure of the notability and deletion guidelines than, say, people or companies/organizations (of which I believe I have a lot more knowledge on). Doug Mehus T · C  23:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, thanks for accepting criticism so well! I'll just give some final comments and then leave you alone. The snowball clause should very rarely be used, usually only in a few rare situation such as a POINTY or severly illinformed proposal or issues where a large amount of editors unanimously support something. A perfect example of something which may look like a snow candidate but isn't is this close of mine which was later reopend and closed the other way even though ten editors had unanimously supported it.
 * For the subway navbox my main concern is whether you can determine which !votes to weigh less or not at all since you yourself sometimes make !votes that would be considered very weakly. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, perhaps that's my weakness is I participate too willingly in the voting on topic areas in which I'm less familiar with the deletion criteria (i.e., the bus routes being one). Books and films I'm understanding more, since they're similar to companies and organizations. I'd be interested in having you peer review my closes and seeing if I got any of them wrong, or if I didn't get any wrong, if there would be some changes (i.e., stuff I should've left out from the closing rationale). However, I'm wondering if it's not the best to discuss this on-wiki. Do you have the "email user" function enabled, or do you use Discord? Doug Mehus T · C  00:15, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I would happily take a look at your closes, but I think doing it on-wiki may be better since others could help out and give feedback. I'm also more likely to respond quickly on-wiki. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Oh okay, I was just thinking about the deletion review and whether our discussions and suggestions would, in some way, prejudice a potential deletion review? It seems unlikely most of them would be challenged since, save for the templates and modules, the results were mostly "retarget", "disambiguate", and "keep". I'll let you decide if on- or off-wiki would be best following this reply. Doug Mehus T · C  00:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What I could do is post the closure links and, if you have any feedback that would be best discussed off-wiki, you can always use the e-mail link? Doug Mehus T · C  00:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * RfDs:
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 10
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 10
 * Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 November 9
 * TfDs:
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 10
 * Templates for discussion/Log/2019 November 9
 * Three on the November 8 TfD log page
 * MfD:
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Painting Doug Mehus T · C  00:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I've taken a quick look at all of them, and for the most part the close itself looks fine, but wtih room for improvements. My one major concern is about How a bill becomes a law, which looks a lot like a WP:SUPERVOTE to me and could be the result of you not being able to close as delete and choosing to retarget instead even though deletion may have been preferable. Take a look at the essay relist bias which talks about this idea. If you're going to close an ambigous discussion like this, which you probably shouldn't yet, make sure to include reasons to weigh some arguments more and others less.
 * The other thing that I reacted on was the rationales. There isn't anything wrong with them, but they are unusual. The role of the rationalle is to explain how the weighing of consensus was made if necessary and perhaps give a consensus determination for other aspects of the discussions as can be seen in most RfCs and some large scale deletion discussions. You often include a summary of the discussion, which again there isn't anything wrong with, but it isn't usual.
 * One last note before I have to leave for tonight: The reasonable rationalle addition I and Primefac sometimes make is only for nominations without discussion where the closer is encouraged to evaluate it as an evaluated proposed deletion as per WP:SOFTDELETE this process involves the closer checking that there aren't any obvious policy based reasons not to and give it a second pair of eyes before closing. To indicate this was done I usually add that it was a reasonable rationale. If this is done in other cases however it may be taken as a sign of a supervote where the closure it considering there own opinions as well. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 01:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed reply. On WP:RBIAS, you'll (likely) be pleased to know that, not having known about this essay, I considered all five of those points for non-admins. I'm not a huge fan of relisting and would only do so where (a) consensus was unclear due to solid policy-based arguments on both sides or solid evidence on both sides and (b) it hadn't already been relisted once. I personally don't think any XfD should be relisted more than twice; if consensus hasn't formed within that timeframe, then it should be closed as "no consensus" (assuming the arguments on both sides were equally strong, of course).
 * Further to that point, there were several discussions I wanted to close, but the more I thought about it, I thought, "how would I !vote in this scenario?" A good example of this was Salt-tolerant grass. It's not mentioned in the target article, though "tolerant of saline" is (though no one made that argument). Nevertheless, I considered the likelihood of it being a plausible search term, for which I thought "not very" and considered WP:PANDORA and WP:CRYSTAL. Ultimately, I kept going back to that it should be a delete, for which I, as a non-admin, cannot handle. So, I left it. The same was true of several other RfDs in which I'd not participated. In some of those cases, including in the TfD space, I simply helped the discussion along by concurring with a particular argument.
 * As to the one about a "How a bill becomes law," my thinking here was the strength of Thryduulf's argument that WP:NOTFAQ had been "misapplied". I looked at the fact that we have an article titled "How a Bill Becomes Law" (as the title of an episode in a TV series) and the fact that often people search for something in a natural way, so it was a plausible redirect. I also considered that the redirect's creator even said he would support a retargeting per the above, so since we have a CSD criteria whereby when the original creator requests deletion, it's honoured, that that may carry some weight in terms of retargeting. Though he didn't !vote for retargeting, Roy17's comment said he would support that retargeting. When you took that together with the three other people that supported retargeting versus that four that supported deleting, and the arguments in favour of retargeting being slightly stronger, it seemed like this was the best decision.
 * I suppose I could've closed as "no consensus," or relisted a second time, but as noted, I'm very leery to relist discussions. And, at the end of the day, a "no consensus" would've meant it stayed targeted to where it was, which was to the U.S. legislative stages, which I didn't think was helpful for a global encyclopedia.
 * With this rationale, does that provide you some more comfort on my thought process here?
 * The one I actually thought you'd say was problematic was the Portal:Painting one because I didn't assess, really, the strength of either argument, but maybe that's not my job so long as both sides presented credible arguments. I was mainly concerned with my rationale there. Would my rationale there be an example of a "non-prejudicial supervote" or no?
 * Cheers,
 * , Thanks for the thoughtful and detailed reply. On WP:RBIAS, you'll (likely) be pleased to know that, not having known about this essay, I considered all five of those points for non-admins. I'm not a huge fan of relisting and would only do so where (a) consensus was unclear due to solid policy-based arguments on both sides or solid evidence on both sides and (b) it hadn't already been relisted once. I personally don't think any XfD should be relisted more than twice; if consensus hasn't formed within that timeframe, then it should be closed as "no consensus" (assuming the arguments on both sides were equally strong, of course).
 * Further to that point, there were several discussions I wanted to close, but the more I thought about it, I thought, "how would I !vote in this scenario?" A good example of this was Salt-tolerant grass. It's not mentioned in the target article, though "tolerant of saline" is (though no one made that argument). Nevertheless, I considered the likelihood of it being a plausible search term, for which I thought "not very" and considered WP:PANDORA and WP:CRYSTAL. Ultimately, I kept going back to that it should be a delete, for which I, as a non-admin, cannot handle. So, I left it. The same was true of several other RfDs in which I'd not participated. In some of those cases, including in the TfD space, I simply helped the discussion along by concurring with a particular argument.
 * As to the one about a "How a bill becomes law," my thinking here was the strength of Thryduulf's argument that WP:NOTFAQ had been "misapplied". I looked at the fact that we have an article titled "How a Bill Becomes Law" (as the title of an episode in a TV series) and the fact that often people search for something in a natural way, so it was a plausible redirect. I also considered that the redirect's creator even said he would support a retargeting per the above, so since we have a CSD criteria whereby when the original creator requests deletion, it's honoured, that that may carry some weight in terms of retargeting. Though he didn't !vote for retargeting, Roy17's comment said he would support that retargeting. When you took that together with the three other people that supported retargeting versus that four that supported deleting, and the arguments in favour of retargeting being slightly stronger, it seemed like this was the best decision.
 * I suppose I could've closed as "no consensus," or relisted a second time, but as noted, I'm very leery to relist discussions. And, at the end of the day, a "no consensus" would've meant it stayed targeted to where it was, which was to the U.S. legislative stages, which I didn't think was helpful for a global encyclopedia.
 * With this rationale, does that provide you some more comfort on my thought process here?
 * The one I actually thought you'd say was problematic was the Portal:Painting one because I didn't assess, really, the strength of either argument, but maybe that's not my job so long as both sides presented credible arguments. I was mainly concerned with my rationale there. Would my rationale there be an example of a "non-prejudicial supervote" or no?
 * Cheers,
 * With this rationale, does that provide you some more comfort on my thought process here?
 * The one I actually thought you'd say was problematic was the Portal:Painting one because I didn't assess, really, the strength of either argument, but maybe that's not my job so long as both sides presented credible arguments. I was mainly concerned with my rationale there. Would my rationale there be an example of a "non-prejudicial supervote" or no?
 * Cheers,
 * The one I actually thought you'd say was problematic was the Portal:Painting one because I didn't assess, really, the strength of either argument, but maybe that's not my job so long as both sides presented credible arguments. I was mainly concerned with my rationale there. Would my rationale there be an example of a "non-prejudicial supervote" or no?
 * Cheers,
 * Cheers,
 * With the analysis above I think "How a bill becomes a law" is a reasonable close. I would probably left it alone in your shoes, but with a better rationale it would have been fine. Keeping it where it is would have been entirely inappropriate as it was clearly a consensus against the status quo with both both delete and retarget voters opposing it. I think the best thing would have been simply leaving it and letting a more experienced closer close it, but with a good rationale it's a fine close.
 * Regarding Portal:Painting, I thought it was a fine close. There aren't really many applicable policies for portals right now and it was reasonable to weigh basically everything the same which was my impression of what you did. Having such a relativley controversial close as your first MfD close may however have been unwise.
 * Finally I want to congratulate you on dealing with reopening the discussion so well, especially with push back from both sides. That is a very important part of closing and you handled it really well.
 * Another thing to consider before closing a discussion is whether it's actually useful. If someone else has to review them afterwards, as Primefac and I have done for your TfDs, it isn't a time save at all. You clearly have some good intuition about closures, but perhaps waiting a bit before closing to gain more experience would be useful? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Finally I want to congratulate you on dealing with reopening the discussion so well, especially with push back from both sides. That is a very important part of closing and you handled it really well.
 * Another thing to consider before closing a discussion is whether it's actually useful. If someone else has to review them afterwards, as Primefac and I have done for your TfDs, it isn't a time save at all. You clearly have some good intuition about closures, but perhaps waiting a bit before closing to gain more experience would be useful? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Another thing to consider before closing a discussion is whether it's actually useful. If someone else has to review them afterwards, as Primefac and I have done for your TfDs, it isn't a time save at all. You clearly have some good intuition about closures, but perhaps waiting a bit before closing to gain more experience would be useful? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 10:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Given the discussion above, I would ask that you please refrain from TfD closures, specifically because they are not well-attended. There are very few admins that patrol TfD, so we cannot double-check every NAC close. TfD requires knowledge not only of policy but also past precedent regarding similar templates, which you have not yet demonstrated; if an improper close is made it might be days or weeks before anyone even notices it, and believe me it's a pain to go back through the logs to find when and how things were orphaned to undo that all. As Trialpears has mentioned above, you've not necessarily done anything wrong yet, but I've been finding myself double-checking all of your closes to make sure they are acceptable and I share a lot of their concerns. Primefac (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , That's true. In the TfD space, I will focus, for now, on participating in the TfD discussions and getting a better "feel" for the arguments for/against and to the policies. Perhaps in six months (or more), I may be ready to dip my toes back into the TfD closure space, and will reach out to you to see if I am ready and what types of closures in that space would be best to start out with. For now, I will focus what few closures I undertake to the RfD space since, should I make a mistake, it is much less problematic to undo than in the TfD space. Doug Mehus T · C  02:07, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Progressive Senate Group has been nominated for discussion
Category:Progressive Senate Group, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spider-Man: Far From Home, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blip ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Spider-Man:_Far_From_Home check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Spider-Man:_Far_From_Home?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:38, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

dates + formatting
Hey, just wanted to mention something really quick. In some cases I don't mean to revert the dates using the script that I use, it's just that some of them (not the ones you wrote in dmy) are in a wrong format and it's faster to use the script than to do it one by one. It's a bit similar with the piping thing (the script corrects formatting, although, in both cases I remove things it got wrong, sometimes stuff slips though) Just wanted to make this clear. - MikkelJSmith (talk) 15:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , True, and I'm not familiar with the scripts and how they work. If it's automatic, I guess one could take a quick look for the piped links on the article page and see if there's capitalizations that stand out and correct them manually post-script usage? As for the dates, that's less of a big deal, but since we're using DD MON YYYY on Progressive Senate Group, I think we should stick with that format there. Doug Mehus T · C  15:58, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , yeah the scripts are automatic, which is why some mistakes happen, glad you are there to correct them at times :D and yeah I can set it to DMY for that page. MikkelJSmith (talk) 16:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A little gift...

 * , sure, I've got to take a bit of a wikibreak now to finish up this semester, but maybe in a few weeks, I'd be open to doing that mini-course. Together with completing that, better understanding some key policies (I've got a pretty good handle on WP:GNG and some of the SNGs), I suspect, in a few months Primefac will have no problem with me performing a few non-controversial TfD closures (say, those that don't result in a delete, since those are are easier to correct in the event of a mistake). --Doug Mehus T · C  22:59, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That works out great for me as well; it will take some time to set it up. Don't expect too much, it isn't a WP:CVUA or WP:NPPSCHOOL, it's more like a fifth of that. The plan would be combine reading of some good polcies and essays, with some original supplements and then a variety of questions, mostly relating to real closures by experienced closers, but also some common misconceptions and questions used to determine the experience of a closer at WP:RFA. I'll also ask some experienced closers to take a look at it so I don't say anything too stupid.
 * Regarding notability policies I'm really not experienced enough in that area to be of much help. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Question for you
Would you be interested in joining a good faith effort for new poral guidelines at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace? I am reaching out to you as you appear to be invested in the deletion discussions and another editor's input is always welcomed. Sign in your name under "Participating" if you wish to join in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Done Doug Mehus T · C  15:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Tagging of Weather compensation
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Weather compensation. I do not think that Weather compensation fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because A very quick google search gives context.. I request that you consider not re-tagging Weather compensation for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 10:41, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I wasn't sure whether it was a no context "speedy delete." It's hard to say what a no context tag is, but I note that administrator moved it to the Draft: namespace as "under-sourced." To either you or to Serial Number 54129, since that was a prudent move, how can I flag similar articles for administrators to move to the draft space without leaving a redirect for similar rationale? Doug Mehus  T · C  15:28, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "No context" means that there is so little information that there is no way to even search for sources. The classic "no context" is something like "John is a very nice man". Which man named John? no way to tell, so no context. But if anyhting in the article, including the title, or a link, tells you where/how to search for sources or additional info, perhaps via a web search or a library search, then No context does not apply.
 * Moving under-sourced/incomplete articles to draft has become more common of late. Different editors have different standards on when it is a good idea. Or one can alsways go to AfD. A7 may apply to such cases, depending on the nature of the subject. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:07, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I like the moving to the draft space, so we can start the WP:CSD clock. I'm just wondering, is there an official protocol I can use to alert an administrator to this? Don't want to always be pinging Serial Number 54129, and it seems excessive to post at the Village Pump about it. LOL Doug Mehus T · C  16:13, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I was debating between A1 and the CSD criteria for transwikied articles. Seems like it should be moved to Wiktionary maybe? Doug Mehus T · C  16:14, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Any autoconfirmed editor can move an articel to draftspace, there is no need for an admin. The redirect left behind can be taged with CSD R2. I am not sure what you mean by ? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , The 6 month clock to deletion if not moved back to the article namespace. True, yeah, I guess that's the best approach; just seems like I still have to involve an admin in order to suppress the redirect. Mind you, if I'm doing lots of clean up like this working through pages of unsourced ultra-short stub articles like this, that would demonstrate a need for page mover permissions. Thanks for your reply! Doug Mehus T · C  16:47, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Talk page notifications
Please stop! El_C 18:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Okay, I won't send any more messages to anyone else. Thanks for letting me know. Doug Mehus T · C  18:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

No fish
Thanks for closing the thread drift at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Buckinghamshire. Hope I didn't sound snippy; drift happens, but I thought it best not to let it go too far. And no trouting even thought of, not even minnowing. Not even on a friday &lt;grin&gt;

Just one small thing: the usual way to close off a drift like that is just to collapse it using collapse top and collapse bottom. That way it doesn't intrude, but is there if needed. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , No worries, and I debated whether to use cot/cob or this but went with this so I could assign a result. I should look into if cot/cob has a "result" parameter.
 * I love where you wrote, "Not even on a Friday," because that's an inside joke my mom and I have whenever we go to a fish and a chip restaurant on a Friday evening—we joke that it's the worst night to go for fish and chips because it's the busiest with all the "grey hairs"/"blue hairs," who we (probably incorrectly) presume are Catholic. ;) Doug Mehus T · C  17:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix. In such cases, there isn't really a need to "close" the off-topic section, and in fact a close is inappropriate since a conclusion cannot be reached on an off-topic matter. So the need is just to hide it so that editors can see they don't need to read it in order to make a decision on the actual topic in hand.
 * Hope this helps. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 05:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 05:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Words of advice
Your enthusiasm is welcome to see, but it would be better if it were backed up with a fuller understanding of the policies and guidelines you are commenting about - I've had to correct you about three different things in two days now. Read the pages linked to, rather than just how they are used in the current discussion. You also need to be careful not to spam or BLUDGEON discussions - there is no need to reply to every (or even most) comments, and prejudging the closure can get you into trouble if you aren't careful. The closer will know what they are doing and what needs to be done.

To be clear, what you are doing isn't bad, and this message is not intended as criticism or as a warning, it's just advice from someone who has been around a while. Thryduulf (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

barnstar

 * , oh, my second barnstar. Thank you! : ) --Doug Mehus  T · C  03:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary bolding
Please stop bolding words unnecessarily. If the title of an article has been bolded at the beginning, it shouldn't be bolded again. Also, please stop making recursive hyperlinks (an article should not link back to itself - for example having links to Grant Mitchell using the square brackets) within the Grant Mitchell article itself - which causes the recursive link to appear bolded). See the changes made here. This seems to happen because you are writing sentences and then pasting them into several different articles without modifying the hyperlinks. Why the other unneeded bolding is happening, I don't know, but please stop. It looks messy. 45.72.244.163 (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your reply, but I still do like seeing more than one instance of the name bolded. Nevertheless, I'm not opposed to other editors fixing things up per WP:MOS. Doug Mehus T · C  16:13, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You may like it, and you are free to do it on your own blogs and websites, but it is contrary to the Wikipedia style manual so please stop doing it here. See MOS:BOLD. 45.72.244.163 (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)