User talk:Feminist/Archive 13

Your GA nomination of JetBlue Mint
The article JetBlue Mint you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:JetBlue Mint for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Carbrera -- Carbrera (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverted closure
Just a heads up that another editor effectively reversed your closure of this TfD by restoring the template. They appear to have potentially legitimate concerns, but the restoration is out of process. I'll let you deal with it however you'd like as the closer. ~ RobTalk 02:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Soafy. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, User:SSTflyer, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you. Soafy (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

nelson-geo-stub
Hi SSTflyer - sorry to have to report this, but I had to Ignore all rules and revert a template which you closed the discussion on and redirected at WP:TFD. The template is a stub template, and as such follows specific guidelines. Stub templates are never redirected when stub categories are deleted, they are always upmerged. This has been the standard practice ever since the stub categorisation system was created (or at least ever since I started stub sorting, about twelve years ago). The reasons for this should be fairly obvious - a redirected template will place the text of its redirection target onto articles rather than the text which it is intended to state. Stub articles are often directed into incorrect categories (such as in this occasion, when articles on the geography of a New Zealand region were diverted into a category which is only to be used for stubs relating to features covering the entire country. Any non-nationwide articles in that category are checked and stub-sorted as quickly as possible into separate regional categories). It also becomes nigh on impossible for stub sorters to check which articles in a parent category are thus marked with the more generic template and which are marked with the more specific one (which will need to be re-created if and when the number of stubs passes the correct threshold for a stand-alone stub category). In this case, due to another template which should also have fed into the category which this template fed into, that threshold was extremely close and - after a couple of days of stub sorting and stub creation - it has now passed the point where it is needed within its own category. Since that category has been created, it is only appropriate - and is in fact necessary - for the stub template to be restored ASAP.

As the de facto main sorter of New Zealand geography stubs, I had received two complaints about the sudden appearance of un-re-sortable articles in the generic New Zealand geography stubs category, which I discovered to be the result of previously unknown TfD. Rather than wait out the process of having to either re-open the discussion or ask for a discussion review (either of which would have taken several days at least, with the likelihood of more complaints from and annoyance to stub sorters), I decided that the lesser evil was to put the template back the way it should have been.

Unfortunately, no-one at WP:WSS was aware of the TfD debate - the stub-sorting project was never informed of the discussion. If it had been, those involved in the debate would have known that stub templates are never redirected but only upmerged - there is overwhelming precedent for this, with several hundred upmerged stub templates at any one time.

Though I realise this is not the standard procedure, a bit of forethought on the part of the nominator in notifying relevant editors would no doubt have fixed the problem quickly, and with far less time wasted all around. Unfortunately, having re-created the template and created the appropriate stub category for it, another editor has decided to nominate the category for deletion, even though the category creation was a standard one by stub-sorting conventions. ( comments amended Grutness...wha?  12:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC) )

Again, sorry for having done this out of process, but I hope you can understand why it was necessary as the lesser of two evils - a correction of non-standard Wikipedia practice on the deletion and the restoration of a needed template rather than simply an out-of-process re-creation. Grutness...wha?  14:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

RMpmc
I've made a little proposal at Template talk:RMpmc, and since all this is still so new, I'd like your input. What's in your palette?  Paine  16:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:The Lying Game (TV series)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Lying Game (TV series). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Non-admin closes
Hey SSTflyer, I noticed you're still closing discussion in contravention of our guidelines. I just want to take this opportunity to spell out a couple points to help you understand non-admin closures. From WP:NACD: If you want to continue closing discussions, please limit yourself to discussion in which you have the ability to implement, and please stay away from controversial decisions, like the debacle you created with the New York move. You do not have the technical ability to close non-TFD debates as delete and tough closures are best left to admins, as they have the community's trust necessary to make those closures. You are an excellent editor, but some of your closures have been questionable at best. Best, -- Tavix ( talk ) 20:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Non-administrators should limit their closes to outcomes they have the technical ability to implement; for example, non-admins should not close a discussion as delete, because only admins can delete pages.
 * Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins.
 * I'm just testing how non-admin closing RfDs as delete would be like. I am aware the RfC has not been officially closed yet, but such a closure is mostly harmless. I do not consider my closure to be inaccurate. SST  flyer  00:00, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * RFD isn't your sandbox to make test edits and the issue in this case has nothing to do with "inaccuracy." If you'll please follow WP:NACD, the deletion process will go a lot smoother. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment
Good morning. You may consider withdrawing your explanatory sentence upon the closure of Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_21 since the appropriateness of the venue hasn't really been discussed. Similarly, in this discussion, it's not clear how requests for undeletion are related to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Take Care
For the move discussion at Talk:Take Care, it seems as though there wasn't consensus for the move. Though I may be a bit biased since the discussion was closed in a manner opposite my vote, I'm trying to look at the discussion as a neutral party and in the discussion's current state, I would have relisted it. Any chance that could happen with this discussion? Steel1943 (talk) 12:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * SSTflyer, this is exactly what I'm talking about with your closures. This is another one that's questionable at best. I still don't know what you don't understand about "close calls are best left to administrators" but I recommend you reverse your decision and stay away from closing discussions for a while. This is past the point of being disruptive and I'm tempted to take the matter to ANI. -- Tavix ( talk ) 12:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support voters have provided evidence of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (the majority of usage of "Take Care" is about the album), while oppose voters have not provided any evidence to the contrary, or why the phrase is an encyclopedic topic covered on Wikipedia. I stand by my closure. If you still want to contest it, I suggest the WP:MR route. SST  flyer  13:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Move review for Take Care
An editor has asked for a Move review of Take Care. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. -- Tavix ( talk ) 15:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Kosher tax RM

 * 

I'm not sure that's the correct closure. There are a few "keep current title" / "no support"s out there. I personally think the discussion wasn't ready for closure and we should perhaps widen participation by pinging participants of the earlier RM as proposed. (I was busy IRL for the last week or so and didn't catch up with the recent comments.) Deryck C. 11:40, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Vermonter
Hey SSTflyer, just a friendly note, I added a hat note to Vermont pointing to Vermonter (train) so that readers can continue to find it if they type in or click on the term "Vermonter".--Cúchullain t/ c 14:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, forgot about it after updating the links with AWB and redirecting the original title. SST  flyer  14:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for JetBlue Mint
— Chris Woodrich (talk) 03:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Kadavar-Bandfoto.jpg
Could you close for me? Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 10:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serena van der Woodsen (2nd nomination)
I'm reposting it with the time stamp because my previous post to your talk page was somehow deleted:
 * Hi, you did a non-admin closure of Articles for deletion/Serena van der Woodsen (2nd nomination), but as far as I could see no contributor to that discussion pointed out which sources verified the GNG notability of that character. /the AfD nominator. AadaamS (talk) 18:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is consensus in that discussion that the topic has received sufficient coverage to be notable. I am not sure how else this could be closed. SST  flyer  07:29, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, no contributor has pointed out which sources provide any coverage beyond WP:TRIVIALMENTION. They have written that there are many sources. The contributors are saying that the character is notable because it's a central character in a series, but the GNG doesn't care about this. The GNG care about sources which provide extensive analysis of the fictional character, not trivial mentions in plot summaries or interviews with the actor. The last two examples provide notability for the series and the actor respectively, but not the character. Which sources provide in depth analysis of the character or its widespread impact? AadaamS (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the consensus didn't agree with you. You can always go the DRV route if you want. SST  flyer  10:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

AN notification
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "The Curious Case of SST Flyer". Thank you. This is just a courtesy note on behalf of. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Digital Anthropology research
Hello SSTFlyer, My name is Stephanie Barker and I am a student at the University of Colorado Boulder. I am currently enrolled in a Digital Anthropology class, which attempts to answer how the digital world affects culture and how culture affects the digital world. For my final project I am doing an ethnography on women Wikipedia users and as a member of the WikiProject Women page I was hoping I could ask you some questions about your experiences editing Wikipedia pages. 1. Have you ever been locked into an intense editing war? If yes, please explain the situation to me. 2. How did you become interested in editing Wikipedia pages and did you have any initial fears/hesitations when you started editing pages? 3. Have you ever been a victim of a mass deletion or other vandalism on Wikipedia? If yes, please explain the situation to me. 4. How would you describe your gender? 5. Is there anything else you would like to share with me about your experiences as a Wikipedia editor? Thank you for taking the time to read this email. I would like you to know that I am only sharing my research with my professor and the other students in my class. If you would like me to send you a copy of my final project, I would be more than happy to! Sincerely, Stelba90 (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Email sent. SST  flyer  02:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Universal space (topology) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:Universal space (topology). Since you had some involvement with the Draft:Universal space (topology) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Emirates 512
Well, that sucks - I worked hard on that article but now will get no credit. Ah well. Leondz (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I attributed your contributions by noting that your content was merged from another article. Accidents happen (pun intended). Since both articles are created within the same minute, I decided to keep the article with the correct capitalization. SST  flyer  10:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, and the other editor who was copying my content into their article will get credit should the article appear in current news. This is exceedingly short shrift. Ah well. Nobody claimed WP wasn't broken. Leondz (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I do hope
that you are pretty much done with your sculpture thing because I have several hundred on my watch list and you are setting it on fire! Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I need to remove categories after closing a WP:CFD discussion as delete. Yes, I am done with the sculptures. SST  flyer  08:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Life is good. Carptrash (talk) 08:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Oklahoma Women's Hall of Fame
There's a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red regarding your closure of Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 30. Although there is a lot of WP:ILIKEIT in the discussion, the feeling is (and I agree), that your close wasn't an accurate summary of the consensus because the nominator's argument per WP:OCAWARD was addressed by both User:SusunW and User:BrownHairedGirl. That puts the policy-based !votes at 2 to 2, and more importantly, none of the delete voters adequately addressed the argument that inclusion in the OWHF does define many of the members of this category. That would put I'm also not sure that a non-admin closure as delete was appropriate considering the overall votes were 6 to 2 in favour of keeping, so this was bound to be controversial.

If you wouldn't mind responding on the WiR talk page, I think the discussion is best kept centralised there. Joe Roe (talk) 13:40, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MacGyver_the_Lizard
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MacGyver_the_Lizard. Lizzymartin (talk) 22:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not appreciate you accusing me of canvasing on the above AfD page. As per Wikipedia guidelines on attempting to get more input on AfD discussions that are getting no attention, I selected another discussion from the "list of Websites-related deletion discussions", "/r/thedonald", and used the appropriate "Please See" syntax to leave an auto-generated unbiased message on 6 users talk pages who had contributed to that discussion, 3 of whom voted keep, 3 of whom voted deleted. I went out of my way to be as unbiased as humanly possible. Please see my Special:Contributions/Lizzymartin page for evidence of it, and see appropriate methods listed in WP:Canvassing. I clearly followed the guidelines in trying to get more input on this discussion. Shame on you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lizzymartin (talk • contribs) 18:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to apologize for the harsh tone of my previous comment, it was inappropriate. For future reference though, it is good wiki etiquette to assume good faith on the part of other editors and not make accusations unless you invest the time in fully researching the claim before posting publicly about it.  Lizzymartin (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

CfD closes
As per the instructions at WP:CFDAI, "If you are a non-admin, you will not be able to use the /Working page as it is protected, so please do not close discussions that require any of the above 3 actions [referring to delete, merge, and rename] unless you are prepared to implement them manually, or an admin has agreed to help you." Referring to that last phrase, I'm happy to help, and feel free to message me on my talk page whenever you need something moved to WP:CFD/W. Include a link to the discussion and please ensure that any closing statements are particularly clear in these situations. Cheers. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

pageswap script for convenience
Hi SSTflyer, I noticed that you've performed round-robin page moves at some point. Thought I'd share a new script here (js) that semi-automates page swaps for convenience, if you ever encounter the scenario. You'd simply click "Swap" and enter a page destination, the script performs the 3 moves as necessary (saves time having to manually go through the move form 3 times). (It doesn't correct redirects afterwards, that's still manual)

Anyway, just an FYI, feel free to adapt this script as you see fit, cheers :) — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 02:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Stiki question
I will almost certainly support Vananmode93's RFA. It seems to me that bias is coming from at least some of the opponents, not the candidate as near as I have been able to tell. The vandalism versus good faith tagging does not bother me either. In fact, I think some of the opponents are using this as an excuse to oppose rather than a knowledgeable reason. I was surprised that STiki gives a user only the choices of vandalism and good faith edit. There are many edits that can be characterized differently, especially test edits which are in between. Huggle provides several reasons for reverting an edit and delivers messages which are more or less tailored to the reason given. I supplement these, or replace them, with even more specific messages and some helpful Wikipedia page links which are used in some of the welcome message templates. I keep a list of these on a sub-page of my user page. I hope I recognize the marginal cases.

Before I post an !vote and comment on the RfA page, I thought I would ask someone who knows how STiki works whether the program delivers any warning or even a neutral type of message when the good faith option is used. If you can answer this, I will appreciate it. Your post among the questions may suggest an answer but I thought it would be better if I could verify it. I would still support Vananmonde if no message is delivered to the user of a reverted good faith edit. However, it might help me to support my vote or at least not say something inaccurate if I can be certain about this fact. Vananmonde has explained his use of the tool quite well and your edit added to the information but some people do not seem to be listening, or going back to reconsider there vote. (I think I would probably use Huggle rather than STiki now that I realize STiki's limitations, but I must admit I have not been able to open the program. That also means I cannot check it directly to get an answer to my question.) Sorry for the length of this question but I thought I should explain why I am asking it. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 02:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the last time I used Stiki was half a year ago, but from what I remember, when selecting the good-faith option, Stiki displays a pop-up that allows selecting a message to be posted to the talk page of the reverted editor. The Stiki user may choose a message from the presets (which mostly comprises different explanations of why the edit was reverted), or choose not to send a message. SST  flyer  02:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It seems to be at least a little more flexible than I first thought. Still, I think the criticism of Vananmonde93 is not warranted. I also will check, more out of curiosity that to influence my opinion, whether he has left some messages when he chose that option. Donner60 (talk) 02:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

For the cup of tea you once treated me to
I got my first FL today Thought I'll inform you as you treated me to tea once (and that was appreciated) :) Lourdes  11:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Kelly George
I think you closed this prematurely. I literally added a source to the article one minute before you deleted, I'm sorry, merged which has the same effect as deleting the article as all of its content has now disappeared. This article is part of an overwhelming package of AfDs submitted by User:Johnpacklambert. I hope you don't know the minefield you just walked into. The disingenuousness of this bulk series of AfDs is being discussed here. Your giving him a successful deletion is rewarding his bad behavior. I just made that point a few hours ago, this is a developing situation. Admittedly, this particular article is weak on sources so far. For the majority of these bad AfD nominations I am finding a lot of sources he has apparently deliberately ignored in order to achieve a result. . . the result you just gave him. I urge you to reverse this and let some time go by. And certainly do not reward him with any further closures until we have some time to rescue the damage he is causing. Trackinfo (talk) 05:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

A discussion you may be interested in
I have just made a new nomination for renaming categories for those U.S cities where the article doesn't include the state name. Since you participated in a recent discussion about this, you may want to express your opinion at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:19, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

其他國家 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 其他國家. Since you had some involvement with the 其他國家 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 04:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Southern Airways Express logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Southern Airways Express logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Newlines before This is a redirect template
Hi, SSTflyer. I saw your creation of the Death of Kimbo Slice redirect put the This is a redirect template on the same line as the redirect. The documentation of the template calls this incorrect and says that it should be placed on its own line after a blank line. See the "Mbox note" at the documentation. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 07:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

DYK for ST3000DM001
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Bahía del Duque
I'm not sure Merge was the right outcome for this. Counting the nominator, there were three Deletes, one Redirect, and one Redirect or Merge. You closed this as Merge, even though that was suggested only once. The problem I see with Merge is that the target article is just a list with no prose or other information of any kind. User doncram brought up other procedural issues of a general nature. But applying them in this case (Merge) doesn't seem appropriate unless there is some concensus of a discussion at the target article that it be expanded to more than a list. I would think Redirect is better. MB 04:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Merge" can refer to adding a short one-item mention in the target article, which should be doable within its current structure. SST  flyer  06:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

AVN redirect
Hi, I don't believe a redirect is necessary as the no articles link to it. The article itself was deleted at Articles for deletion/AVN Award for All-Girl Performer of the Year. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The RMnac template
Re this, as best I can tell, there is no reason the Template:RMnac template shouldn't be used by a non-admin with WP:Page mover rights. That template is about whether someone is an admin or not, not whether someone is a page mover or not. In fact, that template has special parameters to be used only by those with page-mover rights (e.g. pmc ). The RMnac template has nothing to do with requesting admin assistance. —BarrelProof (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you undo your recent non-Admin AFD closure?
Him SSTflyer. Would you undo your recent non-Admin AFD discussion closure at Articles for deletion/Timeline of popular Internet services?

With all due respect, I don't believe your action took all the discernment expected by the community from an Admin. --damiens.rf 17:37, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Category:Recipients of Order of Smile
User:Piotrus has asked for a deletion review of Category:Recipients of Order of Smile. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Cryptic 02:32, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Timeline of popular Internet services
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Timeline of popular Internet services. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. damiens.rf 13:56, 22 September 2016 (UTC)