User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 54

Tech News: 2020-03
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * You can no longer read Wikimedia wikis if your browser use very old TLS. This is because it is a security problem for everyone. It can lead to downgrade attacks. Since 9 December you just see a warning. Soon the browser will not connect to the wikis at all. Most are users on Android systems older than 4.4. You can read the browser recommendations.
 * Special:LinkSearch has been moved from the "" section on Special:SpecialPages to the "" section.

Changes later this week
 * Octicons-tools.svg Wikis can protect pages so that only some users can edit them. The standard protection levels are and . If your wiki use more protection levels the technical name might be renamed for standardisation. This doesn't affect what users see.
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 January. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 January. It will be on all wikis from 16 January (calendar).

Future changes
 * Deepcat and Catgraph will stop working. This will happen at the end of January. This is because you can now use the normal search function instead.
 * You can use  to merge footnotes that follow each other. It is meant to be used for digitised books on Wikisource. If the order of the footnotes is wrong no error was shown but the bad was shown outside the  tag if you need to continue running Python 2 scripts. The Pywikibot team strongly recommends to migrate to Python 3. You can get help to do so.
 * Octicons-tools.svg The weekly MediaWiki branch cut will soon become automated. The timing for this cut may change. You can discuss in Phabricator if this affects you.
 * Octicons-tools.svg You can read about coming technical events and mentoring interns.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  19:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Disagreement on the "Consensus" of the redirection/deletion of Worker's Party of Britain
I believe that the article reached an incorrect concensus on the status of the article in question. The keep and weak keep camp made an important point about the Brexit Party Deletion Process before it became apparent to be notable, that stuff happens quickly and to redirect the article to the leader's article wouldn't help at all. I believe there is a need for more press on the party, and it's important to have properly and accurate citations about Parties, however I believe the Deletion/Redirection of the article was clearly started up too early, and the decision to delete/redirect it after a consensus is reached was too early. A page of 9,000 Page Views and only having 5 individual opinions on whether to keep or delete/redirect, or commenting wouldn't make a proper consensus either way (I understand now that Wikipedia isn't a democracy, but 1 redirect/deletion opinion certainly cannot immediately make a "Consensus", no matter the good points they make, shouldn't people back it up as well? Just signals bias to redirect it quickly). --LinkDirectory5000 (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Problem is that under policy we do not factor in "potential" notability until it actually comes to pass, and "I believe it is important" is not a notability criterium either. Normally 5 people and over 7 days are considered enough to determine a consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about a page
Hii_Sir!! Cashish3210 (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings, If you are talking about Prabhat Maurya, that was deleted because of the discussion at Articles for deletion/Prabhat Maurya. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hiii_Sir, can ask a question? Cashish3210 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but check what I said above first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is quite relevant Prabhat Maurya (Nilesh Maurya). Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * As is Sockpuppet investigations/Robot index. I can't see who created Prabhat Maurya, but if it wasn't Cashish3210 then they need to be added to the SPI. Spike &#39;em (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It was Cashish3210, apparently. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll leave it as is then. Spike &#39;em (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Reason for Deletion of BikeFo
Hi this is Haider, I am IT manager for BikeFo (Bike Factory Outlet PTY Ltd). I added a page for it and it got deleted. Please let me know why it was deleted and how can I reinstate the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haiderpak77 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings. First off, the reason why it was deleted is because parts of it were spammy and these which weren't did not make a credible claim of significance. Second, if you are their IT manager you probably shouldn't be editing the page on the company per the admittedly long-winded explanations on WP:COI. Third, what is the relationship between you and ? We only do one account per person with only rate exceptions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Undelete request
hi there, you deleted Articles for deletion/Dilbar Hussain, as, at the time, he didn't meet the NCRIC otability rules. He's currently playing for the Melbourne Stars, so now meets the requirements. Can you please undelete. thanks. The-Pope (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings, . Seems like has already recreated it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Espenberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sinker ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Espenberg check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Espenberg?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:24, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

XNXX
Can you restore the full history and the history of the talk page. I remember the information there is applicable to a new article. Valoem talk contrib 06:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hrm. Perhaps asking for a second opinion at WP:REFUND makes sense? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-05
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems
 * Some mobile diffs have problems. A couple of buttons are not shown. Structured data diffs on Commons are confusing. The developers are working on fixing it.
 * Administrators on wikis that use Structured Discussions can't move discussion pages. This is a bug. The developers are working on fixing it.

Changes later this week
 * There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Future changes
 * There is JavaScript code on Special:Undelete for administrators that makes it possible to automatically select multiple checkboxes by holding the "Shift" key and clicking. This code is also loaded by accident on other special pages and on articles. This makes pages slower to load. This will be fixed. If you know of other special pages where this is useful please tell the developers at T232688.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  18:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Global watchlist - Update 5
 Updates associated with DannyS712's Global watchlist script:


 * Future development
 * I have requested a grant to fund conversion of this script into an extension, as well as further development. Please see m:Grants:Project/Create a global watchlist extension.
 * If anyone is interested in reviewing the code and making suggestions regarding coding style, techniques, or something else, please let me know. See T234507 for more.


 * Recent additions
 * I have added basic tests for the script, so bugs should be less likely to make their way to the deployed versions of the script (both the unstable development version, and the stable release version).
 * If there is an error with the script, the user will be notified and and the console will include a stack trace of the issue.


 * Translations
 * Many thanks to those that have contributed translations for the script's messages. Translation takes place at m:User:DannyS712/Global watchlist/Translate, and help is appreciated.
 * Newly translated messages are added to the script when I notice them; if you have translated messages that aren't showing up, please let me know at m:User talk:DannyS712.


 * Next release
 * Version 8.0 was just finalized for the development and stable branches of the script.

To subscribe or unsubscribe from future updates, see the distribution list.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 18:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Global watchlist user script: About •&#32; Updates •&#32; Code

Deletion review/Log/2020 January 22
Hi, thanks for closing the discussion about the Methodist churches in Leicester. You write that, because the arguments are difficult to assess, the headcount of 5 endorse to 7 overturn and 5 relist is determinative. That's why you closed the DRV as "overturn".

In my view, this closure was made in error. An outcome of 5 to 7 to 5 is in no way a rough consensus to overturn the closure. Absent such a consensus, the closure should have been maintained. "Relist" and "overturn" cannot be simply added together, because these opinions reflect very different views about whether e.g. the existing discussion should continue or the article should simply be kept.

Even if one were to conflate "relist" and "overturn", however, 5 to 12 would still not be quite enough of a majority for a consensus to undo the closure. And even if it were, it would at most be consensus to relist, rather than to overturn. That's because "overturn" is the most extreme pro-keep option under discussion, supported by fewer people than "relist".

Please reconsider your closure. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings, . To be honest, I found that debate difficult to close as the arguments - aside from being poorly formatted and full of unrelated discussion - didn't really point to a particular direction and thus the nosecount became the key decider. However, at least to my understanding both "relist" and "overturn" imply that the previous AFD close is thrown out; the important difference is between whether it is simply a no consensus case or whether a new AFD (or reopening the old one) is started immediately. In this case where headcount makes the difference, 5-12 is IMO a consensus for the 12 position which in this case is to throw out the old AFD and restore the article. I wasn't actually certain from that discussion whether "relist" or "overturn" were the correct outcome; the discussion was mostly clear that the old close couldn't stand. I don't think the distinction is particularly important but a change to "relist" is certainly possible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I disagree but somewhat understand your view; I often use a 2:1 majority as the threshold for rough numerical consensus and we are close to that here. I'm pinging other DRV closer admins somewhat at random, without checking whether they expressed a view in this case: I'd appreciate your view about whether the titular DRV was closed correctly or whether a review of the closure in another community forum should be sought.   Sandstein   16:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Repeating the pings One of the vagaries of the Echo system is that you can't simply fix a broken ping by editing the previous post; you need to write a wholly new one, on a new line. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I only looked at this briefly, but I don't see any major problems. I agree with  that 2:1 is about the right target for declaring consensus.   But, I disagree with the "can't add together" argument.  When I'm closing a discussion that has multiple possible outcomes, I generally try to first sort them into some kind of yes/no grouping that represents the most important decision.  Delete or don't delete?  Endorse or don't endorse?  In this case, I'd lump all the "relist" and "overturn" arguments into "don't endorse".  Once I get there, then I have to drill deeper, and generally try some middle ground if I can.  If I had closed this, I suspect I would have reopened the existing discussion and relisted it.  If it's a close call between overturn and relist, I generally prefer relist, since that gives it back to AfD, where these sorts of decisions are best made.  That being said, I don't think the actual close of "overturn and allow new AFD" is unreasonable.  -- RoySmith (talk) 17:15, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Disclaimer: I did take part in that discussion (endorsing the original AfD closure). I think the DRV closure is reasonable. The difference between overturning to no consensus and relisting is basically a choice between starting a new AfD and restarting the old one and I don't think there's much ground between those positions. Both boil down to "I'm not happy with that close". Two relist !voters explicitly said they'd be happy with overturning to no consensus, and several others said that they supported relisting because they didn't think there was a consensus. 5 to 12 is just over 70%, I think that's enough to indicate consensus for a discussion like this.  Hut 8.5  19:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * (I did not participate in this one, but I think I contemplated closing the AfD while it was at WP:AFDO, and ultimately shrugged and left it, ultimately leaving Sandstein with the short straw.). I generally think Jo-Jo Eumerus made the right call given the whole picture, yeah. 's initial closure was always going to be a little contentious given the overall messy nature of the AfD, with a wide variety of partially-overlapping participation of varying levels of helpfulness, as well as other related pages being AfDed separately. However, I do think the conclusion Sandstein reached was correct given the discussion as it stood, as most of the straight "keep" votes were very much pointing vaguely at a policy while disregarding other arguments. But the combination of the flawed nature of a lot of the arguments in the AfD led to some technically incorrect, but understandable attempts to re-argue it at the DRV, which ended up even messier. I think I'd have ultimately closed the DRV in the same way because it expressed a broad dissatisfaction with the outcome overall, even though there was plenty of support for the rationale of the closure. Sandstein's closure was fine, given the discussion, but the discussion itself was pretty bad. The best bet of actually solving the issue is via another AfD if someone can bring themselves to start it. ~ mazca  talk 00:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Seems like someone has opened a new AFD on the topic, so that aspect appears to be sorted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lunar Crater volcanic field
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lunar Crater volcanic field you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * List of volcanoes in Antarctica ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_volcanoes_in_Antarctica check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_volcanoes_in_Antarctica?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to CE
 * Mount Rittmann ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Mount_Rittmann check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Mount_Rittmann?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to CE

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Grotta del Gelo
Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-06
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 February. It will be on all wikis from 6 February (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  20:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Deleted Article request
I would like the contents of Articles for deletion/2019 Lilbourn, Missouri Earthquake in a draft space. Thank you. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like Draft:2019 Lilbourn, Missouri Earthquake is almost entirely identical to the deleted article. In fact, I suspect that the deleted article was derived from that draft. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Parvardigar prayer
Parvardigar Prayer by Meher Baba has nothing to do with scattered lines of Pete Townshend's O' Parvardigar (album). Pete Townshend was just a meher baba follower, who re-used meher baba's dictated prayer in his album. If you dont know the facts and have zero idea about Meher Baba biography, read published sources. Just because you are an administrator How can you recklessly, and ridiculously redirect Parvardigar Prayer to Pete Townshend's O' Parvardigar (album), they both are not related at all. Pinkymama (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I was actioning the results of this discussion where that stance was supported by other editors. And to be frank, a) from reading the articles I don't get the impression that that decision is wrong and b) you are being rather discourteous. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You and : need to include subject matter experts on Meher Baba topics to take a stand on whether to retain these articles;
 * Meher Spiritual Center
 * Meher Mount '
 * Avatar's Abode
 * Parvardigar Prayer etc etc etc

For example, just because you (for that matter any western editor) are not aware of the content related to prayers listed in Vedas and upanishads, which were not published by any publishing house, you cant just go on deleting all articles which administrators are not aware of which are actually authentic and published. In addition such writings have had a cult following by the worldwide meher baba community. So you cant be biased between articles or prayers related to meher baba with upanishad, and bible citing notability, and the fact that a small group of editors do not have access to authentic sources.Pinkymama (talk) 10:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, this isn't how we do such things. Sources that are not independent from the subject don't create notability, and neither does a cult following. It's also not a matter of having access to the sources, but that nobody has presented or mentioned any sources that would establish notability. That's what needs to happen, not making accusations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:12, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
 * How would people who never heard of meher baba present or mention any sources that would establish notability, other than followers of meher baba. On the other hand, Meher Spiritual Center in Myrtle beach, and Sufism Reoriented Sanctuary in Walnut creek are physical locations. Then why dont we re-store those articles for which sources independent of the subject are available. (so would you allow me to add those references specific for the both articles mentioned by me now, and establish notability?).Pinkymama (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * There are more requirements for notability than just being independent; see WP:SIGCOV again. It does not really matter who presents a source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * So Meher Spiritual Center, Meher Mount, and Avatar's Abode cannot be notable as decided by just 4 wikipedia editors, and one administrator. So this is how wikipedia works, then it cannot be called an encyclopedia. It can be called as a monopoly of administrators. Thank you Pinkymama (talk) 10:57, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Consensus at Jamal Simmons
I wouldn't have made a fuss otherwise, but at the AfD, you specifically said "all the sources presented so far have been contested". That does not appear to be the case, since nobody mentioned the three sources that I presented on January 31. This comment was a reply to someone who said another acceptable source would change his or her vote. Additionally, two of the five delete !voters also suggested draftification. Do you have a copy of the article to put in a draft somewhere? Connor Behan (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hrm. I think it was missed because it was in a heavily indented subbullet. I am loath to draftify stuff because of the reasons mentioned at User:Paul_012/Drafts are broken, but if you want userfication - i.e a move to User:Connor Behan/Jamal Simmons - that can be done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Cueros de Purulla
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lunar Crater volcanic field
The article Lunar Crater volcanic field 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:Lunar Crater volcanic field for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Capricorn Seamount
Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

?
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:FLTV/sandbox Modernponderer (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * User talk:FLTV/sandbox. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:29, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited NW Rota-1, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Talus and Slab ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/NW_Rota-1 check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/NW_Rota-1?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, as well as the other disambiguations that were linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Mount Rittmann
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Deletion review
Goodday Jo-Jo Eumerus, Alex Shih salted Big Boy Toyz back in 2007 but I've noticed he is no longer an admin. I believe inexperienced editors were affiliated with it. Please kindly unsalt it as I have a draft which you can review and compare to the old version Draft:Big Boy Toyz. Thanks Dileshwar Singh Patil (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings. upon checking the draft it seems like it might be a little promotional. Also, I do not generally review drafts; I think you should ask at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you:) - but my main inquiry is about the page creation protection assigned by User:Alex Shih (who is no longer an admin) before moving on to ask at WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk, since these page protection actions are done by admins and not AfC reviewers/participants. Dileshwar Singh Patil (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, I haven't done anything on this page at all and there are some admins such as active on the Help Desk. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about the salting of the article until the draft is accepted, it can be dealt with then. 331dot (talk)

But the draft article (Draft:Big Boy Toyz) can't be accepted by an AfC editor/page reviewer if the main article (Big Boy Toyz) is salted. Dileshwar Singh Patil (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If the reviewer decides the draft can be accepted(you have not yet submitted it, I will add the tag so you can do so), they can deal with getting it moved to article space. You are kind of putting the cart before the horse- worry about it getting accepted first. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Alright understood Thanks again:) Dileshwar Singh Patil (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Clarice Phelps
Thank you for your close of Deletion review/Log/2020 January 31. It didn't go the way I wanted, but your closing statement was well written and fairly summarizes all the various points of view. My fear was that this would languish unclosed, for lack of anybody brave enough to take it on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I entirely agree with RoySmith - thank you for your thoughtful close. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I came here to say the same: a very well considered and well written close. Fences  &amp;  Windows  17:19, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-07
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * There is a new version of the Wikimedia Commons app for Android. It should fix the failed uploads problem.

Problems
 * There was a problem with the new MediaWiki version last week. It deleted some messages by accident. The new version was late because it was stopped to fix things.

Changes later this week
 * Octicons-tools.svg The MediaWiki action API is used by various tools like bots and gadgets. Some error codes will change. Some parameter values that do not follow the standard will no longer work.
 * Octicons-sync.svg The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 February. It will be on all wikis from 13 February (calendar).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  19:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Reduce protection at Wikipedia talk:Reusing Wikipedia content
Hi. Would you consider removing or reducing to semi-protection the protection at Wikipedia talk:Reusing Wikipedia content? There is an unconfirmed editor who would like to initiate a discussion there, and there aren't any contingencies for this set up. See Category talk:Wikipedia disclaimers. Thanks. --Bsherr (talk) 18:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Greetings, . Back when it was unprotected that page attracted a fair amount of vandalism and junkposting. I've decided to give that user the confirmed user flag instead, which should do the trick. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thanks very much! --Bsherr (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Saed Soheili
Hi Jo-Jo, just noticed that you closed this afd as delete a few months back, but didn't delete the article - could you take care of it please?-- Jac 16888 Talk 16:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh? These look like different articles to me... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, I was clearly not functioning fully yesterday. Please ignore me, apologies-- Jac 16888 Talk 17:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Move Request of Draft:K. Surendran (politician)
Hi,, I request you to move this Draft page to main space…??

Today, He became the state president of the Bharatiya Janata Party Kerala
 * News1
 * News 2
 * News 2

Thanks Padavalam Kuttan Pilla   Talk  18:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. It was just deleted through AfD, and refunded to draft on request. It should not be restored to mainspace until the specific concerns raised by our well-versed editors who supported deletion are addressed. BD2412  T 20:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

AfD review
Guten Tag,

ich habe soeben festgestellt, dass Sie obigen Artikel gelöscht haben.

In der Nominierung wird angeführt, dass der betreffende Wissenschafter Gegenstand einer Verschwörungstheorie sei. Fünf anonyme Wikipedia-User erachten dies für eine spurloses Verschwindenlassen als ausreichend. Sie lassen dabei ausser Acht, dass die angeführte Shi Zhengli lediglich Koautorin ist.

Ich meine jedoch, dass Dr. Zhou als alleiniger Erstautor der Erstbescheibung von SARS-CoV-2, die in wissenschaftlichen Kreisen hundertfach zitiert wird und zu erheblicher akademischer Anerkennung führt, eine Erwähnung wert ist und bitte Sie auf Ihren Entscheid zurück zu kommen.

Vielen Dank

— 89.206.119.50 (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Guten Tag. Ich möchte zuerst darauf hinweisen, dass dies die Englischsprachige Wikipedia ist und man hier gewöhnlich auf Englisch kommunizieren sollte. Die Englischsprachige Wikipedia hat strenge Regeln über das Aufstellen von Lebensläufen, und gewöhnlich reicht es nicht hundertfach zitiert zu werden (tausendfach wäre eine andere Sache) um eine Biografie zu rechtfertigen. Ausserdem hat die Erfahrung gezeigt, dass sowohl Biografien mit Bezug auf Verschwörungstheorien als auch solche, die ihre Bekanntheit einem einzigen Ereignis verdanken, oft problematisch sind. Pinging to see if they have comments (English translation of the original statement, of my reply ) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)