User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 69

Sensorium (band)
Hi. In 2016 you deleted Sensorium (band) per Articles for deletion/Sensorium (band). Could you tell me whether the current article at that title is about the same band as the deleted article? Lennart97 (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, same topic but the current version at least bothers with sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick reply! The sources are definitely better than nothing, but not quite up to standard, so I'll start a new AfD. Lennart97 (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Eurojust logo
Hi! I noticed that you edited the Eurojust page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurojust) not so long ago, that is you renamed the logo image file. May I kindly ask you to replace the outdated Eurojust logo currently on the Wikipedia page with the new Eurojust logo (adopted in 2019), as documented here: https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/media-and-events/media-kit. For example, a full color Eurojust logo is available here: https://www.eurojust.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Mediakit/Logos/Eurojust-Logo_FullColor-CMYK.png

Many thanks and keep up the good work! Kind regards, Tomaz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.34.242 (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Greetings, Tomaz. I am currently busy with something else, and Files for upload is probably a better place for this request. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Help needed
Hi. You just deleted User:SpikeToronto/Footer1 (an edit notice) under WP:U1, but for some reason he had also posted his CSD request on my user page. Now it's been deleted it's showing a red link on my user page and I can't remove it. Can you help? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)~`
 * Done? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thank you. I had full  protected it  myself 10  years ago, but  now I'm no longer an admin, I  couldn't  remove it myself although I'm still a template editor. Don't  know why  Spike put  the CSD notice on my  page. Probably  a bug  in  the system? Something  that  needs to  be checked out? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what happens if you put a CSD tag on a page that's transcluded elsewhere. The CSD tag gets transcluded on all pages that transclude the tagged page. It's not a bug but a sign that you need to "noinclude" deletion tags. BTW, I've removed the protection from your user page, I don't think it's necessary anymore [given the autoprotection of user pages]. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * will now work again. I moved to it. (See also the reply here.) Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank you for understanding. Thank you also  for all your help. —  Spike  Toronto  11:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Autoprotection of user pages? When was this announced, where? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Here you go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it didn't prevent . -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that account was autoconfirmed I believe. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
 * Huaynaputina
 * added a link pointing to Copacabana
 * Mount Berlin
 * added a link pointing to Vostok

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia
Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny Associate Professor Hanyang University If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-50
 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 are now default short aliases for the "Project:" namespace on most wikis. E.g. On Wikibooks wikis,  will go to the local language default for the  namespace. This change is intended to help the smaller communities have easy access to this feature. Additional local aliases can still be requested via the usual process.

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

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. 

22:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

CCI update
Sennecaster ( Chat ) 19:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-51
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Tech News
 * Because of the holidays the next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 10 January 2022.

Recent changes
 * Queries made by the DynamicPageList extension ( ) are now only allowed to run for 10 seconds and error if they take longer. This is in response to multiple outages where long-running queries caused an outage on all wikis.

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

Future changes
 * The developers of the Wikipedia iOS app are looking for testers who edit in multiple languages. You can read more and let them know if you are interested.
 * Octicons-tools.svg The Wikimedia Cloud VPS hosts technical projects for the Wikimedia movement. Developers need to claim projects they use. This is because old and unused projects are removed once a year. Unclaimed projects can be shut down from February.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. 

22:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas 2021
  "And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,  I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.  For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord." Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) is wishing you a  Merry Christmas. This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove. Spread the cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 19:26, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pali-Aike volcanic field, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2021 (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) 11:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ocean dynamical thermostat
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ocean dynamical thermostat 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 Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ocean dynamical thermostat
The article Ocean dynamical thermostat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ocean dynamical thermostat for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Boring Lava Field
Hi Jo-Jo, long time no chat! I'm thinking of finally taking BLF to FAC now that I have a bit more free time than usual. Do you think you could scan it and see if there's anything beyond what you suggested in the peer review to work on before nominating it? Hope all is well,  ceran  thor 04:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Greetings. I am a bit buried in off-Wikipedia projects, but I'll get to it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed
The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular, , and for closing the most difficult conversations and for  for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:
 * 1) Revision of standard question 1 to Special thanks to  for help with implementation.
 * 2) A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
 * 3) Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to and  for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:
 * 1) An option for people to run for temporary adminship ( proposal, discussion, & close )
 * 2) An optional election process ( proposal & discussion and close review & re-close )

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months. This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned. 01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Apacheta-Aguilucho volcanic complex
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Apacheta-Aguilucho volcanic complex 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 Neopeius -- Neopeius (talk) 17:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Resource requests
ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 02:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Merchandise giveaway nomination

 * Thanks for the offer, but I have to agree with Iridescent's comments on their talk page so I have removed myself from consideration. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ojos del Salado
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ojos del Salado 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 Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tupungatito
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Tupungatito 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 Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Nevadaplano
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Nevadaplano 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 Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Your close
It’s pretty much how I would’ve written it, with one exception. The WP:NOCON policy says: In discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify, or remove it. which I think would apply here. That said, the text in question has been present in the article for a year, but also I note it has never really been subject to a RfC or large-scale discussion, and judging by the mess with ‘Option D’ I guess the consideration was never made to the idea that it might be objected to as much as it was. I think your close probably has to explicitly address whether the text should remain and, if deviating from the policy guidance, the reason why. I never really did figure that part out in my own head, but I think it’s relevant to address. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ProcrastinatingReader, I don't see any serious consideration in the RfC submissions (or close) suggesting that this is a contentious matter in the sense of WP:BLP policy. The D arguments were essentially all based in UNDUE and "not notable for that", whereas "contentious material" consists generally on things that are under dispute and therefore shouldn't appear in BLP article space unless the high standards of proof for BLP articles are met.
 * It seems to me that multiple editors are using what amounts to a WP:CRYBLP argument to "win" the RfC by other means, against a long standing status quo, now that the close is "no consensus". (This is a great example, by the way, of an issue I expected a panel to consider and resolve.) Newimpartial (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Diffs like the one you linked are why I thought it had to be addressed in the close. I have no opinion on how it's addressed, just that the point needs to be addressed. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I will add by saying I don't think it's as simple as you suggest. It is contentious material; several editors had BLP concerns with the content, many editors responded with "BLP" references (ctrl-f), or implied such. UNDUE (and hence WP:NPOV) arguments on BLP pages are inherently WP:BLP arguments, per WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE. I think the consideration really needs to go to often results in the removal (emphasis mine), and deciding what's the most appropriate route based on that. Usually a good policy would address why it says "often" and the criteria/principles closers should consider to determine the application in a given case, but this one doesn't, which makes the closer's life even harder. Ultimately this decision, which is meant to be the uncontentious part, is what results in the content staying or leaving, and so becomes the point of contention. It does need some deep thought I think, and if anything is probably the most useful precedent to come out of this RfC. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that after becoming aware of ProcrastinatingReader's query, I self-reverted pending additional details from the closer. While here, I will also add that the notion of it being contentious was raised in the discussion (by an individual support retention), and separately I believe that undue weight by prominence of placement on a BLP can make the matter contentious. BilledMammal (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And all of these issues represent examples of why I thought a one-person close would be foolish unwise. Newimpartial (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Good lord what a bad close, "No consensus" is a cop-out. Please revert this, and let a panel of admins actually stick a landing. Zaathras (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a good close. There was genuinely no consensus on whether to keep the content, and the close breaks down why. One cannot force a consensus to appear when it just isn't there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Jo-Jo volunteered for a terribly hard close and wrote a well-measured and well-argued close of no consensus. Thank you for your work Jo-Jo and sorry for starting the fire you put out. Happy New Year! Santacruz  &#8258;  Please ping me!  16:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Sometimes overthinking is worse than not thinking at all. ProcrastinatingReader's points are good points and thus I've added a clarification that the section should stay - most of the concerns were about WP:NPOV and not WP:BLP or BLP-like issues, and there is no such presumption for removal in these cases. Remember, the BLP policy proscribes content not just any that causes disagreements. Plus there is an entire section in the article about the controversy, which many people who wanted its removal from the lead were OK with; I don't think it'd be reasonable to say "no consensus hence remove from lead per BLP but the section in the article can stay" nor "no consensus hence remove from the entire article even though the discussion was only about the lead". I don't think there are a lot of WP:CRYBLP behaviours here, however. On panel closes, while there is certainly worth in doing these for particularly contentious matters such as Articles for deletion/Mass killings under communist regimes (4th nomination), that AFD drew far more attention than this talk page discussion and there were also more people volunteering as closers. And opinions at WP:Close request were split on whether a panel close was needed or not. Besides, panel closes consume far more time and from more people; it took a few days to for us to assemble a closing statement for that AFD - and we had already agreed on what the outcome would be - and I am not sure I'd want to set a precedent that certain types of closes  need a panel.  And yes, "cop out" or not, if there isn't a consensus there isn't a consensus; we can't pull one out of thin air. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Great close. With nearly half of the (quite reasonably justified, in most cases) votes asking for total removal, and more than half supporting the (also fairly reasonable) status quo, this was the only reasonable decision, and the same conclusion that any non-biased panel would have arrived at. Just ignore all the naysayers, just like I plan to do with any replies to this comment here. 👍 Tewdar (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)


 * While a RfC is not simply a question of votes and I personally (biased as I am) think the 89 votes! in favour of inclusion had the stronger arguments, I do think, based on your closing statement and comments here,  that it was a reasonable close. It is not the outcome I wanted, but Many Thanks for taking up the hard task of Closing this sadly highly dichotomized RfC.  ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on an unenviable task, taking a significant amount of time, and doing the work to deconstruct it all and then construct a synthesis and a nuanced, well thought-out response, and doing a great job on it. Well done; break the diet, have some ice cream with whipped cream and chocolate sauce. Mathglot (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

User talk:Ealdgyth/Holocaust in occupied Poland arb com evidence
Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus and, re do you mind if I create sub section for the stuff that's specific to the Chelmno extermination camp to organize the page?  Volunteer Marek  22:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * That's Ealdgyth's page, so it's her prerogative on how to organize it. I have no opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ticsani
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ticsani 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 05:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ticsani
The article Ticsani 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:Ticsani for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ticsani
The article Ticsani you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ticsani for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Antarctica featured article review
I have nominated Antarctica for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)