User talk:Juliancolton/Archive 36

User:Juliancolton/List
Would it be possible to undelete this page and move it to a sub-page of Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe, say Articles for deletion/Claus Peter Poppe/List? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC).

Articles_for_deletion/Anavex_Life_Sciences
I think you erred in deleting the Anavex_Life_Sciences article. There was no consensus. There were 3 delete votes with the convoluted reasoning that it failed their WP:MEDRS -- lots of circular logic involved. See this quote: "This very specifically applies to the making of claims that something will treat a human disease, on the basis of in vitro studies". This shows to me that this editor didn't very carefully look at the article. There were 2a trials, not in vitro studies, and there were *no claims in the article* that "something will treat a human disease".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anavex_Life_Sciences

--Agamemnus (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Julian, your comment regarding deletion states "No persuasive arguments for keeping the article have been submitted." That is your judgement, not mine, and it is certainly not a consensus.

The recent grant to Anavex from the Michael J. Fox Foundation for Parkinson's Research is a recent major improvement to notability, but not even close to the first. While it is true that a simple web search for "Anavex" turns up mostly vexatious stock newsletter type pages, a more careful search easily turns up references in magazines and TV news. I counted 20 of them less than a year old.

If you are not willing to reverse your imposition of judgement in lieu of consensus, I intend to appeal through Deletion Review.

When people come to Wikipedia with the question "What is Anavex?" they should be able to get an answer, no matter how basic. JD Lambert(T 23:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Re: DRV, go for it. Consensus is not a head count, and as the closing admin it's my job to exercise my judgement and weigh arguments on their merits. Agamemnus's reasoning that "the company exists and its trials are confirmed by multiple sources to be real" is largely irrelevant in the context of the general notability guidelines, and as it stood at the time of my deletion, the article failed to establish independent notability. Your last statement is all sorts of false, by the way. We're under absolutely no obligation to answer every question somebody might ask. Respectfully, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "the article failed to establish independent notability" Sir, just what exactly is "independent notability"? --Agamemnus (talk) 05:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:DRV is a click away. You're obviously highly partial to the article and/or its subject, so perhaps we could benefit from some outside views. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So, to rephrase: if the lack of "independent notability" forms the basis of your deletion decision, it would help to know what you think independent notability is. What is independent notability? --Agamemnus (talk) 16:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My reading is that Julian is simply giving you shorthand for NOTABILITY, as does WP:Golden rule aka "The answer to life, the universe, and everything" in big letters: "Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic." Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not Juliancolton. I asked Juliancolton, not you! P.S.: big letters don't carry any more weight than small letters. P.P.S.: this page you just linked says very explicitly "This is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline." --Agamemnus (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTABILITY is policy; Golden rule is an essay that summarizes NOTABILITY simply/humorously. Jytdog (talk) 16:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, well, so this is basically the problem and a common thread with the deletion discussion: you keep writing all of this circular logic. An article that is not a policy or guideline is not a policy or guideline, and you shouldn't make it out as such, and then later try to equate it to what is actually a policy or guideline. It is not appreciated. --Agamemnus (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * you are displaying a really basic lack of competence in what policy says, and how policies, guidelines, and essays work together. Please do read WP:PAG, it might help you understand. See also WP:CIR. I'm done here.  As Julian has told you, if you want to formally ask for the close of the AfD to be reviewed, you can bring it up at WP:DRV. (that process is also described in WP:AFD Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * At the risk of being blunt, you have my blessing to bring this to DRV. I won't be reversing my deletion and I won't be bickering with you over syntax in my talk page posts. My best to all. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Nintendo Super System
I understand that you don't want to bother tagging the additional articles (which I don't think should have ever been brought into the AfD) but the consensus to merge appears very clear... If anything, it should close as merge and you can throw out the other articles, which no one bothered to discuss – czar   04:30, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Does it really matter? Merging is nominally outside the purview of AfD, and it's now the editors' jobs to finalize and carry out the merges. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * A merge close is a well established consensus-based conclusion for an AfD. You closed the discussion as "keep" despite there being no rationale to support keeping the subject of the AfD. I asked politely for you to close the discussion by its actual consensus. – czar   17:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Think of it as a procedural keep, since there was no "actual consensus"; when the nominator doesn't even agree about the articles that have been listed, and outright deletion is out of the question, there's nothing more that can be done at AfD. You said "no one bothered to discuss" the other pages, but Salvidrim! voted to merge several pages (including one not formally included), and was endorsed by Bahb the Illuminated. BU Rob13 then added two articles to the AfD. It seems to me that quite a few people had considered the other pages. You have several people agreeing that at least the original article is best merged with Nintendo arcade machines, so be bold and make it so. Like it or not, though, the other pages were officially included in the AfD for a full week, and it's not up to the closing admin to decide which articles should or should not have been listed. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , procedural issues aside, I think that the result of the discussion allows you to go ahead and merge at the very least the Nintendo Super System article via the normal editorial process of BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Mz7 (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The irony is that that's how the AfD started in the first place. This whole process has been a waste of everyone's time. – czar   23:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

GOCE August 2015 newsletter

 * sent by via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:43, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/September 2, 2015
Julian, you've got 1547 characters at the moment ... the max agt TFA (so far) is 1300. Can you trim a bit? - Dank (push to talk) 18:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, I'll take a look this evening. Thanks for the heads-up. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

1900 Galveston hurricane
Please review WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and do not remove information supported by a citation from a reliable source in order to "bring it into line" with a Wikipedia article. BMK (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, Beyond My Ken, I think you're the one who needs to review our policies on reliable sourcing. weather.com talking about its own program is not an independent source, and the article you cited never even suggests that Roker is a "meteorologist". A meteorologist is universally considered to be someone with a formal education in atmospheric sciences. I cannot understand what your objection could possibly be to "weather forecaster"—a much more neutral and accurate term. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:31, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Toradex
Hi Juliancolton, The article Toradex meets the basic notability criteria as per WP:HEYMANN along with sufficient references. The article has undergone extensive rewriting during the second AFD to meet the Wikipedia guidelines. The article sustained both 2nd AFD and DRV with Keep and Endorse. The article was also updated later with minor content changes which included new citations. But the article was re-nominated for deletion with a short notice of time from the previous AFD. Please review the article and its citation again, and kindly provide us the chance to enhance the article score further by adding more notable resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suniltx (talk • contribs) 12:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Suniltx. I'm just wondering what you mean by "us"? The previous debates have no bearing on consensus at the most recent, and four months is plenty of time to address any concerns with such a short page. WP:HEYMANN is absolutely not policy (not even close), so you'll need a more convincing argument than that I'm afraid. Best, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Juliancolton, "us" was just typo error. The article was finally made free from all nominations from May'2015 and In August'2015 the article was renominated for deletion. This link was recently added which was an independent source, I think this link will cover all the information which are added in the Toradex article. And also I have few offline news magazine cuttings which are published on 'The Electronics Times', how can I utilize those offline sources? Suniltx (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (3rd nomination)
I would prefer you overturn this to no consensus. Wikipedia not a vote but looking at the stats:


 * 12 votes in favor of keep.
 * 11 votes in favor of delete.
 * 3 in favor of delete.

The argument based rational is that sources show very clearly this topic is notable the only thing that cannot be agree is the name. In fact I was able to change the opinion two editors Chillum and LaMona. There was also canvassing in favor for delete based on this thread. Do you feel this is better closed as no consensus? I would prefer this be changed without going through DRV is this reasonable? Valoem  talk   contrib  03:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Valoem. No, I don't feel that "no consensus" was the better option, else I would have closed as such. I only deleted the article 19 minutes ago; I'd be a pretty shady admin if my opinion were to change that quickly. :) I saw no indication that canvassing influenced the discussion in any meaningful way, and I believe my closing rationale to be thorough and well-considered. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think an off-wiki camp pointing out the meddling of the opposing off-wiki camp's meddling kinda cancel each other out, But really, this really needs to bring a final end to this topic now, for the good of us all. No deletion review, no running to Jimbo's talk and for the love of god please do not userfy this if Valoem or anyone else requests.  Let it die. Tarc (talk) 03:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just had another thought: this was a procedural AfD to determine whether the article should be allowed to exist in the mainspace after being userfied. "No consensus" should therefore probably default to disallowing the article's re-creation, so result is effectively the same. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We're definitely in drop the stick territory now. I don't agree 100% with User:Juliancolton's close, but I respect that it was a very well-explained rationale, and probably the right call. I would have problems with salting, because the extensive discussion history shows a very mixed decision in every such debate. Right now it's impossible to build the page back without getting a speedyD in return. That's enough. For my part, I'm glad it's over and I don't plan to support any DRV or other procedure from Valoem, who has discredited himself in this last discussion at least to me. I want to disassociate myself from many of the comments that user made in the process. I do wish the RFC which was linked on the talk page had some permanent place to live, so the complete archive of discussions isn't only available to those who've passed RFA. BusterD (talk) 03:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Good idea... archived to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (3rd nomination)/RfC. Thanks for the suggestion. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Salting would prevent a bypassing of community consensus though, and as with all fringe beliefs, there is always a committed and fervent core "Out There"(tm) that will never accept that their favorite topic doesn't have an article. It would be a hard barrier against unilateral recreation and force the matter through DRV or similar if someone really does wish to make a good-faith try at this again down the road. PS - For the record, I am not equating Valoem with the aforementioned "fervent core"; IMO te creation of this article is grounded in a liberal application of project inclusion-ism, to which I have always been opposed.  Though I find the subject matter itself silly and wholly non-notable, my primary opposition here has always been grounded in longstanding opposition to the project being used to advance fringe points of view. Tarc (talk) 03:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Post-2009 Pacific hurricane seasons listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Post-2009 Pacific hurricane seasons. Since you had some involvement with the Post-2009 Pacific hurricane seasons redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk ) 18:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

List of Formula One safety cars
Hi, according to due process, "before listing a review request discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first". I ask that you take steps to undelete the page because there was no real consensus on the deletion and, in fact, alternatives were even being proposed. Discussions on those have been hampered by your untimely intervention. Moreover, your deletion was based on NOTPAPER without you giving any opportunity to address this new ground and I also note that the original deletion proponent introduced PROMO without any substantive basis and, again, without any opportunity to address that either. Please confirm your intentions without delay as a review will otherwise be swiftly sought, just as you swiftly moved to delete the article. Thanks CtrlXctrlV (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi CtrlXctrlV, please let me clear up a couple things. First, I won't allow myself to be threatened by someone with nearly 50 edits to the deletion discussion in question; you're obviously highly invested in the topic, and the WP:DRV protocol compels you to engage me in discussion before listing a new entry. Second, deletion discussions (including AfDs) remain open for comments for seven days. This one had been bumped to the "old" debates page, and required some sort of action to clear the backlog. Relisting is generally reserved for debates where participation has been low or where consensus is in the process of being swayed. There were plenty of thorough comments, but relatively few in the hours and days just prior to closure, so relisting was not appropriate in my view. In light of that, somebody had to close the debate one way or another, so nothing was done any more or less "swiftly" than is typical. Was anybody in the middle of making their case? Not that I can tell. Third, my deletion was most certainly not based on WP:NOTPAPER. I said "I sympathize with the WP:NOTPAPER sentiment", meaning that it struck my as a potentially persuasive arguments for keeping the page; I've been an inclusionist for as long as I've been editing Wikipedia, and believe that almanac-like content has as much place here as anything. As for not having time to address WP:PROMO concerns, The359 suggested on August 20 UTC (or about five days before my closure) that "The only coverage is from Mercedes themselves promoting their latest and greatest model." How long did you need? Several editors noted that the model of a car has no bearing on its role as the safety vehicle, especially when the cars were overwhelmingly provided by one manufacturer. Even the most innocuous lists need to meet the general notability guidelines, and here we have an absence of sources to show why the model of a safety car is important (and not just what the model was in a given year).  Additionally, your... erm, solicitation of comments from people who had previously sided with you on previous debates was highly inappropriate, and weakened your case to some degree. The moderator/administrator Roche has sided with me [...] But I am sure it won't be enough. If you have time or interest, would value your view too constitutes pretty blatant canvassing.  I see nothing to suggest that my gauging of consensus was wrong, but perhaps slightly ambitious. I hope we can arrive at an understanding without the need for deletion review, but if you're completely dissatisfied with my explanation here, I won't require you to respond before listing the debate for review. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Juliancolton I am sorry and perturbed that you feel threatened by what I said. Was it asking you to move swiftly? And what's the utility of repeating what I said - i.e. me acknowledging that I have to engage with you first? Whatever the case may be, I was not threatening anyone but was just keen to keep discussions going on potential alternatives. Without diverting further from the principal reason for approaching you, let me thank you for this prompt response.
 * I did not appreciate there were such strict time limits, especially as the discussion was allowed to continue, resulting in the deletion proponents having to resort to additional grounds. If you're an inclusionist, philosophically, I find that praiseworthy and most valuable to Wikipedia. Anyway, I'll take the "7-day period" as a new lesson learnt for me. Back on topic, however, the discussion was indeed swaying at least if attention was paid to the fact that people were putting forward alternatives and that the proponents of deletion failed to substantiate a violation of WP:OR, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, or WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. And I say this without pointing to the fact that deletion was clearly unwarranted for other similar lists such as List of Honda vehicles or List of Harley-Davidson motorcycles etc.
 * Thanks for correcting my interpretation of WP:NOTPAPER! I had intended to address WP:PROMO in due course, being unaware of the aforementioned timeframe. It is not a clear cut argument because those safety cars are not stock road cars (as occurs in, say, Indianapolis 500 pace cars or Indycar racing, where I note the 2015 pace car is a "mere" Honda Accord). In F1, they are purpose-built modified machines driven by a professional driver and assistant. Additional sources to exist to support this and I had intended to compile and present them, but for the deletion since. How can WP:PROMO be substantiated when there's F1 lists such as Formula One video games and List of Formula One broadcasters, which clearly have a greater promotional potential? (n.b. despite this, I am an inclusionist too and do support such listings, if anything to broaden people's knowledge of how wide F1 reaches and the sport not just being a few cars running on a circuit)
 * On this, I invite you to review my admission and apologies to those affected. If there was such strong canvassing, more of the people approached would have argued against deletion. This is another thing that I am taking as a learnt lesson and I resent seeing this brought up in light of the above.
 * Nobody is perfect and I don't believe in fighting over being right or wrong. I thank you for suggesting that perhaps your gauging was slightly ambitious. Please do not take my reference to a "deletion review" as a threat, I was merely relying on what the Wiki process requires, from my limited understanding. I am at a disadvantage in being interested at "arriving at an understanding" but not knowing what that could reasonably entail - ideally, your guidance on how to republish or include the deleted information would be one option, if "undeletion" is not possible. The inclusion would be in Safety car (noting a previous discussion against that) or republication by way of a revised article, which draws specific F1 content away from Safety car, in the same manner as what's been done and allowed for Indianapolis 500 pace cars (check out its listing!). I remain in your hands on how to progress this as, otherwise, the reason for seeking a deletion review would not be to say "you're wrong" but to hopefully involve other people more remote from the topic and interest in it (than, say, me or the deletion proponents) based on the original WPs or additional WPs only after a fair chance to address same is given. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, "Please confirm your intentions without delay as a review will otherwise be swiftly sought" sure sounded like a threat, but I'm very glad to hear it wasn't intended as such. I surely don't meant to belittle you for not being intimately familiar with all of our guidelines and policies. The canvassing issue, for instance, was not something borne of malice, but it happened, and it needed to be considered. To what degree it influenced the discussion, I'm not sure. What strikes me about your examples in Formula One video games and List of Formula One broadcasters is that a vast majority of the entries are blue-linked, meaning they're (probably) independently notable, and the lists serve only as an index of pre-established content. In that respect, WP:PROMO doesn't apply. The background info you mentioned, such as the cars being modified, is noteworthy, but it seems more relevant to the Safety car concept/article than to a list of specific models. An overarching article like Formula One pace cars seems like a good idea, and I'd be happy to provide you with a copy of the deleted list (possibly to a target like User:CtrlXctrlV/Sandbox) to allow its contents to be incorporated there. Just give me the word. Best, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The phrase you quoted was made in the context of not understanding why the page was deleted "so quickly", before learning of the 7-day deadline. All good now and I appreciate you correctly pointing out there was no malice on my part with the detected canvassing (I left traces unedited, as I had nothing to hide). Once bitten, twice shy with that one. Thanks also for taking the time to make the above distinction between the lists I mentioned. With Safety Car, unfortunately, as much as I agree that it could be a suitable place for an F1-based listing, there has been past opposition to that idea - the main ground (which I think has some merit) being that that article is not F1 specific and an F1 list would skew this formula's importance relative to the motorsports also covered there. Yes, please send the list to my Sandbox... if anything, because I have never used that facility! Where do I stand in terms of asking for a review? Would I have to address your reasons or re-agitate the reasons against? (I might have sought a similar review previously and successfully for Corsa Specialized Vehicles, but the circumstances differed somewhat because the deletion nominator had no knowledge of the Australian automotive industry and they assumed it was just a promotional article. Also, is there a time limit within which to seek a review? Thanks in advance CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * CtrlXctrlV, the page and its history now exist at User:CtrlXctrlV/Sandbox. The proper avenue for review depends on how extensively the content changes in the meantime, I suppose. I'll be happy to take a look when you're "done" and offer some more specific advice. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't...
....abuse the thank feature as you did here. The feature is not there for people to antagonise others. As an administrator, I'd expect better from you. Or perhaps not.  Cassianto Talk  20:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pardon? I found your response quite amusing and wanted to acknowledge its comedic value. Since we both hold the concept of AGF in such high regard, I'm wondering why you've taken offense. To prevent any future animosity, I'll be sure to never thank you for anything again. (Goodness, that sounds silly.) –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You and I both know why you performed it so please don't insult my intelligence. It's not an edit I would've expected a "thanks" for as it was a frosty exchange - through no fault of my own - and the "thank", therefore, came across as provocative. I suppose in a way you got your wish.   Cassianto Talk  21:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My wish being...? –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For me to come here, obviously.  Cassianto Talk  21:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't know that was my wish, but who am I to argue? :) –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:18, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is by far the most surreal argument I've ever witnessed. Tarc (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whose arguing? I'm just asking Juliancolton to stop being such an argumentative dick.   Cassianto Talk  21:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You've resorted to boilerplate probing of "support" votes—apparently so distraught by the overwhelming likelihood that Wbm1058 is going to be promoted to admin on short order—and I'm the argumentative dick? –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No I haven't; I just wanted people to elaborate on their votes, such as they did here. I didn't argue with their response once they'd given it.  Saying support only is simply not good enough.  These are powerful tools we are giving out and I want to see why people think the nominator should have them.  People who oppose are in for a rough deal, so why should those supporting without a rational not expect the same?   Cassianto Talk  21:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry Julian, you cannot keep everyone happy, not even you can manage that. I enjoyed this thread so much I wanted to thank the people involved... then I decided not to. Chillum 21:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It wouldn't surprise me if you did Chillum. We all know how bent you are as an admin.   Cassianto Talk  21:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If you don't see how complaining about a person thanking you for a comment they found quite amusing is quite amusing to myself then I guess it is a matter of perspective. When I make an argument I feel is elegant and someone with a contrary point of view thanks me I assumed I had a positive effect on them, I don't assume some sort of sinister motive. Chillum 21:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Avert your weary eyes to the top of this thread. The "thank" was on the back of a hostile exchange.  It's not a comment I'd have expected a thank for.   I'd have expected a "thank" from another party, if that was their wish, but not from the person who was involved in the argument. That, regardless of your bullshit AGF view, comes across as provocative.   Cassianto Talk  21:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So if I understand your position correctly, you are saying that the "thank" must have been made in bad faith because it was in response to a hostile comment? It find it deeply unsettling that you find AGF to be bullshit, it is not just policy it is a good idea. Chillum 21:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, please don't be a fool. I am saying that our discussion, that's Julian and I, were having a discussion which was frosty.  It was not the place to start mud slinging, so I left the exchange with a noise one makes with their mouth in negative appreciation. I do not expect that to be thanked; I expect "thanks" for creating content, fixing links, adding pictures, supportive comments that make sense in discussions, and things in general that help the project. Not for something like "bzzt".  Oh, and check out BusterD's excellent reasons for supporting the nominator.  That is how they should be worded and it would require no challenging by the likes of me and GregJackP.   Cassianto Talk  22:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So "negative appreciation" (posted publicly, on the front of an active RfA) is acceptable, but a mostly hidden (until now, I suppose) gesture of genuine appreciation makes me a frosty dick? That's very surprising to me. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The thank function is public, the exchange was frosty, and yes you were being a dick. I'm glad we're able to discuss these things without the fear of my words being twisted.  Cassianto Talk  22:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (ec) And how many people do you suspect would have seen it if you hadn't pointed it out on a page with nearly 400 watchers? My guess is not very many. I think I'm done arguing about the merits of my thanks; as Tarc noted, this has been an exceedingly unproductive discussion. I'll be more than glad to discuss my RfA vote, my views on the institution of adminship, or even any concerns you may have with my performance as an admin (I'm not sure how to interpret the "or perhaps not" bit at the top of this thread). I can only hope that you don't hold me in contempt for what I had intended as a sincere gesture. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My "or perhaps not" comment is because just recently, I am finding more administrators who should be abiding by the rules, but aren't. Over the months I have come to find some particularly bad admins, and in that, I include Chillum.  I don't know you Julian, have never come across you before, and so I won't judge you on this one incident. Looking at your FA's, you seem like an excellent writer and I enjoyed reading this tonight thanks to coming to your talk page. FWIW, Tarc also thanked me for challenging you on your talk page, but I don't know the reasons behind that, so I'll assume good faith.  Enough of this, archive away, and I hope next time we meet on more friendlier of grounds.   Cassianto Talk  22:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just like the last 5 times you mentioned you had a problem with me I welcome you to gather up all of the evidence of my misdeeds and seek public scrutiny. I will gladly answer any questions on my talk page if you want to do that again, this time please include evidence. Chillum 22:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not getting into that whole publishing responses to private emails bullshit again. You did, you got caught out, you locked horns with another admin over it and you learnt by it. End of    Cassianto Talk  22:40, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are you talking about it if you don't want to talk about it? I am happy that my actions were in line with policy that day, I don't believe you have any right to secret unblock requests. If you want to talk about me you can do so here, not here. Chillum 23:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Toradex
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Toradex. 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. Suniltx (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 September newsletter
The finals for the 2015 Wikicup has now begun! Congrats to the 8 contestants who have survived to the finals, and well done and thanks to everyone who took part in rounds 3 and 4.

In round 3, we had a three-way tie for qualification among the wildcard contestants, so we had 34 competitors. The leader was by far in Group B, who earned 1496 points. Although 913 of these points were bonus points, he submitted 15 articles in the DYK category. Second place overall was at 864 points, who although submitted just 2 FAs for 400 points, earned double that amount for those articles in bonus points. Everyone who moved forward to Round 4 earned at least 100 points.

The scores required to move onto the semifinals were impressive; the lowest scorer to move onto the finals was 407, making this year's Wikicup as competitive as it's always been. Our finalists, ordered by round 4 score, are:


 * , who is competing in his sixth consecutive Wikicup final, again finished the round in first place, with an impressive 1666 points in Pool B. Casliber writes about the natural sciences, including ornithology, botany and astronomy.  A large bulk of his points this round were bonus points.
 * , second place both in Pool B and overall, earned the bulk of his points with FPs, mostly depicting currency.
 * , first in Pool A, came in third. His specialty is natural science articles; in Round 4, he mostly submitted articles about insects and botany.  Five out of the six of the GAs he submitted were level-4 vital articles.
 * , second in Pool A, took fourth overall. He tends to focus on articles about cricket and military history, specifically the 1640s First English Civil War.
 * , from Pool A, was our highest-scoring wildcard. West Virginia tends to focus on articles about the history of (what for it!) the U.S. state of West Virginia.
 * , from Pool A, likes to work on articles about British geography and places. Most of his points this round were earned from two impressive accomplishments: a GT about Scheduled monuments in Somerset and a FT about English Heritage properties in Somerset.
 * , from Pool B, came in seventh overall. RO earned the majority of her points from GARs and PRs, many of which were earned in the final hours of the round.
 * , also from Pool B, who was competing with RO for the final two spots in the final hours, takes the race for most GARs and PRs—48.

The intense competition between RO and Calvin999 will continue into the finals. They're both eligible for the Newcomers Trophy, given for the first time in the Wikicup; whoever makes the most points will win it.

Good luck to the finalists; the judges are sure that the competition will be fierce!

, and  11:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2015 GA Cup - Round 3
Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Good articles by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list
Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and  MusikAnimal  talk  18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

About your join and part in IRC..
Hello there. Nothing serious, but wanted to make note that while you are idling in IRC, your nick joins/parts numerous number of times. It's getting real messy. You might wanna fix that. Cheers and Regards— ☮ JAaron95  Talk  09:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Signpost FC
Hi, Julian, I don't know if you are still like to work on the Signpost article on Featured Content but this week's edition has just been posted, if you would like to help with some descriptions or resizing photos: Wikipedia Signpost/2015-10-07/Featured content. Thanks for your help! Liz Read! Talk! 16:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Psstt
re: this. Looked in the mirror lately? :P — Ched : ?  04:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

RfA candidates and their AfD participation
Hi, JC. Quick follow-up. . . you're right, we were starting a philosophical tangent in the middle of TAP's RfA discussion. In short, I strongly believe that an RfA candidate's demonstrated understanding of the notability and deletion guidelines is a key criteria in evaluating a nominee's suitability to be an admin. A sound, mainstream understanding of these areas is fundamental to an admin's typical, every-day duties. Completely unsuitable topics of no importance may be speedily deleted, and so may other narrowly defined classes of unsuitable articles. That's a pretty powerful button to have, even if narrowly restricted in its use, and we ought to have some confidence in the candidate's understanding of the guidelines. Moreover, the guidelines are guidelines, not laws without exceptions. We may advocate for inclusion of encyclopedia content, even when the subject may not technically satisfy the notability guidelines. I see that as an IAR scenario, but advocates need to have a better argument than "oh, I think that's important." People often forget the key element of IAR: that ignoring the "rules" in a given case must improve the encyclopedia in a material way. Shouting IAR! is not the end of the analysis.

I regularly participate in AfDs in the subject areas in which I edit. Most AfD participants kinda-sorta get it, but the depth of their understanding of the guideline criteria (and their underlying purposes) is often shallow. I also readily recognize how a wannabe admin can easily rack up impressive percentage stats by simply voting "me too" in AfDs where the pending outcome is readily apparent. Over half of my edits are in Olympic and American college sports, and I could easily rack up another 250+ AfD votes per year by simply voting the same way as User:GiantSnowman in association football/soccer-related AfD discussions. I choose not to be a me-too AfD voter, however, and I am proud of the fact that my well-expressed opinions are often one of the primary reasons for the consensus outcome of well-argued (and sometimes hotly contested) AfDs. I expect good RfA candidates to be able to argue the merits, not pick the winning side. That said, there is also an obvious difference between evaluating consensus as a closing admin and advocating an outcome as an AfD discussion participant. Admins don't get to put their thumb on the scale, so to speak, when they are evaluating consensus and closing AfDs. I would hesitate to give that responsibility to anyone who votes in the mainstream any less than 80% of the time (maybe 70%, if they have shown a strong learning curve in their comments). Editors who are ideological deletionists or inclusionists make bad closers; if an admin feels strongly about an AfD outcome, it is better they participate in the AfD discussion, rather than trying to close it. I want admins who understand the guidelines, understand the admin's role in closings, and don't waste editors' time with bad decisions that set bad precedents or lead to contentious DRVs.

That's where I'm coming from. And I get your point about shallow analysis of RfA candidates solely on the basis of percentages. It's a function of "lies, damned lies and statistics," as the old saw goes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've seen over the last month or two, multiple !votes related to a person's "record" at XfD - WHEN did this become a criteria? (link please).  I'm not talking about an understanding of CSD policies - but a person's view of XfD.  XfD is SUCH a subjective thing, primarily because WP:N is so very subjective.  While this discussion could be entertaining in the hypothetical, it holds no water in judging a candidate.  There is a HUGE difference between the desire to "include/delete" and actually determining consensus.  Just IMO. — Ched :  ?  22:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering the context, I think it's only proper that User:GiantSnowman be aware of this discussion. — Ched : ?  22:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussion of a candidate's understanding of the notability and deletion guidelines have been a key part of RfA discussions for all of my six years on-wiki. The best proxy we have for evaluating a nominee's understanding of those guidelines are their !votes and keep/delete/merge rationales at AfD, as well as their work in PROD and speedy tagging.  Not sure why Snowman was pinged; my comment above was intended as a compliment to him, as he knows football/soccer notability better than any other regular AfD participant (IMO).  That said, GS is more than welcome to add his thoughts here; he's a pretty smart guy.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:07, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm content with my previous post, but thank you for the reply. — Ched : ?  23:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ched, I really have no idea what is behind your curt reply. Julian and I got off on a discussion tangent in the middle of the RfA about the superficial misuse of AfD statistics in RfAs (a point on which we apparently agree).  We both recognized that we were being tangential to the main RfA thread, and I came to Julian's talk page to have what I thought was an interesting conversation about our two perspectives on point.  I assume Julian would welcome your adding your thoughts (and it is his talk page, after all), but this is not an adversarial debate, but a friendly conversation.
 * That said, I agree there is always an element of subjectivity in AfD discussions, but there are also guidelines, standards and well understood precedents that apply in most subject areas. Discussion participants who do not thoroughly understand the guidelines, standards and precedents will often either vote "me too" or wind up in a confused minority.  Most AfDs are not that controversial and the consensus is clear after exploring the best available references.  I note, for the record, that your AfD discussion experience is a little on the light side, and that no doubt has an impact both on your understanding of the AfD process, as well as your perception of the subjectivity of the guidelines, and AfD's importance as a training ground for notability and suitability, as well as the various ways in which a wannabe hat-collector might try to manipulate their AfD stats.  Frankly, to an experienced AfD participant, shallow "me too" votes and rationales are usually pretty obvious, and that's in keeping with Julian's point from the RfA: citing AfD stats, without reviewing the underlying participation, comments and rationales of the candidate in the AfD discussions, is largely meaningless.  And on that point, I do believe we agree (but I will let Julian speak for himself).  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for offering your thoughts, and mostly I agree. Still, I've long been of the belief that Wikipedians are generally capable of leaving their editing philosophies at the door, to judge the community's consensus as fairly as can be expected. As I opined at TAP's RfA, it's entirely possible to have strongly ideological, even unorthodox, views on article deletion, and still be intimately familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines. It just seems to go against the spirit of the project to suggest that people who go against the mainstream 20% (!) of the time are unfit to read and enact consensus—especially considering how easy it is for a hat-collector to grab a few brainless votes for every potentially contentious one, ensuring a sufficient hit rate. RfA has always been pretty good about weeding out the radicals, but like Ched, I'm a little surprised by the increasing reliance on afdstats at RfA. And it goes both ways... I've seen a few support votes citing only a xx% accuracy rate at AfD. A blatant misreading or misapplication of policy would be concerning, as would be a poor CSD record, and as would especially be a history of improper non-admin closures, but again, XfD voting is a low-stakes enterprise. Many (most?) discussions remain open for several weeks, and there's minimal damage that can be done with a dissenting view; it's trivial for the closing admin to toss a nonsensical assessment. I guess this is all to say that we should remember to distinguish "contrarian" from "incompetent". I've closed a lot of AfDs (somewhere in the ballpark of 7,000, apparently... yikes), and I've found that my job is easier when somebody prompts other participants to expound their arguments and take a second look at the page in question; it makes me more certain that I'm making the right call, and not just pressing buttons on behalf of whoever happened to scroll through that week. For as seldom as I find myself in agreement with User:Andrew Davidson, I really do think he was right to suggest that "dissent should be encouraged." Not sure I've said anything new here, but seeing as it's a pretty minor issue so far, I'm not too concerned. :-) –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "It just seems to go against the spirit of the project to suggest that people who go against the mainstream 20% of the time." It certainly could be, depending on the AfD rationales of the particular candidate.  There is a difference between making obvious mistakes in understanding and applying the guidelines, and arguing for a more or less expansive view of them, or arguing special circumstances for a particular subject's encyclopedic content or suitability.  To understand that requires a review of the candidate's participation.  If someone is an "ideological" (your word) deletionist or inclusionist, I would also want to see some evidence that they're not going to put their thumb on the scale when they're closing AfDs based on the guidelines.  That's a admin super vote, and that's a big no-no in evaluating consensus.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, absolutely... evidence is needed either way. I would never suggest that a sketchy AfD voting record is inherently a good sign, just that it isn't necessarily a bad thing of RfA-sinking proportions (though I'm willing to consider the possibility that I'm being overly optimistic). I think we're in agreement that each person should be evaluated on an individual basis. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Involuntary celibacy
Can you please userfy this again for me plus talk page? Someone recreated this article Incels which only covers the non notable fringe concept. I would gladly nominate this for deletion myself, but would like established editors to compared the differences between this garbage and what I was trying to restore. Thanks! Valoem  talk   contrib  23:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd really rather not. Consensus was clear (to me, anyway, and my judgement hasn't been formally challenged) that the content of the Involuntary celibacy article doesn't belong on Wikipedia in any form, and I don't see how its restoration would contribute anything to the new deletion debate. I can't stop you from asking another admin, but please do point them here first. With respect, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:37, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I felt there was no clear consensus, instead I would be appalled if this current version was restored and not the version I've requested. I've asked DGG to userfy if for me, I've pinged him here per request and left a message on his talk page. Valoem   talk   contrib  03:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I appreciate that you have a lot of experience in researching this topic, but you don't own all coverage of it on Wikipedia. I do believe my closing statement at Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (3rd nomination) applies to this new article as well, but if Articles for deletion/Incels results in the article being kept, it's something we'll have to accept—and it won't change consensus at the other page. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How so, what was wrong with the sources I provided? The sources in this article are much weaker. You are an admin you can see the differences. Valoem   talk   contrib  03:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not my job to decide which article is better, and indeed any attempt on my part to do so would cast doubt on my impartiality. Objectively speaking, a fork of an already unencyclopedic (per AfD) page would certainly seem problematic, but it doesn't meet the criteria for speedy deletion, so it'll have to be assessed on its own merits. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Wings For Life World Run
Hello Julian! Could you explain me why Wings For Life World Run has been deleted and why it doesn't meet the notability's criteria?

Red Bull broadcasts the race through the internet and it has several notable performers like José Manuel Martínez, Michael Wardian, Giorgio Calcaterra, Simon Munyutu, Crisanto Grajales, Coolboy Ngamole, Lyne Bessette, Žana Jereb or Svetlana Șepelev-Tcaci.

Best regards, --Pablovp (talk) 10:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair's fair, surely?
Please do not mention me again in an arena where I'm not allowed to reply to you. Eric  Corbett  22:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure whether you wanted to be pinged, so I erred on the side of courtesy/transparency. No harm intended. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But harmed done nevertheless. Eric   Corbett  22:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I apologize. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's your idea of an apology then you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Eric   Corbett  23:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've done anything so terrible that it requires more than a brief apology and a (partial?) retraction of the offending text, though. You took part in a public forum, registered your opposition, and left links back to your user and talk pages; I referenced you as an example of a prominent editor in the oppose section of the relevant RfA who sees fit to keep track of their recognized content. I didn't produce any private information or say anything untoward about you. I tried to be transparent and let you know, via the notifications system, that I'd used your name, and then removed your linked name at the first sign of offense to avoid confrontation. I'm trying to be as yielding as possible, but no policy prevents me from discussing another Wikipedian's active userpage, so I don't believe my now-indirect reference to you is problematic. It seems exceptionally silly for an editor to be allowed to vote in an RfA but not discuss the nomination, and I'd be happy to say as much to endorse any future appeal of that sanction, but there's not much I can do about it today. To the best of my memory, I've only ever admired and defended your contributions here, so I hope you can accept my apology as sincere. If there's something I can do to help demonstrate my good faith, just let me know. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please could you explain to me why you used Eric as your example? Your amendment still also clearly refers to Eric and his user page yet he did not mention anything about the "collecting of trophies" in his oppose; in fact, his detailing of GA/FAs is no different from your own or even the candidate's two nominators (one bureaucrat and the other an arbitrator). It is clearly indicated at the top of the RfA talk page, a discussion page you have commented on indicating you must have been aware of the situation that Eric is unable to comment, so to specifically mention/allude to him is, in my opinion, appallingly unfair, wholly unnecessary and pointy. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 08:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sagaciousphil: I used Eric's name because he was the most prolific editor in the "oppose" camp, and—more importantly—the last person anybody would ever accuse of being a hat-collector. My reference to him was, and continues to be, necessary to the strength of my argument at the RfA in question. Some of the others in opposition have said that listing your DYKs, GAs, etc., makes you a hat-collector and attention-seeker; isn't that more disruptive and unfair than someone trying to dismiss that very suggestion? –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * People have the right to oppose an RfA for whatever grounds they choose; you, however, do not have the right to drag Eric into it in an attempt to bolster your objections to their opposition, especially in the full knowledge he is unable to offer any comment. I respectfully request you apologise properly and re-word your comment; if you are unable to do so without alluding to Eric perhaps it is indicative that something is amiss with the strength of your argument? Your comment could easily be changed to read your own and the two very well respected nominator's user pages. I really do not understand why everyone feels the need to bring Eric into almost any and every dispute. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 14:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The only reason I didn't reference my own page or those of the nominators' was because we supported the RfA—though I've since withdrawn my support. We were obviously going to be less likely to take issue with the candidate we've recommended for promotion. That would make for a pitifully weak argument. (Typed before edit conflict) RfA is a discussion, not a vote, I have the right to question anybody's assertions, as well as the right to cite and discuss in good faith any active article, userpage, or contributor. There's absolutely no policy against making a factual and universally verifiable statement. I had no idea that Eric was outright prohibited from responding to comments until after his message here (I took "I will simply say..." to mean that he merely had no interest in responding, which would have been understandable), but I don't believe it changes anything. I've already apologized to Eric and offered to make it up to him, but I really must disagree on the implied severity of my transgression, and I know that you and he don't genuinely believe any good can come out of a sniveling and saccharine apology. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out above, it is stated quite clearly on the RfA talk page that Eric cannot comment only vote; as you have commented on that page, in my opinion, the likelihood you were unaware is negligible. Obviously there is little point in expecting this discussion to go any further as you appear to be assuming an intractable stance. Certainly not what I would expect from an Administrator and it is clearly causing hurt, disruption and bad feeling ... And, by the way, I am fully aware that RfA is a discussion not a vote so do not require/need your condescending lecturing. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 14:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, actually, I never viewed the talk page. My comments there were made on the main RfA page and then apparently copied over. Don't accuse me of lying. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are twisting my words, I did not make that accusation; I wrote: "in my opinion, the likelihood you were unaware is negligible". SagaciousPhil  - Chat 15:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh come on. It's blatantly obvious you're out for blood here and purposefully stoking the flames. Don't try and play this "don't twist my words" game. It's immature and unwarranted. You were spot on with your statement of "obviously there is little point in expecting this discussion to go any further...", but you had the wrong cause. It's your own apparent vendetta toward Julian (for reasons I do not know nor can fathom) that will prevent this discussion from ending when it should have done so when the apology was made. Julian has already apologized for his actions, drop it already. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 15:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt I am the immature one. For the record, no proper apology was ever issued and I can see one is not going to be forthcoming. I will not comment any further here. SagaciousPhil  - Chat 15:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * &larr; Sagaciousphil: if Eric requests a formal apology, I'll offer one. On his talk page, if he likes. I just hope that, regardless of whether he checks back, it's understood by all that I had no ill intentions, and continue to have no desire to plant the seed of animosity. I wish that you would A a little GF, seeing as I made the effort to alert Eric to his being mentioned in the interest of transparency, and have promptly responded to all concerns issued in this thread. In the future, I think it may be useful for Eric or a clerk to note that he's forbidden to participate in an RfA after voting, to avoid this kind of trouble. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:55, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

You could use my user page as an example, listing work on articles, reviewing, etc. I have been called many things including monster, but never hat-collector. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You like to dwell a lot on things don't you Gerda. You do realise how it comes across to people bringing up "monster" and "Frank Sinatra" at every opportunity don't you? Just as well that I don't follow you about like you follow me otherwise you'd drive me insane! Have you ever been called dotty too?♦ Dr. Blofeld  18:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have been compared to a princess,, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I'm glad you still remember the positive things I've said! :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Surgery didn't change memory, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh Gerda, you haven't have you? ♦ Dr. Blofeld  09:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Six weeks ago, find a lot on Wikipedia quite amusing, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry to hear that. I'm not sure though why at such a time you still worry about infoboxes! I'd have thought that and wiki would be the last thing on your mind.♦ Dr. Blofeld  11:20, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Mine as well (though I think I was called a hat collector once or twice in my RfA). I see nothing inherently negative in the statement in question nor a reason to be offended. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 14:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Women's history
Hi Julian, I was interested to see your response to my comment on women's history on the main page discussion board go up ..... and then come down again 20 minutes later. Feel free to continue the discussion if you like. It would be interesting to hear an administrator's perspective on why women are so under-represented in Wikipedia and on the showcase of the main page. Cheers, MurielMary (talk) 01:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)MurielMary

A question
Sir, can I use the WP:Twinkle tool without having rollback rights?--IllusIon (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure can. I know some other tools require the rollback right, but Twinkle isn't one of them. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. Can I use all its options? E.g. reverting vandalism as I did here or here (2 edits at the same time)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IllusIon (talk • contribs) 19:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, now you've lost me. You should certainly be able to do anything you've already done. As far as I'm aware you have access to the full array of Twinkle's functions. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Tropical Storm Ana (2015)
The article Tropical Storm Ana (2015) 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:Tropical Storm Ana (2015) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cyclonebiskit -- Cyclonebiskit (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hurricane Fay (2014), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tropical Storm Fay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015: The results
WikiCup 2015 is now in the books! Congrats to our finalists and winners, and to everyone who took part in this year's competition.

This year's results were an exact replica of last year's competition. For the second year in a row, the 2015 WikiCup champion is. All of his points were earned for an impressive 253 featured pictures and their associated bonus points (5060 and 1695, respectively). His entries constituted scans of currency from all over the world and scans of medallions awarded to participants of the U.S. Space program. came in second place; she earned by far the most bonus points (4082), for 4 featured articles, 15 good articles, and 147 DYKs, mostly about in her field of expertise, natural science. , a finalist every year since 2010, came in third, with 2379 points.

Our newcomer award, presented to the best-performing new competitor in the WikiCup, goes to. Everyone should be very proud of the work they accomplished. We will announce our other award winners soon.

A full list of our award winners are:


 * wins the prize for first place and the FP prize for 330 featured pictures in the final round.
 * wins the prize for second place and the DYK prize for 160 did you knows in the final round (310 in all rounds).
 * wins the prize for third place and the FA prize for 26 featured articles in all rounds.
 * wins the prize for fourth place
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize.
 * wins a final 8 prize and the FL prize for 11 featured lists.
 * wins the most prizes: a final 8 prize, the GA prize for 41 good articles, and the topic prize for a 13-article good topic and an 8-article featured topic, both in round 3.
 * wins the news prize for the most news articles in round 3.

We warmly invite all of you to sign up for next year's competition. Discussions and polls concerning potential rules changes are also open, and all are welcome to participate. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2016 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

, and  18:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Deletion sorting user box
Hello: Just a note that I have created a new user box for WikiProject Deletion sorting members, located at WikiProject Deletion sorting user box. Feel free to include it on your user pages if you'd like. Cheers, North America1000 10:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hurricane Emily (1987), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Royal Gazette (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Dilemma of Determinism
The AfD is a disaster because a sock farm tried to create an article which had already been deleted. If you check it the editors for restoring the original deletion were all experienced editors on philosophy articles. Only one editor with any other experience supported it. There are very view editors active on philosophy articles and I suspect they all expected the sock strategy to be self-evident to any closing admin. I appreciate there is a huge backlog and it may not have been evident on a quick read. However most of the editors who are active on philosophy articles are exhausted by the multiple disruptive edits on free will issues - the permanent banning of Brews O'Hare reduced that issue a bit but then we got the Polish sock farm.

If you check of those for retention only VictoriaGrayson had any other track record of editing. Excluding the deleted socks the only other votes for were Piotrniz previous blocked for creating socks on this issue and Owlcool for whom the vote here was his/her only ever edit. I've nominated it for speedy delete as it was recreated by a sock puppet, but it would be nice if you could take another look. I realise the life of an admin trying to clear a backlog makes if difficult to get into the detail. But please also appreciate that this is a subject area with very few qualified and active editors, but a huge amount of patrolling to do  Snowded  TALK 04:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Snowded, thanks for the information. I don't believe that deleting the article is procedurally correct, but that solution would indeed seem to be the most sensible. Deleted. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, really appreciate that Snowded  TALK 05:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Darn... now I can't complain about my admin work being "thankless" anymore. :( –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Compas
, I've noticed that you have deleted the talk page for this existing article. May I ask why? Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * looks like he accidentally deleted it while handling an AfD with a similarly named page (Compa). I've restored the talk page accordingly. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah I thought so. Terrific, thank you. Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No clue how that happened. Thanks to CB for cleaning up my mess, and sorry for any inconvenience. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

AfD backlogs
Hi Juliancolton,

I'd like to thank you for closing a bunch of backlogged AfDs today. Your effort in closing the debates is commendable. With kind regards, Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind note Wikicology. I'm just glad to be able to help! –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Folklore Museum of Velventos
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Folklore Museum of Velventos. 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. -PanchoS (talk) 02:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Critical Role
Why was Articles for deletion/Critical Role closed as delete? —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 02:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Consensus favored deletion; most of the arguments for keeping the article were not based in policy or did not provide proof of notability. Two editors each voted "keep" twice, so the community was not as evenly split as it might appear at first glance. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:28, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the discussion was a mess, but I do think that at least some of the article's content might have been salvageable for a merge, though I'm not sure to where. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 03:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to restore the deleted content into your userspace to allow for you to work out a merge, if you'd like. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally I doubt I'd have time for that work now, but that is an option I'd consider once I'm less busy. —&#8288;烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 03:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have retained the content in my Sandbox and intend to continue development, resubmitting when I feel the page will pass the WP:Notabiliy requirement. I am a new editor, and not the original submitter. As such, I want to be certain the article meets the expected standards before resubmitting. Would you be willing to review the content prior to moving the article back into production?—Gamma Liz &#124; Talk 01:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Beyond Unbroken
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Beyond Unbroken. 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.  Teddy2Gloves (talk) (contribs)  03:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Erkin Osmanli
User:Juliancolton Why did you delete this page? There were all needed sources, as internal (wiki articles), as well as external.
 * See this discussion, where several editors agreed that the subject failed our notability and verifiability requirements. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of 'Compa' artist page
Hi Julian, just wondering why you deleted Compa's artist page? I believe it was a question of notability. After speaking to a representative just now via the Wikipedia Chat feature, I was directed to the 'Undelete' page where I have requested the page be restored. Compa has had features, interviews and reviews in many notable and well-respected international publications such as Mixmag, Wire Magazine, DJ Mag, FACT Magazine, GQ Magazine, Resident Advisor etc. on top of touring worldwide over the last few years taking in Asia, Europe and North and South America and is a credible music producer. I'd like to request the artist page be restored please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dottedclover (talk • contribs) 22:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's been taken care of for the time being. Best of luck. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleted Page Sandbox Request: Jack Korpela
Hi Julian. Can you please restore the deleted content into my userspace so I can get the page updated, cited, and released back into the wild? Thank you so much for your help!

DATCAM (talk) 01:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Userfied to User:DATCAM/Jack Korpela. I'll be happy to take a look when you're done to make sure the new version meets notability and verification requirements. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Folklore Museum of Velventos
You made a bad judgement with that one.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You'll note that the relevant DRV was closed as "endorse" on the basis that "the close was fine". –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Re: 2016 AHS
I have no idea if you seen my reply in my talk page, but I just copied it here so you can see it.

Thank you and sorry that I forgot about the "Wiki is not a crystal ball" thing, I completely forgot about it. Someone should've told me this one to two years ago when I made the 2014 and 2015 seasons really early as Nov 2013 and 2014. However, according to some users, the 2016 PTS article should be created just days before the start of 2016 because that basin never ends FYI. Typhoon2013 (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Women and Minorities in Law Enforcement
Hi there -- on November 14, you closed the AfD discussion for Articles for deletion/Women and Minorities in Law Enforcement. In your closing remarks, you indicated that consensus favored deletion. However, the article Women and Minorities in Law Enforcement has not yet been deleted. Can you please delete the page pursuant to the deletion discussion? Thanks, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Notecardforfree, it looks like someone re-created the article today. Deleted again. Thanks for the heads-up. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And thank you for the prompt response! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

GA mentorship
Hi, I'd like to start reviewing articles for GA status. I have a few dumb questions and need some overall help. Can you be my mentor? Then I can be a mentee, but I prefer to be called a mento. Thanks! —Мандичка YO 😜 18:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for Involuntary celibacy
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Involuntary celibacy. 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. Valoem  talk   contrib  17:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 is just around the corner...
Hello everyone, and we would like to wish you all a happy holiday season. As you will probably already know, the 2016 WikiCup begins in the new year; there is still time to sign up. There are some changes we'd like to announce before the competition begins.

After two years of serving as WikiCup judge, User:Miyagawa has stepped down as judge. He deserves great thanks and recognition for his dedication and hard work, and for providing necessary transition for a new group of judges in last year's Cup. Joining Christine (User:Figureskatingfan) and Jason (User:Sturmvogel 66) is Andrew (User:Godot13), a very successful WikiCup competitor and expert in Featured Pictures; he won the two previous competitions. This is a strong judging team, and we anticipate lots of enjoyment and good work coming from our 2016 competitors.

We would also like to announce one change in how this year's WikiCup will be run. In the spirit of sportsmanship, Godot13 and Cwmhiraeth have chosen to limit their participation. See here for the announcement and a complete explanation of why. They and the judges feel that it will make for a more exciting, enjoyable, and productive competition.

The discussions/polls concerning the next competition's rules will be closed soon, and rules changes will be made clear on WikiCup/Scoring and talk pages. The judges are committed to not repeating the confusion that occurred last year and to ensuring that the new rules are both fair and in the best interests of the competition, which is, first and foremost, about improving Wikipedia.

If you have any questions or concerns, the judges can be reached on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, on their talk pages, or by email. We hope you will all join us in trying to make the 2015 WikiCup the most productive and enjoyable yet. You are receiving this message because you are listed on WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Figureskatingfan (talk), and Godot13 (talk).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you all the best . ..
Merry Christmas, Julian, and may your holidays be [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvfhoWIPoVw merry and bright. . . .] Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 01:38, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

A.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k.l.m.n.o.p.q.r.s.t.u.v.w.x.y.z. listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect A.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k.l.m.n.o.p.q.r.s.t.u.v.w.x.y.z.. Since you had some involvement with the A.b.c.d.e.f.g.h.i.j.k.l.m.n.o.p.q.r.s.t.u.v.w.x.y.z. redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --BDD (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback


Savvyjack23 (talk) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Double checking what you said for the 2016 seasons
Just to double check what you said for our talk about this problem last month. You said to create the 2016 seasons if there is already some information, like seasonal forecasts or first storm, right? So therefore, the 2016 Atlantic season article is created. I have know idea why the 2016 PHS article is created, however we have a timeline showing 09C which dissipated few days ago this year. And what Jason Rees said is that to include the storm in the timeline if spanned 2 calendars. The 2016 PTS article should definitely be created as me and some users agreed with this because the WPac basin is a 'never-ending' season. The 2016 Nio season, I have no idea about that, but me and LightandDark2000 have agreed to create the article because the season officially starts on January. Typhoon2013 (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016: Game On!
We are about to enter the second week of the 2016 WikiCup. The most recent player to sign up brings the current total to 101 contestants. Signups close on 5 February. If you’re interested, you can join this year's WikiCup here.

We are aware that in some areas the scoring bot’s numbers are a little bit off (i.e., overly generous) and are working to have that corrected as soon as possible.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/January 23, 2016
Hi Julian, you're the nom on this one. I'll get to this one tonight, feel free to edit it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. That's an old-ish one, probably needs some touching up before it hits the main page. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:01, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited December 1969 nor'easter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TFAP listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect TFAP. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:TFAP redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. sst ✈  17:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you an admin?
If so, you should be firmiliar with WP:SEEALSO. If not, please read it, thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're being a bit rude here for a policy that's based on editor discretion, . From WP:SEEALSO: Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. There are no concrete rules on this site, every policy is a guideline and WP:IAR can be applied as needed. I think after about a decade of writing on the site, Juliancolton is more than aware of what he's doing with his edits. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:22, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not being rude. I gave a reason for my edit in the summary and then he reverted and said I gave no reason? He clearly doesn't know what he is doing in this case. If you want to go against a general rule MOS guideline, I have zero problem with that. Just use the talkpage, give a reason why, gain consensus for that and move on. --Malerooster (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Ok, If I came across a bit rude, I apologize. --Malerooster (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You post such utterly unintelligible edit summaries as "per see also, probably best not could, could grow wildly, have list above" and I'm the one who clearly doesn't know what he's doing? –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That edit summary sucked, I'll give you that, I could have been clearer. --Malerooster (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I am certainly not going to edit war on Hurricane Alex with Cyclonebiskit who has obvious ownership issues and is an admin. --Malerooster (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh no, please do go on how my single edit regarding the see also section constitutes as WP:OWN. Two other editors added in Vince before me, and I agreed with its addition in the section so I restored it within the bounds of WP:SEEALSO (see how vague simply stating a policy name can be?). Being an admin has nothing to do with this at all, we're not a higher rank than anyone else, we just have access to extra tools. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 05:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fine, I'll strike that. --Malerooster (talk) 05:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited December 1969 nor'easter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glaze (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

TFA
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomination
Hey,

I saw that you would be willing to nominate users to become an administrator. I'm fairly new to wikipedia, but have really been enjoying working on counter-vandalism. If you could nominate me, I'd really appreciate it.

Schuddeboomw (talk) 16:18, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2015 March newsletter


That's it, the first round is done, sign-ups are closed and we're into round 2. Forty-seven competitors move into this round (a bit shy of the expected 64), and we are roughly broken into eight groups of six. The top two of each group will go through to round 3, and then the top scoring 16 "wildcards" across all groups.

Twenty-two Good Articles were submitted, including three by, and two each by , , , and. Twenty-one Featured Pictures were claimed, including 17 by (the Round 1 high scorer). Thirty-one contestants saw their DYKs appear on the main page, with a commanding lead (28) by. Twenty-nine participants conducted GA reviews with completing nine.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. ,, and --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 1
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 March newsletter (update)
Along with getting the year wrong in the newsletter that went out earlier this week, we did not mention (as the bot did not report) that claimed the first Featured Article Persoonia terminalis of the 2016 Wikicup. ,, and .--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Wales/Awaken the Dragon
Hi, I was wondering if you could help produce a few articles towards this in April? The idea is that people can use the Amazon vouchers to buy books for their future projects. I'm sure the getting articles to GA is compatible with the WikiCup too!♦ Dr. Blofeld  16:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Re: How do you... (re: HurricaneGonzalo)
HurricaneGonzalo has engaged in highly unprofessional behavior previously as well. A quick glance at his/her editing history (notably here and here, before I cleaned those pages up) will be quite unflattering. A sense of the volume of spurious, unsubstantiated information that this user provided can be gleaned from his/her corrections. I gave him/her the benefit of the doubt, but this person clearly has not learned the finer points of etiquette, much less the requisite research skills for an encyclopedia. I recommend that s/he be blocked from editing articles on Wikipedia, especially severe weather-related ones. CapeVerdeWave (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Very well, then. I guess I'm not needed. :( HurricaneGonzalo (talk) 11:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2016 Newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I am interested in reinstating a page for actor Jacob Kemp which Wikipedia said you deleted. At the time of the page's deletion, the reason for removal was the actor's "lack of notability." In the time since then, he has filmed two appearances on a popular Comedy Central series, wrapped a role in a major motion picture to be released on Christmas, and been nominated for an award for his performance in a national touring production. Is this enough to warrant a re-make of the page or should I wait? QuatrePourToi (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

TFA
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/May 9, 2016
Hi Julian. The TFA text mostly follows the lead section; how does it look? - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

2021 AHS: you're up
Hey Julian, long time no talk! Hope things are going well for you. Not sure if you saw NHC's tweet, but Joaquin got the axe and your name will be in its stead for the 2021 season. Just figured you might like to know. --Dylan620 (I'm all ears) 02:37, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for Adminship
Hello, I am an enthusiastic teen who wants to change the general opinion of my country that wikipedia contains irrelevant information which is not up to date. I believe that i can edit the irrlevant information and prove that wikipedia contains highly accurate information. Hope you agree to my enthusiasm. Syed Wasiq Hussain 10:19, 28 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syed Wasiq (talk • contribs)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Pre-deletion copy of Innovative Vector Control Consortium
Hi, I see that you are the deleting administrator for the page Innovative Vector Control Consortium: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Innovative_Vector_Control_Consortium&action=edit&redlink=1

I would like to improve and republish the page (because I think it is now notable). Could I receive a copy of the pre-deletion source of the page (perhaps in my username space)? Thanks. Riceissa (talk) 23:04, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Round 3
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 May newsletter


Round 2 is over and 35 competitors have moved on to Round 3.

Round 2 saw three FAs (two by and one by ), four Featured Lists (with three by ), and 53 Good Articles (six by  and five each by, , and ). Eleven Featured Pictures were promoted (six by and five by ). One Featured Portal, Featured Topic and Good Topic were also promoted. The DYK base point total was 1,135. scored 265 base points, while and  each scored 150 base points. Eleven ITN were promoted and 131 Good Article Reviews were conducted with completing a staggering 61 reviews. Two contestants, and, broke the 700 point mark for Round 2.

If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Thanks to everyone for participating, and good luck to those moving into round 2. ,, and -- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup-Round 3 Clarification
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Preliminary report


The article Preliminary report has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No evidence of this as a notable concept - just the sum of two words, a dictionary definition of an obvious two-word term.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pam D  20:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Finals
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Bailey
Hello, Juliancolton. I see you deleted Stephen Bailey; could you please restore it to&#32;because he is a comedian who has made several appearances on panel shows recently, and I want to know if there is anything there I can use to construct an article on the man? If it is too big, post it to User:Launchballer/Stephen Bailey.&#32;Thank you.-- Laun  chba  ller  12:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Today's featured article/July 14, 2016
Hi Julian. This was one of yours ... thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 GA Cup-Wrap Up
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

N-C16
Juliancolton, I wanted to alert you to an occurrence this evening, since you were involved the last time.

N-C16, who under an earlier name had run into issues with multiple GA reviews of tropical cyclone-related articles (see User talk:N-C16 for details, including your offer of mentorship), this evening made a bulk nomination of 29 articles for GAN, plus one at FAC. I posted to request that the GA nominations stop, as they were against the rules. (The FAC had not been made when I wrote the message.)

None of these articles were ones that N-C16 had previously done any work on that I could tell, the bulk of them were rated C-class or below, and after carefully checking the first five before reverting the GANs, I went ahead and reverted the remaining two dozen; GANs are not supposed to be made as drive-bys until the person wanting to nominate the articles has checked on the article talk page with the significant contributors to the article to make sure they think it's ready to be nominated. I also posted to the FAC page that the nomination was not by an article contributor; for FAC, it's a requirement that a major contributor be the nominator, so I expect that will be closed forthwith. (Follow-up on July 26: the FAC page was subsequently deleted as out of process, and a note posted to N-C16's page.)

Sorry to bother you, but I thought you should know. With any luck, with the talk-page warning posted, the GANs will cease. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:NY 292 near Whaley Lake.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:NY 292 near Whaley Lake.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Cloudchased (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC voluntary mentoring scheme
During a recent lengthy discussion on the WP:FAC talkpage, several ideas were put forward as to how this procedure could be improved, particularly in making it more user-friendly towards first-time nominees. The promotion rate for first-timers at FAC is depressingly low – around 16 percent – which is a cause for concern. To help remedy this, Mike Christie and I, with the co-operation of the FAC coordinators, have devised a voluntary mentoring scheme, in which newcomers will guided by more experienced editors through the stages of preparation and submission of their articles. The general format of the scheme is explained in more detail on Mentoring for FAC, which also includes a list of editors who have indicated that they are prepared to act as mentors.

Would you be prepared to take on this role occasionally? If so, please add your name to the list. By doing so you incur no obligation; it will be entirely for you to decide how often and on which articles you want to act in this capacity. We anticipate that the scheme will have a trial run for a few months before we appraise its effectiveness. Your participation will be most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXV, September 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP & AfC
A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

GA Cup Announcement
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVI, October 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Typhoon Mujigae (2009) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Typhoon Mujigae (2009). Since you had some involvement with the Typhoon Mujigae (2009) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. N-C16 (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup 2016 November newsletter: Final results
The final round of the 2016 WikiCup is over. Congratulations to the 2016 WikiCup top three finalists:
 * First Place -
 * Second Place -
 * Third Place -

In addition to recognizing the achievements of the top finishers and everyone who worked hard to make it to the final round, we also want to recognize those participants who were most productive in each of the WikiCup scoring categories:
 * Featured Article – Cas Liber (actually a three-way tie with themselves for two FAs in each of R2, R3, and R5).
 * Good Article – MPJ-DK had 14 GAs promoted in R3.
 * Featured List – produced 2 FLs in R2
 * Featured Pictures – Adam Cuerden restored 18 images to FP status in R4.
 * Featured Portal – produced the only FPO of the Cup in R2.
 * Featured Topic – and Calvin were each responsible for one FT in R3 and R2, respectively.
 * Good Topic – MPJ-DK created a GT with 9 GAs in R5.
 * Did You Know – MPJ-DK put 53 DYKs on the main page in R4.
 * In The News – and, each with 5 ITN, both in R4.
 * Good Article Review – MPJ-DK completed 61 GARs in R2.

Over the course of the 2016 WikiCup the following content was added to Wikipedia (only reporting on fixed value categories): 17 Featured Articles, 183 Good Articles, 8 Featured Lists, 87 Featured Pictures, 40 In The News, and 321 Good Article Reviews. Thank you to all the competitors for your hard work and what you have done to improve Wikipedia.--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:53, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

We will open up a discussion for comments on process and scoring in a few days. The 2017 WikiCup is just around the corner! Many thanks from all the judges. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. ,, and

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVII, November 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Deleted Article Review
Hello JulianColton,

In August, you deleted a page I started about Justin Haskins, a person I believe to be a notable author and conservative pundit. The deletion page can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Justin_Haskins

I'm writing to you because I believe the subject's recent successes warrant his inclusion and a reversal of the decision to delete. The primary reason for deletion was the subject was not considered "notable." However, since the deletion, the subject has become a regular contributor for the Washington Examiner, a syndicated columnist with Inside Sources (a syndicator), and he was named one of the "Top 30 Conservatives Under 30" (see link here: http://redalertpolitics.com/thirty-under-thirty-2016/justin-haskins/).

He's also been published by highly notable publications, such as Forbes, Wall Street Journal, and others. I think this, along with the subject's position at a notable, albeit somewhat infamous, think tank, ought to qualify him as "notable."

Thanks for your time.

-LibertyEditor — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibertyEditor (talk • contribs) 14:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

4th Annual GA Cup - Round 1
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXVIII, December 2016
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2016 News
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Please vote...
Hello Julian,

Community wishlist poll
 * Getting the tools we need


 * Improve the tools for reviewing new pages: Vote here.
 * Improve the new user experience : Vote here

For NPP: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

My 10th wiki-anniversary
As of this post, it's been 10 years to the minute since I registered here at Wikipedia. For anyone still watching this page (there should be over 400 of you, but who's counting?), I just wanted to say a quick thanks for making this past decade of editing a rewarding one. From those who patiently offered their guidance when I was new, to the many folks who have reviewed, critiqued, and helped improve my article submissions, I've had the pleasure of working with countless talented and dedicated individuals – some of whom have since become close friends. I won't pretend that the world is much better off for my having spent 10 years fiddling with a website, but I've certainly taken a lot away from my experience here, and I like to think that I've made some small positive impact in return. While I don't contribute to nearly the same degree that I once did, it seems there are still articles to write, newbies to counsel, and killjoys to defy – see you all out in the field! –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Happy anniversary, buddy! Here's to another ten years. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 22:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! :-D —DerHexer (Talk) 22:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Congrats! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 23:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well done! :-) (you beat me by 10 days :p )  The next ten years will surely be at least as fun and rewarding! --bonadea contributions talk 21:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Late to the party, but happy anniversary anyway. Yes, you've made Wikipedia a better place. - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

GA mentor
Hi, I saw your name under the list of GA mentors. I just wrote up my first GA review, could you take a look at it and see if I missed anything? I'm reviewing Chlorine, review at Talk:Chlorine/GA2. Thanks, Icebob99 (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

WikiCup December newsletter: WikiCup 2017
On 1 January 2017, WikiCup 2017 (the 10th Annual WikiCup) will begin. This year we are trying something a little different – monetary prizes.

For the WC2017 the prizes will be as follows (amounts are based in US$ and will be awarded in the form of an online Amazon gift certificate):
 * First place – $200
 * Second & Third place – $50 each
 * Category prizes – $25 per category (which will be limited to FA, FL, FP, GA, and DYK for 2017). Winning a category prize does not require making it to the final round.

Note: Monetary prizes are a one-year experiment for 2017 and may or may not be continued in the future. In order to be eligible to receive any of the prizes above, the competing Wikipedia account must have a valid/active email address. After two years as a WikiCup judge, Figureskatingfan is stepping down. We thank her for her contributions as a WikiCup judge. We are pleased to announce that our newest judge is two-time WikiCup champion Cwmhiraeth.

The judges for the 2017 WikiCup are, , and.

Signups are open now and will remain open until 5 February 2017. You can sign up here.

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

What are those
I fail to see the reason why you say the sources don't establish real-world notability, in regards to Articles for deletion/What are those. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/MySupermarket (2nd nomination)
Hi Juliancolton. You closed Articles for deletion/MySupermarket (2nd nomination) as "delete" but wrote in the close, "No consensus for deletion has been formed, though I'd strongly advise editors (especially Sionk) to continue their work in improving the article to avoid it being renominated in the future." I think you accidentally clicked the "delete" button instead of the "no consensus" button. Would you take another look? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, thank you for bringing this to my attention. I believe I've corrected it. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you've fixed everything. Thank you! Cunard (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Jordan Capri
Hello, I found Talk:Jordan Capri as an orphaned talk page. When checking the mainspace title Jordan Capri, I see you deleted it as part of Articles for deletion/Lightspeed Media Corporation (2nd nomination), however I don't see Jordan Capri mentioned there at all. There was Articles for deletion/Jordan Capri from 2005 closed as keep, but I don't see a Articles for deletion/Jordan Capri (2nd nomination). Was this a misclick, or is there a link that I'm not seeing here? Avicennasis @ 13:37, 27 Kislev 5777 / 13:37, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, that was deleted since it was a redirect to Lightspeed Media Corporation. Not sure why the talk page didn't get deleted as well, but I've fixed it. Thanks! –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conviction: A Sequel to Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice
You closed the subject discussion with a request to merge to List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice. Please review my comment there (under Section "Pruning") and advise how to proceed. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 00:58, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Editorial content decisions like merging or redirecting are not binding at AfD, so if editors involved with the List of literary adaptations of Pride and Prejudice article decide the Burris book is not significant enough to warrant mention, the page discussed at AfD can simply be redirected. That said, there was a broad consensus at the AfD that merging the content was a viable option, and as far as I can tell, no inclusion criteria have yet been agreed on with regard to the literary adaptions list. You said "WP:CSC dictates that this list should be limited to entries where either the author or the work itself merit their own Wikipedia article," but I'm not sure I agree; the common selection criteria are, well... common, not exhaustive, and seem to be descriptive rather than prescriptive. In addition, distinctly different models are listed there, including one in which "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria," as with particularly narrow or almanac-like topics. I think the best course of action would be to start a more visible discussion at a relevant WikiProject or noticeboard to work out inclusion criteria for the list. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't mind, could you modify the AFD close as a redirect instead? That enables it to stay as a redirect while letting the discussion about a merge take place on the destination talk page. If necessary the material can always be pulled out from the history. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not confirm a result that nobody actually endorsed, but again, if you went ahead and redirected it for now, I don't think anybody would mind. If you and WikiDan61 think more discussion would prove helpful, I'd be willing to reopen and relist the AfD in the current day's log. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:08, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Solodev
Hi Juliancolton. You closed Articles for deletion/Solodev as "delete". I and several of my collegeus have tried to make this page good. But several editors said Solodev was not notable. But I would like to bring to your attention that Solodev was listed in a approved source from Wikipedia http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/eng/List_of_content_management_frameworks as a one of a list of content management frameworks. Solodev was listed on this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content_management_frameworks but was removed when an author cited a lack of notability. Myself and my collegues have tried to make updates to the article and several well known experts in this field have tried to weigh in as well. Can you please reconsider or provide feedback how to get this page back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.112.40.58 (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC) --Also Solodev should be listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content_management_systems Solodev has much more Current news coverage than several of the CMS systems listed on this page. Both of these pages serve as a guide to cover all publicly used CMS systems and Solodev has notably in comparison to the companies listed on this page.

Mentor
Thanks for offering to be my mentor. I'm not sure exactly what it entails, does it just mean I should ask for advice if I have doubts, or is there more to it? As I've now been resysopped, I'll start by reading the articles on the Administrator's guide. Κσυπ Cyp  18:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey Cyp, congrats on being reinstated and welcome back. I think it would be a little patronizing to say that I'm your mentor - after all, you've been around quite a bit longer than I have, and clearly know your way around. As discussed at the BN, your resysopping wasn't contingent on my offer of guidance, so we do have plenty of leeway in determining how intensive any training or "mentoring" should be. It really depends on your wishes and comfort level. At the very least, I'd like to keep an eye on your activity (contribs, logs) and occasionally provide support, constructive criticism, or a helping hand as appropriate. I know you're not going to go rogue and act maliciously, but I suspect that given the highly visible discussion surrounding your request, there will be people judging your actions as if you were a brand new admin. That's a good thing; as admins, we need to maintain the community's trust and confidence. If you're feeling truly overwhelmed, I'd be open to doing a more formal, hands-on training program, but frankly that seems unnecessary at this stage. Regardless, though, please contact me whenever you have any questions/doubt/apprehensions, and I'll do my best to help point you in the right direction. I don't believe that an admin needs to be able to recite all policies and guidelines (I couldn't tell you the first thing about set index articles, for instance), and most of the important stuff is solidly within the realm of common sense. It's taboo to say, but true in my experience: the best way to learn or re-learn policy is on the job. If it were me, I'd pick one or two admin noticeboards or backlogs - maybe WP:RFPP and CAT:CSD, or WP:UAA and WP:AFD - and spend some time familiarizing myself with the policies and guides necessary to process some of the more straightforward requests. From there, the rest sort of falls into place. Looking forward to working with you, and I'm glad to see things got sorted relatively painlessly. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have to admit I wasn't expecting the level of discussion that went on, since I'm from a time when adminship was considered no big deal. I'll contact you if I have any questions. It's good to know that most of the important stuff is still consistent with common sense. I'll refamiliarise myself with the policies/guides, and let everything fall into place, then. Thanks for the links, I'll look at them. I'm glad to be back, and looking forward to working with you, too. Κσυπ Cyp   23:05, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

|| Article for Deletion California Review
Hello Juliancolton, As you can see in the discussion there were no grounds for deletion of the wikipedia article; the discussion was in the favor of keeping the page. Additionally, the page did not violate any wikipedia standards following the proposal of deletion. The author of the deletion proposal has pushed forward over the years several times in attempts to delete the article; a student on campus who does not like the paper. The paper has a notable history and has long been in the public arena in the Southern California area as seen in the sources for the page from NBC News, the ACLU, FIRE, San Diego Tribune, and many more.

Ptariche (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * a deletion discussion isn't a majority vote. The only 'keep' vote that tried to be grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines was the first one, but the examples of coverage listed were trivial mentions. Given the arguments made in the discussion, WP:BURDEN wasn't met. On the other hand I wouldn't have minded seeing the discussion extended an additional week or so. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

4th GA Cup - Round 2
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1842 Atlantic hurricane season
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1842 Atlantic hurricane season 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 TropicalAnalystwx13 -- TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)