User talk:KaisaL

Archives
The following talk page archives are publicly available:
 * Archive 1 - April 2014 to July 2016

KaisaL (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Abdul Hakim Ansari
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Abdul Hakim Ansari. 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. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have responded briefly on both of these attached deletion reviews although I'm happy to leave it to other editors from here as I'm happy with my closing decision. KaisaL (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Tauheediyah
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tauheediyah. 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. Syed Rahmat Ullah Shah (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have responded briefly on both of these attached deletion reviews although I'm happy to leave it to other editors as I'm happy with my closing decision. KaisaL (talk) 18:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

"Expired" PROD?
Hello, Kaisa! I'm glad to see you have returned to Wikipedia and have once again become active as an administrator. However, there is a problem with two articles you recently deleted as expired PRODs. I don't know how you found those, but they were not "expired"; in fact I had tagged them for deletion just minutes before you deleted them. PRODS are supposed to expire after a week. Please double check how you are finding PRODS to delete, because you seem to be deleting them way before the nomination has expired. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Melanie, this appears to just be a minor oversight on the deletion description which I apologise for. As the article had been deleted, I was simply removing the albums as attached to a removed article - as the other album had been deleted for. I didn't set the CSD criteria properly which is an accident but I wasn't closing as a PROD but a CSD. KaisaL (talk) 18:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * For the avoidance of doubt, CSD G8 should have been used. KaisaL (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, that explains it. I sometimes have trouble too with the edit summaries that the system puts in automatically unless you change them. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries! KaisaL (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW here's a puzzle: your user page says you are female, but somehow the little popup summary, that shows up if you hover the cursor over your name, indicates you are male. I wonder how that happened? --MelanieN (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Do you have some sort of plugin for that? Definitely female and I'm in the female category? KaisaL (talk) 18:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Found it! Apparently it pertains to a popups gadget I didn't have activated. I had no idea there even was a gender setting on Wikipedia, I've fixed it now! That was awkward. KaisaL (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good. There aren't that many of us females here, we might as well flaunt it! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Haha, true! KaisaL (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW that's a really useful tool. It's this: Tools/Navigation popups. I didn't discover it for years; somebody finally pointed it out at my RfA, after I said there was no way in a discussion to tell a newbie from a regular. If you hover your cursor over a user name it tells you how many edits they have, how long they've been here, what user rights they have, and (if they have identified a gender) whether they are male or female. It's a good way to recognize sysops if you don't know them. And it's especially helpful when you are talking about someone, so you know whether to use "he" or "she" - or "they" if they don't identify, as most don't. (Many people here automatically say "he" for everyone, but that's just part of the WP:Systemic bias that we all live with.) --MelanieN (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool! I tracked it down and activated it after you told me I was listed wrong. It looks useful, people must hover over me all of the time and be confused by my stats! KaisaL (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also helpful are the scripts User:MastCell/user-rights.js (when you go to a userpage it lists user rights and edits), User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js (in edit history and talk pages strikes out usernames of blocked edits). I also use User:Anomie/linkclassifier.js, which colours redirects, DAB pages, Fair Use Images and pages which are tagged for deletion green, yellow, red (outlined), and pink. Not everyone likes it, but I find it helpful. --kelapstick(bainuu) 20:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Your illegal deletion of article Fire in entertainment
(Articles for deletion/Fire in entertainment) This deletion process has been based on alleged WP:OR but there was absolutely no analysis or synthesis of published material to construct any new conclusion. The article used a main symbolic element of art works with full notability already confirmed by Wikipedia (all mentioned art works had article links). Of course sources like http://www.wattpad.com/story/1329909-fire-suggestions-on-titles can be found which also use the dramatic element fire to sort art works, and lists like List of chemists and List of rivers of Thuringia also likewise list articles based on certain main characterizing elements without giving any proof that also others already sorted and listed that way. WP:OR obviously does not forbid any listing and sorting of fully notable articles by thematically characterizing elements so please undo the deletion. --MathLine (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi MathLine! Thanks for raising my deletion of Fire in entertainment with me. As I am sure you know as somebody that has disputed deletion debates before, this was a close of the articles for deletion process, based on the overall consensus of the debate and the arguments made within. It was not an illegal deletion, as the debate had continued until its close date, and was then assessed based on those contributions. As for my decision, the arguments enclosed in the debate did indeed mention issues with original research, but the consistent theme of the debate - and a large part of my decision to accept a consensus to delete - was a belief that the list was "completely arbitrary" and "indiscriminate". The only comment to keep, on the other hand, pointed to the existence of another unrelated list (List of chemists) and made no effort to ground its opinions in policy or precedent. As the closing administrator, I had no involvement with the debate and passed no personal judgement on the content, and as such found myself in a position where I could accept there was a consensus to delete. As an aside, WP:OR issues would most certainly not on their own warrant the deletion of a topic should it be notable, but this was not the only reason that this article was nominated for AFD and not the only argument for deletion raised in the debate.
 * From a cursory glance at your past contributions, you appear to be well aware of the system for contesting a deletion; As such, you are welcome to take this to deletion review if you still feel my actions were "illegal", but I am satisfied that I acted upon the consensus of the AFD discussion and as such will not be overturning my decision. I hope this helps. KaisaL (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Please block and  for vandalism
at Deletion review/Log/2016 July 4 (or at least use Template:Uw-error4im)
 * for ranting about their own ignorance of my argument that blindly obedient repetition votes are forbidden (of course by the basic site for it: Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews and the mentioned disagreement pyramide from WP:DR) and
 * for an "is very clearly WP:SYNTH" vote without any reasons which is absolutely ridiculous to associate now suddenly with it. --MathLine (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi MathLine. I have asked a neutral administrator to handle this message, as you're asking me to block people for actions on a deletion review that pertains to my own delete, and that would be inappropriate on my part. KaisaL (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * MathLine I am afraid I don't see the vandalism you are talking about. In fact I don't see anything inappropriate being said on that page by either user. I will point out that logorrhea simply means an excess of talking, it is not some sort of insult. We don't block people for taking a contrary position. HighInBC Need help?   15:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking at your comments at deletion discussions and reviews, most of which tend to be meaningless, irrelevant, and have no basis in established policies and guidelines, I stand by my assessment. The irony in seeing you link to Arguments to avoid in deletion reviews is strong. And no, it wasn't a personal attack, but merely an assessment about a contribution that added zero value to the discussion. Honestly, looking through your editing history, I'm beginning to wonder if WP:NOTHERE applies. -- Kinu  t/c 16:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

E-Sports
I know AfD is a thankless task, but with all due respect for your contributions, it seems from a couple of recent noms that e-sports may be somewhat...outside your comfort zone as far as subject matter goes. It seems like you may be dismissing coverage on the topic as "niche" maybe because you might not be the most familiar with what coverage of the topic typically looks like. As a general rule, ESPN coverage is about as non-niche as coverage of the topic gets. Timothy Joseph Wood 19:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. We don't have any sort of notability guidelines for eSports and thus the topics can only be judged under the general criteria of WP:GNG, WP:RS, WP:BLP and so on. It is not my area of expertise, you are right, but I am concerned that there's a whole swathe of articles that really don't meet the general criteria for inclusion. It's not a big sport/field yet, so we shouldn't treat it like football or hockey or another major one where competing professionally or being a player in a major team is enough. As for ESPN, it isn't necessarily universally seen as independent and reliable - see this for one objection on the village pump discussion. Also, and this is a far more general point: Far too often we, at AFD, look at the names of the sources rather than the actual contents. I do think Lustboy has a case for inclusion more than most, and it may very well go to a keep, but we need to have these debates because otherwise we're just legitimising the wide publication of fairly poorly referenced, even crufty content about a new field. And if it takes a non-expert to raise these general issues, then so be it - experts are probably more likely to be slightly biased toward inclusion, after all.
 * If all of those AFDs go to keep then I guess I'm sorely mistaken, and I'll step away from the debate. I'm not about to crusade against eSports (I have no issue with it, honestly) but I'm really asking questions that need to be asked of those articles I've nominated. I was only actually really cottoned on to the issue by seeing a passing discussion between Drmies and DarthBotto on a previous AFD.
 * By the way, I'm only planning to nominate those four at the moment, and depending on consensus on those I may look at similar articles as necessary. KaisaL (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * FYI, on the contrary, I would like to thank you for your efforts in esports, as I think there are some rather sloppy, non-notable articles being created these days, and many of the experienced WP:VG editors don't have much interest on esports, (like me), and seem to have a hard time keeping up with monitoring everything done in the area. So, thank you. Sergecross73   msg me  20:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the alternate view! KaisaL (talk) 20:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I too am grateful for KaisaL's contributions. I do have an interest in esports, but as I was previously affiliated with several professional organizations, I am doubtful of whether I can take action without a conflict of interest being called into question. There are many esports articles that are notable, but I fear that there are many, many more than are just being created and not up to par. Not only esports articles- but categories, navboxes, etc. D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 21:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for causal neural paradox
JordanMicahBennett(http://www.folioverse.appspot.com)
 * Hi Jordan! Thanks for your message and your email on the subject of my closure of the AFD discussion at Articles for deletion/Causal Neural Paradox (Thought Curvature). I was the closing administrator on a debate as to whether or not the subject is suitable for inclusion on the encyclopedia. I am satisfied that the debate progressed in such a way that there was a clear consensus that it was not, and as such I closed it as an uncontroversial deletion. I am sorry that this is not what you wanted to happen, but I can only act upon the decision made by the wider Wikipedia community, and in this case I feel it is fairly clear given that the only arguments against this outcome were from yourself and unrelated to established policy or notability guidelines. I am a neutral third-party that did not make my own opinions known during the process.
 * I believe that the second part of your enquiry is that I deleted a draft that many people were working on. Firstly, I can see no evidence of substantial editing from anybody but yourself in the deleted logs of edits. Secondly, the draft space version of the article was discussed via a separate discussion at MFD, which you can see here. However, the draft was seemingly deleted per your own request, and if this was an accident you should see WP:REFUND for information on how to retrieve it. I was uninvolved with the deletion of the draft, so cannot help further on that.
 * If you have concerns that I did not carry out the deletion process at Articles For Deletion correctly, it is your right to take your case to deletion review. I can, however, say with a degree of confidence that this is unlikely to lead to a different outcome. Also, deletion review is not 'AFD 2.0'. If you have issues with the deletion of the draft, you must raise it at WP:REFUND or with the user that removed that, User:RHaworth. ( Note I have mentioned you here.) A deletion review based on the deletion of the draft would not be an appropriate use of the process.
 * I hope that this answers your queries. KaisaL (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you so much! I don't think I've ever had one of these before. It's great to know my work goes noticed! <3 KaisaL (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Sock puppet investigation
Hello. I mentioned you in passing over at Sockpuppet investigations/195.224.183.184 regarding the AfD discussion WP:Articles for deletion/What Culture Pro Wrestling. I mentioned you in the top section. Also, another editor mentioned you in the "Comments by other users" section regarding some other AfD. You are a popular person :>) :>) Steve Quinn (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks, I've taken a look. I don't really feel SPI is a useful place to take that, if I'm honest, because no connection will be made publicly by a check user between a user account and an IP address. I'm quite confident that supporters and associates of the wrestling organisation have been canvassed for their !vote, though.
 * And yes, I am popular! It's what happens when you take on the AFD backlog and weigh in to some controversial discussions that need neutral input. I'm sure people will be delighted to know I'm about to go quiet for a few days! KaisaL (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think, a checkuser would be useful? I really don't understand which is more useful - a sock investigation or check user. I believe this is the first time I opened a sock investigation - unless there was one years ago that I don't happen to recall. So, I am unfamiliar with all this.


 * Also, I see that you are saying that you think canvassing is involved. I'm really not concerned about that at this time. Also, the account has been dormant for eight years and then suddenly comes to life and Ivotes at this Afd. I believe stuff like this is mentioned on the Sock puppetry policy page. Anyway, thanks for your participation. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Justine Suissa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Above & Beyond. 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) 09:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

AfD Close
Hey KaisaL, firstly let me thank you for the great work at AfD. This has reduced the backlog quite a bit! I hope you keep up the work. Anyway, I'm here to ask about the recently closed AfD Articles for deletion/Saarah Hameed Ahmed (2nd nomination) as no-consensus. I believe the AfD is continuing to receive participation. The main issue was not paid editing, but the hoax claims in the article (that the subject was India's first Muslim woman pilot). Unfortunately, the fact that the claims were a hoax was uncovered quite late (on 6th July by ) and I don't think enough editors actually had a chance to analyse it. Many of the keep votes were made prior to uncovering the claims and if you look at the tail end, the votes were tending to a delete. In addition, the AfD is currently linked from an RfC at WT:N and is continuing to receive responses. It would be helpful if this is left open for a week more. Should paid editing have been the only issue, I wouldn't have asked for a relist. But over here the concern is the hoax claims and WP:V. Thank you! --Lemongirl942 (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, one of the users voting "keep" is suspected to be a sockpuppet of a previously community banned user (hopefully confirmed soon). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Lemongirl942! Thanks for querying this. I've just re-read the AFD discussion thoroughly, and also checked the WT:N discussion that you mention also. I understand your concerns about the close, and that you feel it may have been brought to an end too soon instead of relisting it. I explained my motives for this in my closing remarks, and I'm happy to stick by those rather than re-open it at this time. If this article turned out to completely be a hoax, it wouldn't need to go to AFD, as hoaxes are routinely deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion. As such, you should certainly raise those concerns on the talk page of the article. (If this hoax was as clear cut as you are saying I don't feel I would be closing this as no consensus - perhaps the fact that her claim to notability is disputed is something that should be added to the text of the article with references on both sides, for the benefit of a neutral point of view.)
 * There was a substantial number of policy-grounded arguments to keep, and even if one of those is confirmed to be a sock puppet of a banned user, many individuals of good standing in the community (including an arbitrator and administrators) put their weight toward that side of the debate. It would be amiss for me to disregard or weight the keep arguments less because there was issues with a sock puppet, or indeed with the suspected paid editing. This clear split did not seem like it would resolve, nor that the majority of those that leaned to keep early in the debate - based on their reasoning - would have been swung had they returned to read the later comments. If is true that relisting could have been an option, but as participation had already been thorough, I did not feel it would lead to a clear outcome. Those keep arguments cannot be disregarded just because they were early, as I'm sure you understand, unless they're clearly based on a point that has been discredited. The RFC is not dependent on the debate but merely references it, so I cannot really keep it open for the purposes of that either.
 * My final point is that, as the most vocal advocate of deletion, I obviously have to consider your request in that light as well. Because no consensus essentially amounts to a keep on Wikipedia, I can imagine it's frustrating when you've put so much work into research. However, I really can't justify re-opening it myself at this time.
 * That said - A no consensus does lend itself to a new listing if more information comes to light, so if the hoax becomes indisputable, you should certainly use the appropriate channels again. You also, of course, have the option of deletion review but I'm not really sure that's the way forward - but it is always your right. I hope this helps? KaisaL (talk) 09:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

AfD close for Masha (singer)
Hello KaisaL,

I couldn't care less about Masha as a person (I'm not fond of people who think it's cool to use profane language, which I detected on her Facebook page during my research), but I didn't spend well over 10 hours finding sources for the AfD and editing the article, to then see a "no consensus" close. If I had any doubt that the article would be closed as "Keep" I would have looked for more sources. With all due respect, your arguments are flawed. Did you see that the article had already been nominated for deletion and the result was "no consensus" even though only the Galo magazine source was used to defend it? This time it was a totally different story, with enough sources provided to show that the subject passes GNG by a mile. Look again at what you wrote:

"... in closing I note that there's been compelling arguments grounded in policy on both sides, leading to no semblance of clear consensus."

Compelling arguments grounded on policy on the Delete side? No. Here they are:


 * NOMINATOR The current coverage is all still questionable with the best being only the AdWeek and even that is generously informative about the music video, my searches have simply found nothing better aside from a few other links but certainly nothing actually largely convincing.


 * Invalid argument because this was before I provided many reliable sources. By the way, that's the same nominator as in this AfD, and look at what happened. He's outrageously incompetent for AfDs, even ending up at ANI for that reason.


 * Delete standards for musician articles are among the lowest on wikipedia due to systemic bias but unless there is something particularly notable, a musician needs to at least have a hit record to merit enough notability for an article.


 * Totally false - not grounded in policy.


 * Delete. Subject doesn't meet any of the requirements for notability, whether general or specific--and this article was clearly written by a fan or other interested party.


 * Invalid argument because after that vote was cast (by another administrator) two of the Keep voters substantially improved the article, and we have no connection to the subject, plus many reliable sources were provided in the AfD.


 * Delete - As noted above standards for musicians are extremely low however if you can't even meet those then you're basically screwed here, Anyway no evidence of notability, Fails MUSICBIO & GNG.


 * Invalid argument because then all of my sources poured in, and Rhododendrites added others.

No one voted Delete after I provided my sources. The momentum shifted completely. There was no way to argue in favor of deletion at that point. It should not matter to you that I attacked the nominator and two voters (including a fellow administrator). I apologized, but even if I hadn't, your judgment must be based on the arguments for and against deletion, not on anything else. I attacked them because they didn't change their minds at all despite the avalanche of sources that I supplied. If their judgment became impaired because they were too sensitive to my attack, and they couldn't get over it, that shouldn't affect your decision.

So, no, the Delete camp did not end up with "compelling arguments grounded in policy". The Keep votes that were cast after my attack were cautious because those editors didn't want to offend the administrator. That's politics as usual, but the fact is that this subject easily passes GNG, which you inexplicably failed to see. How on Earth can this not be enough coverage in reliable sources? Here's the list of sources from the AfD:

Entertainment Tonight Canada, The Untitled Magazine (you can verify that it's reliable even though it's not on Wikipedia yet) , New Sound magazine (pages 38-39) , Kempire Daily (used for sourcing other Wikipedia articles) , the aforementioned GALO Magazine , big-budget audiovisual coverage in Baeble Music (an eight-minute interview and song performance) , Idolator. And the fact that she was chosen for a Three Olives Vodka campaign is obviously notable because this story was covered by The New York Times, Adweek , and in other sources that I didn't include in the AfD. Also, her appearance on VH1's Big Morning Buzz Live show adds notability. Finally, everyone here in the US knows what the Lifetime channel is, and her cover of a song was selected to promote a series called Witches of East End,.

Some of these sources cannot be archived due to various reasons, meaning that if the links eventually rot then the article could be nominated for deletion again very senselessly. I have successfully defended much weaker articles about musicians that were nominated for deletion. As I said, if I had had the slightest doubt that an administrator would not close this AfD as Keep then I would have spent even more time looking for sources. I didn't spend so many hours on this AfD and editing the article for this arbitrary and flawed result. You know GNG. Even if you can prove that some of the sources I provided above are not reliable, the coverage in reliable sources will remain vast.

Please, what are my options? Can you change your decision? Can you relist the discussion? Can you yourself nominate the article for deletion again? If not, then what can I do? If I'm left without ethical options then I will use another method, but I want things done in a proper manner. I'm sorry if I sound upset, but I've spent a couple of hours now just writing to you, when I have better things to do. Your decision was a mistake. At the end of the day there were no valid Delete arguments. There were just people who were too stubborn, careless, or with too big of an ego, or too hurt to do the right thing and change their vote. The proof is in the sources. GNG has been met. Many thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * And really, it was clear that the momentum had shifted because of my work. You closed the AfD with three Keep votes in a row. Based on the arguments, the best decision would have been to close it as Keep, but if you wanted to play it safe, you should have relisted it. The attack had been moved from the AfD page to the talk page. I could have removed my apology, and the subsequent posts could have been removed as well, so as to avoid distractions. You don't have a crystal ball to claim "I see no value in sending this to the relist for a third time as I do not feel that will yield any further, reasonably actionable outcomes". Keep votes were coming in. The Delete side had lost. They could no longer defend their position. I'm very upset, to be honest. Dontreader (talk) 08:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Dontreader! Thanks for querying my close of the AFD discussion. May I ask, are you aware as to what a "no consensus" outcome means? It means that the article is kept because people couldn't agree on the issue. It's very strange for somebody so vocal about keeping the article to want it to be relisted when it has been closed in this way, as it amounts to a keep in practice, just with the caveat that it may return to AFD if somebody feels a clearer consensus to delete may form in the future. For now, however, the article on Masha is safe, and with two now going to a no consensus it makes it quite unlikely a deletion consensus would emerge in the future. Does this satisfy your concerns, or would you like me to reply more thoroughly on my decision? KaisaL (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, KaisaL, and many thanks for your kind reply. Yes, I know exactly what the consequences are when an AfD is closed as "no consensus". I saved this article from imminent deletion. However, during my research I came across dead links, and I have every reason to believe that more links will rot, and as I said, some of them cannot be archived. Therefore, the article would be more vulnerable in the future if nominated again for deletion. What I'm now forced to do because of your decision is spend even more time (and I mean several more hours) improving the article to try to make sure that it won't be deleted by dummies in the future. Too many articles are deleted due to sheer incompetence of nominators and voters. Let me bring up your words again:


 * "... in closing I note that there's been compelling arguments grounded in policy on both sides, leading to no semblance of clear consensus."


 * Could you please cite one, just one, compelling argument grounded in policy on the Delete side? Keep in mind that when I arrived to that AfD I clearly showed that the subject meets GNG, which you can see above if you look at the coverage in those sources. That's the key, because, as you know, if the Delete votes lacked "compelling arguments grounded in policy", then they are totally irrelevant. I said to you that the Delete votes became invalid after another editor and myself provided numerous reliable sources to prove notability. No one voted Delete after those sources were provided. So please cite just one compelling argument grounded in policy on the Delete side. Many thanks for your kind attention. Dontreader (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi. As you seem to be accusing me of somehow causing you strain personally (in that I have apparently "forced" you to do more work) I'm not sure this is a productive dialogue to have, as I can only imagine it will go back and forth. I'm not willing to change the close to a keep, and although I will agree with you that you went into far more depth than any person that argued to delete, I will stand by my close decision. If link rot is your only concern then I would point out that dead links are routinely replaced with archives, often by a bot, so I would not worry about that. KaisaL (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi again. All I'm asking for is one compelling argument grounded in policy on the Delete side, since you claimed that such arguments existed. Please don't assume that such a request will cause a back and forth situation. If you cite just one, I will thank you and move on. Otherwise I cannot move on. I spent too much time in that AfD to guarantee a Keep close. Thanks. Dontreader (talk) 19:52, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok well, if you insist, I would point to the nomination and also Drmies' later comment (the one he warned you in) as including criticisms grounded in policy. The quote in the nomination is from a user that had found nothing that they considered to be convincing from their own searches, which indicates that the additions that you made would be unlikely to swing them. I will quote Drmies directly: "... doing a cocktail campaign and singing a song on VH1, that's not exactly of biblical scope, though I appreciate the rhetoric." This is clear criticism of the claims to notability in spite of the changes that you made and work that you did. Another individual referenced WP:MUSICBIO and did not feel Masha met that criteria. As you wanted me to only cite one, I would hope this is sufficient for you. KaisaL (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, I will say that just because you pick out each person arguing to delete and call their arguments "invalid" does not make them so. Yes, you added more references, but this doesn't suddenly cross out everything that came before. I am sorry that you somehow feel your work deserves a keep close but there wasn't a strong enough consensus in that direction for me to act upon. Maybe another closer might have done, I can't be sure, but I'm not going to change the close so this discussion is quite futile. KaisaL (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, KaisaL. That's all I wanted. Drmies was desperately wrong when he implied that "doing a cocktail campaign" was not notable. If that were so, it would not have been covered by The New York Times and other prestigious sources. It's all in the AfD. It's even in a book which was cited as a source by Aust331 . Therefore, very notable. I just hope you can understand my frustration, but I promised I would not go back and forth, so we'll leave it at that. Sooner or later I will humble Drmies in another AfD for being such a stubborn and immature admin, blinded by pride. He can't always get lucky. Many thanks again for your time and kind attention. I wish you a very good night in England... Dontreader (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you too. KaisaL (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Precious

 * Would you look at that, one day sooner and we would have shared an anniversary. --kelapstick(bainuu) 09:38, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda Arendt! Eleven years Kelapstick, going strong with my 8,000 edits. KaisaL (talk) 11:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's quality that counts, not quantity, says the cabal of the outcasts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Three years ago, you were recipient no. 1430 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi KaisaL, thanks for all you hard work with afds Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :) KaisaL (talk) 12:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I owe you an apology
Hi KaisaL,

I acted out of ignorance when I complained about the way you closed the Masha (singer) AfD. It's not as simple as I had thought. Even though the Delete voters had weaker arguments, the fact is that there was no consensus. It's not your fault that the Delete voters did not change their votes, which I firmly believe they should have done, although I shouldn't have assumed bad faith on their part either. I have participated in very few AfDs (although with a highly successful record), and I wrongly assumed that those Delete voters would change their minds, which I have witnessed in past AfDs when I have presented evidence of notability. Also, on Commons I do have lots of experience with files nominated for deletion (I have probably nominated over 200 images for deletion on Commons, with great success). On Commons, a nomination or voting rationale can definitely help the closing administrator, but at the end of the day consensus means little or nothing on Commons because admins must enforce copyright law to the best of their knowledge. So on Commons, an admin will always side with whoever is right, based on the policies. I failed to realize until recently that the meaning of consensus on Wikipedia is quite different from the meaning on Commons, so I owe you an apology, and I won't make that mistake in the future. I prefer the Commons approach, where around 97% of the time the closing admins agree with me, but well, what can I do? All I can do is tell you that I'm very sorry. Thanks again for your kindness, and have a very good night. Dontreader (talk) 22:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I also apologized to Drmies for saying such a stupid thing about him on your page. Dontreader (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks! No worries at all. KaisaL (talk) 22:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Aww, thanks! :) KaisaL (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :), Happy editing x – Davey 2010 Talk 00:22, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Lifepack
Hi Kaisa, wanted to talk about the deletion of the Lifepack page. Can I ask why you felt it needed to be deleted, or what we can do to modify the page so you feel it is up to standard? Thanks! -Adrian — Preceding unsigned comment added by A.solgaard (talk • contribs) 14:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

RE:
Regarding your comments on the proposed deletion of RE: and redirecting to Reply, it appears that you have not seen the page is about an architecture collective rather than the word RE: Perhaps you could make further comments on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.12.80.250 (talk) 13:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Notability is not the only reason for deletion at AFD
Hi Kaisal. This is regarding your close of Articles for deletion/Mey Chan (see diff). I'm not recommending a reopen, but your reasoning of the closure is not really correct. AFD is specifically "Article for Deletion". The scope of AFD is not solely to discuss the notability of the subject - we can delete article for reasons other than notability as well. WP:DEL3 and WP:DEL9 specifically say that obvious vandalism and BLP violations are perfectly good reasons for deletion. Hoaxes have often been deleted at AfD because sometimes they are not obvious hoaxes (and speedies are often declined particularly by editors who are not familiar with the local context of the subject). I do not see any guideline which says that only notability may be debated at AfD and nothing else. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I largely agree with Lemongirl942 here. G3 is for blatant hoaxes. AFD is useful for attracting subject matter experts who can point out hoaxes not obvious to a general editor. --Neil N  talk to me 04:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify Kaisal, I'm not disputing the early close- the close was definitely the correct decision . I'm simply saying that the reasoning (for example "this would not be an issue for AFD unless an editor wishes to nominate Mey for deletion due to notability concerns.") isn't really correct. I have previously had speedies declined as they were not obvious hoaxes and once declined, AfD is the only way to go and attract some discussion. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 04:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well... I don't think an early close was the best course of action. --Neil N  talk to me 04:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just struck the first part of my previous comment ( sorry, I had quickly typed that before I went to grab lunch ). What I had meant to say that I didn't want Kaisal to reopen the discussion as I had already tagged the article for CSD. But yeah, about the "speedy close" I personally think the early close wasn't the correct course of action, given that I had brought it to AfD specifically to attract discussion. A CSD G3 would most probably have been rejected (and the first response in the AfD is a testimony to that). So essentially, the ball went from CSD to AFD and back to CSD again. (though I must admit that I hadn't tagged it for G3 prior to AfD, something I should have done perhaps). --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, the discussion was closed early and unconvincingly, leaving behind an unclear reason for deletion. The nominator correctly brought the article at AfD as we have been discussing TNTs at AfD since the introduction of the essay in 2009. Followings are the few examples of TNT discussions at AfD : Adrian Piper, Kidscape, Lazar Sakan, Congress in Haryana, etc. Outcome might have been different, if we pursued on with the discussion.  Hitro   talk  10:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think KaisaL meant for her close to be read as a delete. I speedied it because, as discussion was shut down, I chose to believe that Lemongirl942's concerns were serious and true and per WP:BLP, we cannot have an article hanging around for any length of time that's largely a hoax. --Neil N  talk to me 13:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am of the view that having the discussion at AFD would have led to the content remaining for longer, which with a BLP concern and hoax accusation means AFD really isn't appropriate, given it's a slow process. Realistically it was looking at seven days to discuss, and if a consensus was formed another few days for a tricky close to be carried out. I really feel that, as an administrator, I have a duty to do what I can to handle a BLP/hoax issue swiftly, which is why I sent it back to CSD. I'm sorry if this was a bit IAR but I don't feel like a debate about what to do with as BLP/hoax issue is right for AFD; If my wording in the early hours of the morning did not reflect this, then I apologise. I thank NeilN for taking final action. KaisaL (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I also stand by the highlighted statement regarding not re-nominating if there are not notability concerns. In this case, the discussion and my own research led me to see that there was a major BLP violation, and it would have been unhelpful to bring that back to AFD as it needed urgent action. I of course accept that there are other legitimate reasons for an AFD nomination, but in this instance it needed swifter action. I hope this explains things more fully. KaisaL (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Lo Ka Fai for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lo Ka Fai is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Lo Ka Fai until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Wasabi,the,one (talk) 02:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Michael Bryan (singer)


The article Michael Bryan (singer) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing General notability guideline and the more detailed Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

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. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of INX


The article INX has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Neither entry is discussed in the linked article. There is no need for this DAB page.

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. -- GB fan 23:05, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

FYI
If you are still around, thought you might be interest to see this. Cheers, --kelapstick(bainuu) 10:40, 16 September 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)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Brandon Jenkins (singer/songwriter)
Just wanted to share my latest comment on the AfD page of Brandon Jenkins with you, that I've written right after your comment: [quote]And why the heck would the references be spurious?!? It's ridiculous to insinuate that The Oklahoman, No Depression, MTV and Red Dirt Nation are unreal. Just because you don't know things, doesn't justify to call them fake. Why is everyone so opposed to get this page on a REAL and EXISTING singer-songwriter from Oklahoma and Texas validated? I can give of list of at least a 100 living person pages that aren't as referenced as this one, from people less "important" than Brandon Jenkins. I'm done with this. Really. Too bad that Wikipedia seems to have turned into this bureaucratic insanity where people who used to troll the forums now find their grieves. And yes. I'm sorry to sound like this (especially for the ONE person who actually did try to help me), but I'm really very disappointed. I am in no way affiliated with Brandon Jenkins, I just felt sorry for him to see that he's one of the most important singers of his genre and that the links on the Wikipedia-pages where he is mentioned are linking to some sportsman. And if this message gets me banned from editing (because I'm sure that telling the truth is somewhere in regulations too), then so be it. I'm done.[/quote] (Sacha Kay (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2016 (UTC))
 * Thank you for highlighting this AFD to me again, as on closer scrutiny I feel even stronger about its deletion. KaisaL (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I figured you would. Glad you're not disappointing me. (Sacha Kay (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC))

Just because I thought it might be of use to you for future editing on music pages that you might be doing, on the WP:MUSIC page, is to be found: 7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability. So even if an artist is local, doesn't necessarily mean that he's not notable. Just wanted to share this with you. (Sacha Kay (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC))

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Study hall
I'm kind of confused why you relisted this. I withdrew the nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Reverting AFD Closures
I'm really Sorry! The both reverts made mistakenly due to an error. I will take care of this in future. -Divyam Seth (talk) 07:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Withdrawn nomination for Study hall
Nominator has withdrawn and I have changed my !vote WP:SKCRIT is met. So perhaps it can be closed? Lightburst (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like somebody else got there first! KaisaL (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Tatana Sterba albums


A tag has been placed on Category:Tatana Sterba albums requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Koji Ushikubo


The article Koji Ushikubo has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Boleyn (talk) 09:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Recreation of page
Hello, KaisaL. I have recreated the page Bella Shmurda. Is the new article better now? Josedimaria237 (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Giovanni Aloi for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Giovanni Aloi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Giovanni Aloi until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  Asartea  Talk  undefined  Contribs  11:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Arturo Llobell for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arturo Llobell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Arturo Llobell until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Takaya Tsubobayashi


The article Takaya Tsubobayashi has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Doesn't meet WP:GNG nor WP:NMOTORSPORT."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Jean-Yves Adam for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jean-Yves Adam is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jean-Yves Adam until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. MarchOfTheGreyhounds (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Velimir Varga


The article Velimir Varga has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp/dated tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. BilledMammal (talk) 13:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Itzy Bitzy Spider (Joyspeed song)


The article Itzy Bitzy Spider (Joyspeed song) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The only source I could find stating that the song charted at all was the MTV source, which itself is dubiously sourced. Since it's clear that the song is clearly unnotable, it should be deleted."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 page 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. OhHaiMark (talk) 02:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Itsybitsyspidercover1.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Itsybitsyspidercover1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ~ GB fan 11:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)