User talk:Lankiveil/Archive 10

Evidence pages
Hi Lankiveil, re: Kevin's case, I've been wondering in this case and a few recent others, why clerks suddenly started adding preliminary statements to evidence pages. It makes the pages harder to read, the evidence hard to follow, and it makes people appear to have involved themselves in the evidence stage when they haven't. Could that clerking change be rolled back so that the evidence page is reserved for people who add evidence?

Pinging and  too. Liz, I seem to recall you moving preliminary statements to an evidence talk page recently, but I can't remember which case. SarahSV (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We're having a talk about this right now on the clerks-l list, it seems that the actual practice has diverged somewhat from what is in the formal procedures. I do think that your suggestion has a great deal of merit but it's mostly up to the Arbs to decide how they want it.  Watch this space.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC).


 * Thanks, Lankiveil. I can't remember when I first saw this being done, but it was recent, I think just this year. I know that it has made me not follow evidence pages that I might otherwise have read, which is probably a good thing. But for people who have to read those pages for whatever reason, the clutter must be distracting. It means important evidence is more likely to be overlooked, without the person who posted it realizing this has happened, so it's not just an aesthetic issue. SarahSV (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * SarahSV, some recent arbitration cases have had the preliminary statements on the Evidence page while others have them on the main case talk page. According to the procedures, they are supposed to go on the Evidence page but some arbitrators have preferred to keep the Evidence page for new presentation of evidence and asked that the preliminary statements be moved. Liz  Read! Talk! 02:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Liz, when you say "According to the procedures, they are supposed to go on the Evidence page," can you say where this is written down? It's definitely a new thing, so it would be good to see who suggested it. SarahSV (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, forgot to ping . SarahSV (talk) 02:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Liz, in case it's helpful, the first time I recall seeing this was when you created this evidence page in June 2015. Before then (so far as I had noticed), evidence pages were created with blank templates, such as here in May 2015. SarahSV (talk) 03:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * See Arbitration Committee/Clerks/Procedures, section B. I don't know when it was first suggested that the preliminary statements be moved but it most likely came at the request of the drafting arbitrator. They basically set the timetable and parameters (sectioning talk pages or no sectioning) for each case.
 * Looking at recent cases, preliminary statements went on the main case talk page with Arbitration enforcement 2 and Palestine-Israel articles 3 but they went on the Evidence page with Genetically modified organisms and Catflap08 and Hijiri88. So, there has been deviation from procedures when the arbitrators have requested it. Liz  Read! Talk! 03:19, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . The case template was changed here on 23 June 2015 by . Callanecc, we're discussing the decision to include preliminary statements on evidence pages. It's arguably making the evidence harder to read, which increases the chance that something important will be overlooked. Would you or the other Arbs object if the previous version of the template, without the preliminary statements, were to be restored? SarahSV (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi SV, it's up to the arbs. They made the call to move them to the evidence page so that people's submissions wouldn't be split and editors feel the need to say the same things again, and to encourage participation (by already having a section for them). Personally, I don't really know (or maybe care) either way, but I haven't had 'the' experience yet to really know. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * If I may. I think the key here is consistency, or rather the lack of consistency.  While thinking "outside the box" occasionally can be fruitful - when a ruling body is so seldom INSIDE the box, it leads to consternation.  People don't often trust what they can't understand, and when the rules, procedures, and protocols are continually changed (by the ruling body rather than by community consensus) it becomes impossible to understand, and it breeds contempt.  How are we to have faith in a ruling body which continually moves the goal-posts?  (Note: This isn't directed at you Lankiveil, as I understand that you're just the messenger.  It's just that I saw the discussion here, and wanted to opine.) — Ched :  ?  15:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . Can you say which Arb asked you to change the template? I'm thinking that this ought to be a decision made with community input, unless there's a clear benefit for the Arbs that I'm overlooking.


 * It makes the evidence harder to read and follow; it means that people, including Arbs, are more likely to overlook something that matters; it gives the impression that lots of evidence has been submitted when it has not; it confronts the person(s) facing the committee with a wall of text before they've even begun. Sometimes it's important to be clear that not much evidence, if any, has been submitted.


 * So for all these reasons I don't see this as a minor formatting change, but as something that should be discussed more widely if it's to stick. SarahSV (talk) 16:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It was a mailing list discussion which happened a while ago so I'd have to go searching through the list archives.
 * From memory, the reasons for having initial statements on the evidence page was so that there would be some sort of accountability for what people put in their initial statements and that any patterns would become more evident (that is, what people put in their statements can be used as evidence). Likewise, it was thought that having them being there provided a jumping off point and encouraged them to participate as some of their comments were already there.
 * Regarding community input, the Committee is wholly and completely responsible for deciding how it's cases are run and managed (apart from the broad principles in ARBPOL) so it is up to the arbitrators to make a decision as to what will assist them in reaching a decision. They may involve the community if they wish but it is completely up to them. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * An advantage of being a retiring Arb is the freedom to say whatever you like and have other people just smile fondly at your ranting. So here goes: this was a bad change. There is a (limited) utility in saving people from having to submit statements in /Evidence that include material they also typed in the Case request. This is vastly overwhelmed by the nuisance factor of having to subsequently sort actual evidence from random Case Request commentary and - as points out - in seeming to suggest people are involved in the case when they aren't. In big spammy cases the new format becomes needlessly hard to follow regarding who posted evidence when, what points have been reiterated and who is actively engaged in the debate.


 * I appreciate a clerk's usertalk is an odd place to be having this discussion, but for those Arbs and incoming Arbs that are watching this please consider changing back to the previous system of leaving the /Evidence page for those who are specifically posting /Evidence, rather than including every Case Request comment. The old system worked fine. The new system is a pain. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

, thanks for your reply. I can't agree that these things are up to the committee alone, because everyone is affected by them. We had an interesting eight days when the GGTF case opened, during which no one submitted evidence – in something like a protest vote – and for a while the empty evidence page symbolized how people on all sides felt about the case. I think people should be allowed to make that point if they want to.

But that's just one consideration. Others include that it's now manifestly harder to read the page, and that preliminary statements often contain no evidence. SarahSV (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I've finally wrangled unambiguous approval to amend the current case to get rid of all that preliminary statement clutter on the Evidence page, and now I'm batting around some proposed wording changes with my clerk colleagues to our procedures to codify this as the new normal. Thanks for the patience and good humour that you've displayed in this discussion.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:35, 17 December 2015 (UTC).


 * Thank you sir. I know that once things become entrenched, it's difficult to make changes. I appreciate all the good efforts.  The next time someone tells me that drummers have all the fun - I'll point them over here. :-) — Ched :  ?  15:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Lankiveil, thank you so much for doing that and for letting us know. SarahSV (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Lankiveil - thank you for your work on this case and with AC in general - I know that being a clerk is in general is one of those fairly thankless jobs that nonetheless is important to the functioning of the encyclopedia. I'd ask that you consider restoring 's initial statement.  Their initial statement is different than other initial statements in one important way: they are actually a named party to the case.  Best, User:Kevin Gorman | talk page Statement in current arbcom case 22:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm happy for User:Vanjagenije to re-add his statement to the evidence page if they think it is relevant, but other than that I'm not keen on seeing to be speaking on his behalf. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC).
 * I see you two are pinging me, but I don't understand why. What is it about?  Vanjagenije  (talk)  23:34, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Vanja: although the case is named after me, you are currently a named party to an arbitration case. This means that arbcom will examine your behavior and take any action they find appropriate, from nothing, to a desysop, to a siteban.  Normally I'd tell you not to be very worried, but the fact that the case was accepted in the first place based on the lacking evidence in the RFAR suggests that something less than awesome is going on. User:Kevin Gorman | talk page  Statement in current arbcom case 23:52, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With respect, that is vastly unlikely. Most people who are "involved parties" in any case are so named simply because they have contributed key evidence in the case or in preceding actions. Being "involved" generally means only an ex,tension of the word limit if evidence is lodged, and notifications of the opening and closing of stages of the case. It does not routinely mean they are accused of any editor misconduct, nor does it mean they will face Arbcom sanction. In this instance there is no suggestion that Vanjagenije has done anything wrong, and as a personal view there is no credible prospect of any finding against them.. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason for copying preliminary statements to the evidence page is to have all the relevant evidence in one spot, making it easier for us to read and less likely that we'll miss something. I'm not clear as to why this is such a bad thing. Doug Weller (talk) 17:21, 19 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)

Season's Greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Lankiveil: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 20:56, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
 * Thanks for the nice wishes, I'll certainly take some of that winter solstice weather here if you've got any to spare! Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC).

stuff the snow and winter solstice, wheres the beer

 * Thanks for your work on Australian things for 2015
 * Have a safe and enjoyable christmas season
 * Best wishes to you and all your family JarrahTree 11:25, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * And likewise to you and your family! Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC).

Season's greetings!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello Lankiveil: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Esquivalience t 21:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Please reconsider
I am disappointed by the comments at the DRV for involuntary celibacy. In case you weren't aware, I was the one who nominated Articles for deletion/Incels for deletion. I am not trying promote that subculture, instead I am working on a subject which has been documented for over a millennia, I even provided sources supporting the current article. What I am doing wrong? I felt it be better to ask my opponents instead of supporters. If you show me problems with the sources I provided I will gladly drop the subject, otherwise I hope you may reconsider. Valoem  talk  contrib  08:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that your comment that "I will not rest until this is restored" pretty much encapsulates the problem I have with your constant and disruptive attempts to restore this agenda-pushing piece of WP:SYNTH. One DRV is reasonable, two is probably acceptable under certain circumstances, but by my count this is the fourth in a year or so, and that, combined with the Christmas timing, is severely testing AGF.  I really suggest that if you don't get the response you want, you let this one go for at least a year and concentrate on unrelated topics.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
 * Can you please clarify what you mean by "agenda-pushing piece"? What "agenda" am I pushing? Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  01:30, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With four DRVs on the same article, I think that's quite plain, and I don't see how continuing this conversation merely to state the obvious is really beneficial for either of us. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC).
 * I am showing that this topic meets all GNG and NPOV requirements, as I have done with many topics in the past which you can see going through my history. This however, has much more resistance due to unknown reasons. If you are being neutral you can clearly see WP:SYNTH does not apply based on the sources I provided, is this what your think I am doing, or is it something else? <font color="DarkSlateGray">Valoem  talk  <font color="Green">contrib  05:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Lankiveil!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Lankiveil, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 22:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

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)

Rhys etc From Hawes
Thanks very much for your intervention at that user page. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 08:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Major cricket (2nd nomination)
I know the conversation devolved towards the end, but was hoping you could elaborate on how no-consensus was reached. Eight people suggested that it should not be kept in its current form (including the nominator) and three were for keeping (including the main author, someone with the user name Murderbydeletion and a now indeffed user). I know it is not a vote and you may well be correct in your decision, but you provided no rational for a no-consensus close. Can you have another look at this please. AIR corn (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Aircorn. This close deserves far more explanation than a simple sentence, particularly when there seems to have been clear consensus for, if not straight deletion, merging/redirecting/something other than keep. I've never taken an AFD close to DRV, but I'm seriously considering it here, without some very strong rationale for this no consensus close. By strength of argument, this didn't even seem a particularly close decision. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 06:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The discussion was heading towards a clear consensus, if it hadn't already reached it, that some content be moved to history of cricket and a redirect put in place. Even user:GnGn, who subsequently disrupted the discussion with his personal attacks, initially agreed to this course of action Py0alb (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd add my query to this as well - something I've never felt the need to do before. I opted to not place a direct vote on the AfD on the understanding that it's the comments that matter. I can understand it is a difficult close and that there have now been at least two contentious cricket AfD in recent weeks which have gotten a little out of hand and that the nature of the discussion may have been too rambling to come to a conclusion, but I'm a little surprised that it's not a merge/redirect. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've opened a discussion regarding a possible merge of the Major cricket article to History of cricket - see the discussion I've started at Talk:Major cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've responded on the talk page regarding the question of merging. As for the close itself, there was a lot of competing proposals and it was complicated by some rather ugly digressions and personal attacks.  It would be next to impossible to pull any sort of coherent agreement out of that.  If you wish I'll revert the close and let someone else have a crack at closing it, but I think that the discussion on the talk page of the article is probably the way forward at the moment.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC).
 * Thanks for responding. The correct outcome has occurred in the end. AIR corn (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My only issue is that if a no consensus verdict is reached, that when user:blackjack returns to the site, he will simply undo all the changes and reinstate the page and the whole debate will start over again. There may not have been a consensus to delete outright, but there was definitely a consensus to redirect Py0alb (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Brisbane Meetup 8.jpg
Hi Lankiveil, are you the author (photographer) of this photo? If so, would you mind adding authorship details to the file description page so we have source info for it? Cheers, F ASTILY  10:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Lucy Hannah
Hi. I was wondering if you could comment a little more on your closure of Articles for deletion/Lucy Hannah (3rd nomination) as no consensus. From reviewing the !votes on the page, I don't see a single "keep" vote that refers to an actual Wikipedia policy whose interpretation might justify keeping the article. All of them simply claim that they feel, subjectively, that the subject of the article is notable. Given the massive problems regarding sockpuppetry, off-wiki canvassing, and walled gardens in regard to longevity articles (a brief taste of which can found at the relevant Arbcom case), would it not have been better to relist the article so that more outside voices could participate? If consensus is that interpretations of actual policies lean towards keeping, then I am fine with it, but the "she's old and therefore notable" argument has no basis in policy and has been rejected on multiple occasions by consensus (see the large number of similar articles that have been deleted, redirected, and merged over the last few months). Canadian  Paul  18:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I declined to relist that one because it wasn't going anywhere near a consensus and I wasn't prepared to simply kick the can another week down the road for some other admin to deal with. As for the arguments; a lot of the "Keep" arguments were fairly weak but there is no reading of that discussion that leads to a "Delete" consensus, I'm sorry.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:05, 30 January 2016 (UTC).
 * In that case, I am going to have to bring this one to WP:DRV. No consensus to delete, sure, but not a single policy-based argument for keep. Not relisting encourages the historical strategy of off-wiki canvassing and meatpuppetry. Canadian   Paul  18:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Lucy Hannah
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lucy Hannah. 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. Canadian  Paul  18:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Ashley Ann Olsen
I regularly assess articles for AFD, I carefully assess and weigh the sourcing, often sourcing paltry articles on significant topics, other times arguing strongly to delete. But there is a lot of shallow voting at AFD. One consistent pattern is that AFD attracts many iVoters who vote without actually examining the sourcing, or running their own searches. And they can get it wrong. I know that you saw a lot of this sort of iVote at Ashley Olsen, because you mentioned in in your close, where you also mentioned the weak arguments given for delete. I urge you to consider the possibility that the editors who called the coverage cited "routine" were in fact failing to acknowledge, or to examine the depth, intensity and geographic breadth of the coverage, and allow the discussion to continue for another week, to give more editors the chance to weigh in.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope you'll understand that I also participate often at AFD, having taken part in hundreds if not thousands of discussions. I've also recently made it a thing to close difficult discussions that other administrators don't want to touch.  In the case of this discussion, yours was the only "Keep" !vote that I felt made any attempt to articulate a policy-based position, and so it was the only one I spent much time with.  Unfortunately, given the inherently subjective nature of determining if the coverage was significant or not, you need to look for consensus and the consensus of the vast majority of editors was in opposition to your position.  I appreciate the point of view you're trying to put to me here, but I doubt that many admins would be willing to go down a rabbit hole of doubting the good faith, integrity, and effort of those contributing in deletion discussions, as you suggest.  A relist was also not appropriate; while the policy does allow a relist if "the discussion has only a few participants", over a dozen people participated in the discussion and it was open longer than the required amount of time.  As I've said before on this topic, we don't just keep kicking the can down the road and relisting until we arrive at what someone feels is the "correct" outcome.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC).

Books & Bytes - Issue 15
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 15, December-January 2016 by, , , ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations - Ships, medical resources, plus Arabic and Farsi resources
 * # 1lib1ref campaign summary and highlights
 * New branches and coordinators

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)

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)

WHOLESALE DELETIONS FROM A WIKIPEDIA WEBSITE
I wish to report bad faith and unjustified deletions that has occurred on 17 February 2016 in "List of Hungarian Australians" website. User ScrapIronIV, who, contrary to Wikipedia's spirit and deed to serve and benefit public interest, saw fit to arbitrarily delete countless Hungarian Australians who had been or are still contributing eminently to Australian society in their own field of endeavour. Perhaps one or two of them are not as notable as the others, however this attempt appears to be enormous nonsense outrage contrary to established norms. History Details: •(cur | prev) 15:50, 17 February 2016‎ ScrapIronIV (talk | contribs)‎. . (14,087 bytes) (-6,438)‎. . (Per WP:WTAF) (undo | thank) •(cur | prev) 15:48, 17 February 2016‎ ScrapIronIV (talk | contribs)‎. . (20,525 bytes) (-17,671)‎. . (Per WP:WTAF) (undo | thank) •(cur | prev) 15:43, 17 February 2016‎ ScrapIronIV (talk | contribs)‎. . (38,196 bytes) (-21,165)‎. . (Per WP:WTAF) (undo | thank) •(cur | prev) 15:38, 17 February 2016‎ ScrapIronIV (talk | contribs)‎. . (59,361 bytes) (-17,446)‎. . (Per WP:WTAF) (undo | thank) I am contributor Attilaurm, and like many other genuine and dedicated contributors aiming to develop the website concerned since its inception, I dedicated myself to the same objective: factual entries of outstanding Australian Hungarians (ex-migrant and/or first generation). In the past, on 14 Sept. 2014, yourself as user Lankiveil restored another unwarranted and totally unjustified wholesale deletion of 11 Sept. 2014 caused by user "Huon". Could you please involve yourself by adjudicating and restoring the deleted names as you see fit, since I am lost and have no one to turn to. Thank you. Signed : user Attilaurm. Attilaurm (talk) 01:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC) 24 February 2016. In this case I'm afraid I must concur with the user doing the removals here. The usual practice is that in list articles like this, especially with subjective inclusion criteria, only entires that have their own Wikipedia articles should be included. I suggest that you see if articles could be created on any of these individuals that have been removed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC) Thankyou Lankiveil for your response. Unfortunately in my case, Wikipedia does not have an editor-in-chief nor an editorial board for any adjudication issue on content matter or entry of names. However when it comes to the source cross-referencing process, the fact is that the system was specifically designed by Wikipedia so as to cater for inclusion of those prominent people who excelled and were outstanding in their field but do not necessarily have a Wikipedia article on them. Whilst I accept that some names listed in the past may not have notable enough and thus were not valid in the first instance for entry, it remains always a possibility to undermine the good work done by some volunteer contributors when bad faith and unjustified deletions occur wholesale. I rest my case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Attilaurm (talk • contribs) 12:53, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Scooby doo
Stop changing the accuracy of this page. My facts are proven. Yours are inaccurate. I will have you kicked off Wikipedia if you don't stop altering the truth. Writer2122 (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Your threat to have me "kicked of Wikipedia" aside, you were updating the page on the television programme, which Takamoto did not create. He did help create the visual design of the character itself, as already noted at Scooby-Doo (character).  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

Talkback
Hi Lankiveil, any further comment on this? My last argument on the matter was (nutshelled) that indefinite semi of the user's talk page contradicts our user talk block policy. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Esoglou requesting unblock
Hello Lankiveil. You performed the block of Esoglou on 7 March 2015 per the Arbcom case, and he's now requesting unblock. This presumably needs an appeal to Arbcom. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like someone else has beaten me to it, but you're correct that needs an appeal. You can direct users in this situation to Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC).

Books & Bytes - Issue 16
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 16, February-March 2016 by ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations - science, humanities, and video resources
 * Using hashtags in edit summaries - a great way to track a project
 * A new cite archive template, a new coordinator, plus conference and Visiting Scholar updates
 * Metrics for the Wikipedia Library's last three months

"Evidence presented by Lankiveil"
Have you personally reviewed these documents? I am sceptical of these claims to credentials, given the lack of elementary knowledge about the subject, and lack of basic writing skills. The 'Interim Bachelor of Science degree certificate' is supposedly interim 'because it can take 3-5 years to retrieve the original from Nigerian universities'. Is this true? On the 'Current employment appointment letter' have you verified that the company actually exists? He claims here that he works at "Dynamics medical laboratory and diagnostics service". Is this the same name as on the scanned documents? I cannot find any record of such a company.

Also here he says " I worked briefly as a college teacher and a medical laboratory scientist before I decided to obtain a postgraduate degree in Environmental biochemistry." So is he or isn't he now working as a 'medical laboratory scientist? Peter Damian (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have viewed them as described in my evidence. As I said, all I'm verifying is that they appear to be what Wikicology says they are.  I have no knowledge of the Nigerian education system so I couldn't comment on whether his statement about "3 to 5 years" is accurate.  With regards to his employment, I don't want to give away too much for fear of outing; but the document has many aspects that would indicate to me that it is genuine, and there is plenty of contact information provided which should make it simple for someone to contact the firm and confirm it exists.  Whether he is still an employee of that particular firm, I couldn't say.


 * As to whether they're genuine? I couldn't say, all I can say is that they're not obvious forgeries in my opinion, and that ArbCom should review them and take them into consideration.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC).
 * Thanks. Perhaps he could confirm whether "Dynamics medical laboratory and diagnostics service" is the real name of the firm or not. If it's real, then he has already confirmed this publicly, and it's not 'outing'. If it's not, then it's not outing either! Peter Damian (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Lankiveil, could you say whether the employment appointment letter actually confirms the employment position or duties as a "laboratory scientist"? If not, does the letter specify the position title or duties in some other way? Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 21:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It has the position title, but doesn't go into the duties involved. I can't say with 100% certainty whether it is genuine, but if it's a forgery it's one that has been composed IMHO with more care and attention to detail than Wikicology has displayed in his articles.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC).
 * OK, thanks, but does the position title indicate being employed as a "laboratory scientist" or something similar? I am asking because, from reading the ANI and the original RFAR page, a key point of contention regarding wikicology's credentials seems to be his description of himself as an "academic" and a "laboratory scientist" that was contained in an earlier version of his user page (there also seems to have been some claim about being a "university lecturer" made in an RfA but I have not understood the precise context of that). Looking through the list of items submitted to OTRS, the first two only provide the proof of a bachelor's degree. Having a bachelor's degree, in whatever subject, does not make one a "scientist" or an "academic". The last item is a "Postgraduate application form", which does not prove anything except that he applied for some postgraduate studies program. So everything seems to turn on the third item listed there, "Current employment appointment letter". If the position title given in this letter says something like "laboratory scientist", or something similar, then the letter could indeed be viewed as verifying some of Wikicology's claims in relation to his qualifications and credentials. Otherwise, I don't see how this letter can be viewed as substantively verifying Wikicology's claims. Nsk92 (talk) 02:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your description of the degree and "application letter" match my observations. The job title does say that, although because it doesn't go into the duties of the position, I couldn't say whether he's doing cutting edge research, or going to get the coffee for the other scientists who are doing cutting edge research.  As I said, I'm not saying that it bears out all of Wikicology's claims, just that the arbs ought to consider it carefully.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC).
 * OK, got it, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, could you please confirm whether the company is the same as "Dynamics medical laboratory and diagnostics service", or different. If different, I am not asking you to say what it actually is. If the same, then he has already confirmed that name on-wiki, as I noted above, so it won't matter. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 08:32, 17 April 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)

WP:AE about FreeatlastChitchat
Everyone's focus is on the the words "holocaust denier". The user has big block log and what he gets is last warning.

He was warned by Tristessa not to make uncivil comments and he was  he was reminded, yet he violated that warning by launching personal attacks and what he got was another warning (Why Drmies didn't block him). How many times he will be warned?

He was very very lucky to survive this proposal on 18 April 2015:

Even Esquivalience and  KrakatoaKatie supported the ban proposal, but as I said he was lucky. --2A03:4A80:2:2D3:170F:DBFA:3935:243B (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not even going to consider this until you log in or tell me who you are. I'm not interested in silly politics from those who won't identify themselves.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC).

FYI
The editor that you oversight blocked a few days ago,, returned today with another account,. I blocked the second account as a sockpuppet. I leave it up to you to review edits for oversight. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 17
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 17, April-May 2016 by The Interior, Ocaasi, UY Scuti, Sadads, and Nikkimaria

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations this month - a German-language legal resource
 * Wikipedia referals to academic citations - news from CrossRef and WikiCite2016
 * New library stats, WikiCon news, a bot to reveal Open Access versions of citations, and more!

Books & Bytes - Issue 18
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 18, June–July 2016 by, Ocaasi, Samwalton9, UY Scuti, and Sadads

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter The Interior via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:25, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * New donations - Edinburgh University Press, American Psychological Association, Nomos (a German-language database), and more!
 * Spotlight: GLAM and Wikidata
 * TWL attends and presents at International Federation of Library Associations conference, meets with Association of Research Libraries
 * OCLC wins grant to train librarians on Wikimedia contribution

Sharon Christian
please revert page to draft space. I will continue to track down more references. There are literally dozens of them. We just found a front page photograph of the artist, along with the caption "Local artist creates own style". http://www.sharonchristian.ca/acclaim/abstract-realism-article.pdf

And the artist was involved in many many juried shows across Canada, invitations shown here: http://www.sharonchristian.ca/acclaim/

I'm sorry that this is all pre-internet. The Calgary Herald, The Globe and Mail, the North Shore News (all widely read and respected newspapers that covered the artist extensively, at the national, regional and local level) do not have on-line archives dating to the 1970s-1990s. Icareaboutart (talk) 11:53, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I've restored the article to Draft:Sharon Christian. Please feel free to add additional sources that you think might push her over the WP:GNG.  That print article is good but I think that articles from the Calgary Herald and Globe&Mail are more likely to be taken seriously than something from a local newspaper.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC).


 * Thank-you. Icareaboutart (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Fodi Laishu Yaar
Fodi Laishu Yaar was speedy deleted, but it has been recreated again, I suspect by the same user with different username. Can you please delete it again? Is it too soon to block creation? Coderzombie (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I only deleted it for, but it's been recreated by a different account which makes me suspect something is up.  I've just realised the original account that created the article had a name that might suggest a COI.  I've dropped a warning on their talk page and I'm not going to delete just yet without giving them a chance to explain, but thanks for drawing this to my attention for a closer look.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: Kindly Reconsider the Fodi Laishu Yaar page as it has been created as per Wiki guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fly team (talk • contribs) 11:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that, but I hope you'll be able to respond to the question I posed on your talk page: do you have a connection with this film, or did you work on it? Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC).

@Lankiveil: Yes we are associated with this film. we are digital partners of the film. Do we need to add more sections in the page to qualify? Is this the reason for page being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fly team (talk • contribs) 12:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

User vandalism
In spite of multiple warnings and speedy deletes,, keeps creating page Ragi jani. Can you please look into this incident? Coderzombie (talk) 10:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

24.124.16.33
I'm curious as to why a banned user with 195 confirmed and 150 suspected sockpuppets would get only a 31 hour block for evasion. After years of harassment targeting one specific user (you may notice that dozens of those sockpuppets are parodies of my user name), 31 hours seems pretty short. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:IPBLENGTH. It's likely they'll have a new IP within 31 hours anyway, and if they return under that IP they can be blocked for a bit longer.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC).

Hey, why did you delete that page on George Miller?
Self explanatory — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.164.133 (talk) 06:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please refer back to the discussion at Articles for deletion/George Miller (entertainer) where there was a consensus expressed (once again) that Miller does not meet our criteria for having an article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC).

Alica Machado Talk Page
Please explain why you felt it necessary to delete an entire section discussing Alicia Machado's past for the Alicia Machado article. It dealt directly with the accusations Donald Trump leveled at Machado, namely that she was a porn star and made a sex tape. The links I suggested for the article show just how flimsy Trump's claims are. Also she has become an important person associated with Hillary Clinton's campaign. Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 03:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I hatted the discussion rather than deleting it, but I agree with the deletion. WP:BLP extends to all pages including talk pages, and repeatedly raising discredited allegations based on their appearance in gossip rags and advocating for its inclusion in an article, is not the sort of thing that'll go well.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Well these weren't gossip rags. The links I provided regarding Machado's sexual behavior were Telemundo, Snopes and New York Magazine. However, I can see I've touched some kind of nerve on Wikipedia so I won't press the issue any further but please help me understand what's going on here. If I've provided reputable sources like the ones I've just mentioned why isn't this appropriate information for a Wikipedia article? Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 12:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Another question just occurred to me. Did you "hat" this discussion for fear of a lawsuit? Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 14:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, again, we don't include debunked malicious rumours in BLP articles. If we went into detail of every crazy claim made in the world of US politics, there'd be little room on Wikipedia for anything else.  As to your other question, the answer is "no".  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC).

Request for information
Why your !vote at Mike Weinholtz? The article at Utah gubernatorial election, 2016 isn't going to go away, so Weinholtz will forever be recorded in the encyclopedia. How do you justify (what appears to be to me) ignoring WP:BLP1E and WP:ATD and deleting the edit history at Mike Weinholtz? Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Student Organization Of Rajasthan Rebari Youth
Sorry, but how is this NOT "an article that (...) consists only of external links and a rephrasing of the title"?  Yinta n  12:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I suppose if you want to get purely technical, you might argue that the stublike sentence was a rephrasing, but it's a lot more substantial than what usually gets killed through A3. I did entertain the thought it might be a joke given the odd acronym, but after looking a bit, if it's a hoax it's one that they've spent a fair bit of time setting up.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:52, 7 October 2016 (UTC).
 * I don't think it's a hoax, it's just barely a stub. Anyway, somebody else can slap an A7 on it.  Yinta n  12:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

thank you
I don not intend to attack any one. Riisen (talk) 07:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Talk:E3 Media
Hi Lankiveil. You closed Articles for deletion/E3 Media (3rd nomination) as "no consensus". Would you provide some guidance at Talk:E3 Media about when the Notability tag can be removed? I don't think it is appropriate to leave it on the article indefinitely when notability has been thoroughly discussed at AfD and no consensus has been reached. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Mandhir Singh (Chahal)
Hi, Lankiveil, thanks for your comment on the deletion review. You quoted,"Overturn G4 with no prejudice against listing immediately at AFD. The new article is clearly an entirely new text, and contains better sourcing than the previous incarnation, although not being familiar with Indian sources it still may not be enough." Can you explain in more detail what it means that you said ? And also, I can't see any affect of yours saying on the quotation. Once again, thanks for your help and comment. Samdeepsinghone (talk) 08:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Shitposting no consensus?
Would you care to explain more about how you arrived at "No Consensus?" Counting noses is clear consensus for delete. Reviewing sources shows a clear news one-day spike for Palmer Luckey (coinciding with the creation of the article to disparage him). It's already in Wiktionary. Generously it's a redirect to Internet troll. Please elaborate on your thinking. --DHeyward (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * My analysis was that it was using a concept that has made it to neither Wiktionary nor Urban Dictionary. Unscintillating (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've received your message and will give you a full response once I'm at home and have time to give it a proper reply. Please forgive the delay.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:26, 12 October 2016 (UTC).
 * I'd of rather seen a Keep, as I thought the WP:IAR-related arguments were very weak. But I can see how any closer could honorably close this one as no consensus.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 09:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * your continued bad faith assumptions about article creations are getting tiring. --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for taking so long to respond. You are correct that on a nose-count delete is ahead, but these things are not decided by nose-count.  When we remove "delete" votes that either advanced no policy based rationale at all, or made an argument that was later debunked, the numbers get a lot closer.  Some of the sources presented in the article were rubbish, but others look decent at a glance and nobody took the time to pull them apart.  On the purely subjective question of whether they amount to substantive coverage of "shitposting" or are purely Palmer Luckey related there is no clear agreement (and of course we don't have an equivalent of WP:BLP1E for neologisms, which may have applied), which isn't helped by the fact that folks were talking past one another rather than actually taking the time to look at what the other side was saying.  I don't see that the article is disparaging against Luckey, since it doesn't mention him and hasn't since the discussion was closed.  Note that a "no consensus" close is... a "no consensus" and not a "keep", it doesn't preclude anyone from boldly redirecting or proposing some other action.    Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC).
 * No worries. I had removed the disparaging Palmer Luckey stuff. I'll give it time to see if was just "newsy" use of the term in that news cycle or passes WP:NEO or fails WP:NOT.  If not for an election year, I doubt the 10 year old term would have even received coverage.  Only a few more weeks, thank God.  Thanks for the reply! --DHeyward (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This election can't be over soon enough. Agree that it might be a good idea to wait until a couple of weeks after the election and then renominate, hopefully without the hyperpartisan atmosphere we're operating init'll be possible to come to a decision.  Again, sorry for taking awhile to get back to you.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:40, 15 October 2016 (UTC).

Chime in on unblock request?
Would you mind chiming in on the unblock request of User talk:WhyIsItWereHere22? Their edits seem mostly constructive with the exception of the Hillary Clinton one, so I'm inclined to give them another chance and keep a close eye on their edits. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 21:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't recognise the user name, and unfortunately I'm not in a position to take a good look at this for a little while. I'm happy to trust in your good judgement either way.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:15, 20 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

Deleted Page Brad Blanton
Why was the article "Brad Blanton" deleted? In the deletion log it says "of a person notable only as an unelected candidate for office" - which is just not true. His political career is only a side track, far more important is his work as the creator of Radical Honesty, best selling book author (He sold about a 250.000 books of "Radical Honesty. Transform your life be telling the truth") and psychotherapist with an international reputation (which was also a part of the article). TheFuchs (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume you are talking about this page. There was a discussion here which came to a fairly clear consensus that we should not have a page on Blanton at this time.  The article already had a number of claims about the books and supposed international reputation, however these were not cited.  If you have some credible reliable sources that were not previously in the article that back up these claims, I'd be happy to list at deletion review for a second look.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC).
 * Here are some reliable sources: Interview in the New York Post, an article about Radical Honesty and Brad Blanton on esquire, Interview with the Official Magazine of the National Association of Realtors, Interview on lastingloveconnection.com, about Brad Blanton on Conversation for Exploration, an article about Radical Honesty and its creator Blanton in the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung, Interview and feature in The Roseanne Show. That's enough, right?TheFuchs (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've not had time to look at these in detail, although they do seem promising at a glance. I've restored the article at Draft:Brad Blanton for you to try and incorporate these sources.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC).

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

Brisbane meetup
Come along! Kerry (talk) 03:55, 11 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)

Don't Know Where Else To Put This
. Doc   talk  12:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I must clarify what I mean by a "plea agreement". I made 17 comments to the talk page between VM chiming in and his chilling warning. "All insults and personal attacks" means... what? Everything I said?! Doc   talk  13:44, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not see this comment by VM as inappropriate. He did not tell "please revert this article to my preferred version or else...". He only asked to remove personal comments about contributor(s) from an article talk page where such comments do not belong anyway. These pages only exist for discussing improvement of content. If anyone asked me to remove my personal comments about him from an article talk page, I would be happy to remove them. Content disagreements are a different matter. Here, I would still keep my arguments about content. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh please. I gave Doc a chance to strike or remove his personal attacks and insults. I could have gone to WP:AE right away. I was trying to be nice and accommodating. Now he's trying to use that against me. Sorry, but the cynicism and bad-faith of doing that is, frankly, disgusting. Well, that'll teach me to try and be nice next time. I'll just file AE reports at the first sign of trouble.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Repeating things like that, even after receiving a previous topic ban and multiple warnings, refusing to remove such comments from article talk page, and insisting on WP:AE that all their comments were appropriate looks to me as intentionally inflicting a topic ban upon himself. My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Disruption. Topic bans are issued to prevent disruption. A dissenting voice is hardly disruption. Well... actually, it is! Punishment is clearly needed here. If any ban should be considered, it would be some sort of "IBAN" if it were based on personal attacks. But it is not. It's not like I didn't know you'd close ranks and rally behind VM were I to question his objectivity regarding Trump. There's not one admin among you that would dare to not toe the line when it comes to Trump. They'd be excommunicated for it with extreme prejudice. Whatever. Doc   talk  09:09, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your "dissenting voice" should be about content or policies. This is not a legitimate "dissenting voice", but making life miserable for another contributor. The fact that you still do not understand it (or prefer not to listen) is a reason for sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Miss Teenager Universal
I don't see the consensus for "keep" here, considering the original nomination. The only comment isn't even correct in that the refs were added prior to the AfD listing. I would have relisted this for another round for visibility, and at the very least closed as no consensus low participation, but not keep. czar 02:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Call it "no consensus" if you like. The nom had already been relisted and there is little evidence that a further relist would have resulted in any more attention.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC).

Opportunity
I'd appreciate an opportunity to respond to whatever Nableezy brought up to you in back channels. It is clear from his history that Nableezy has multiple issues with me, and he does not always include all pertinent evidence when reporting me. Even his comments at AE about the suppression edits poisoned the well. Thank you. <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;"> Kamel Tebaast  03:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC) If the allegation is actionable, and insofar as it is possible to do so, we will of course give you the chance to respond. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:02, 11 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Lankiveil, some Oversight admins are also active at AE (and other enforcement), so whatever Nableezy submitted may cause them to have preconceptions about me if left unchallenged, even if that behavior is not "actionable". Because it obviously relates to my edits, I'm sure that most of the "evidence" I already know, so there is no reason to keep it from me. I am willing to conduct the entire process off Wiki, as Nableezy did. Thank you. <span style="font-size:smaller;:'arial bold',;border:1px solid Black;"> Kamel Tebaast  21:24, 12 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)


 * I can see nobody's ever explained to these guys that prizes have to be "aspirational". But then I've never heard about WikiCup despite it apparently running for 10 years. I think the organisers have some issues to work through. Kerry (talk) 03:25, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

"Quite a poor effort, here..."
I am sorry, but maybe you could help me to understand the meaning of your post at AN? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:16, 20 December 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 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Articles for deletion/Stockland Traralgon (2nd nomination)
Why is this no consensus? The strength of the keep side was not particularly strong particularly as you can discount one keep !vote. LibStar (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This essentially boiled down to WP:JN versus WP:JNN. I'm willing to indulge such things when the tide is all one way or the other, but in this case it's pretty much even.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC).

Murder of Ashley Ann Olsen

 * Hi. 10 months ago you closed Articles for deletion/Murder of Ashley Ann Olsen as delete, noting accurately that few editors supported keep, and that most editors described coverage as "routine".   However, that AFD took place just after the murder, making it impossible to validate assertions at AFD that this murder failed WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE .  I request that you restore the article in light of the following.  1.) Conviction of the murderer had gotten major international attention, detailed coverage in the New York Times,,  The Guardian,.  2.) Coverage has been ongoing since the murder and arrest, ,   and the trial was covered outside Italy .  Although an argument that this murder garnered "only routine coverage" was plausible and, indeed, was the opinion of most editors weighing in last February, it now seems clear, even form the small sample of ongoing coverage that I have linked, that this was a a notable murder as evidenced by the extensive international news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think that the newer coverage is just as routine as the old, but if you want to take this to DRV seeking recreation on the basis of new coverage, please do so with my blessing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:36, 24 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Would this: essay in Salon.com framing this murder as an example of the way young, attractive female murder victims are often blamed (slut shaming) for their won deaths and a feminist issue change your opinion?  E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry but no, neither Olsen nor her murder are the primary topics of that essay. As I said, if you want to take it to DRV please be my guest, I recognise that the situation can change and that perhaps the wider community will have a different view to what I do.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC).

Articles for deletion/Rod of Seven Parts (3rd nomination)
Hi Lankiveil, and Merry Christmas. Can I ask why you closed this as no consensus rather than relisting it? Josh Milburn (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the Christmas wishes. This particular discussion ran to its allotted time, and attracted eight participants (including the nominator), with a 4/2/2 split for "deletion", "redirect" and "keep".  I sometimes relist these when there is some indication that the discussion is heading towards a consensus, but in this particular case the discussion had petered out by the 16th, well before the discussion was closed.  In this case, a relist would just be kicking the can down the road for some other admin to deal with later on.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Very well. I suspect, though, it'll end up renominated in due course, especially as "no consensus" is not particularly satisfying! Josh Milburn (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Droichead Hornibrook
Go raibh maith agat as do chuid grianghraif den Droichead Hornibrook, tar éis an post scartála. Mé tar éis leathnú go díreach airteagal agus d'úsáid cuid acu. Kerry (talk) 06:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Tá áthas orm, bhí siad úsáideach. Bhí turas lae deas.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC).

Administration superpowers needed
Can you move Lands Administration Building to Land Administration Building (no "s") please? I cannot work out why I cannot do it (appears to be just reversing the existing redirection). It seems "Land" in the singular is the correct name. Thanks Kerry (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅, can you check that was what you wanted? Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:55, 26 December 2016 (UTC).
 * Sea, d'oibrigh sin. Míle buíochas libh a thabhairt duit. Agus breithlá sona freisin! Kerry (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comments on use of certain files not copyrighted in the US
Hello,

There is an ongoing discussion about the use of files on Wikipedia that are not protected by copyright in the US because there is no copyright relations between the US and the country of publication. You commented in a 2012 discussion on the same topic that resulted in no consensus. You are invited to share your views in the ongoing discussion. AHeneen (talk) 21:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Books and Bytes - Issue 20
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 20, November-December 2016 by, , ,

<div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: .9em"> Read the full newsletter MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Partner resource expansions
 * New search tool for finding TWL resources
 * # 1lib1ref 2017
 * Wikidata Visiting Scholar

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)