User talk:NYC Guru

July 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Mouth (song) has been reverted. Your edit here to Mouth (song) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8YIIM1EVDqg) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. music or video) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 09:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The link in question is the official music video of the song in question. NYC Guru (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Quick question
No implications being made here but is this your first account? Some of your activity is unusual for an account a couple days old. Lots of users edit as IPs before creating an account so just wondered if this was the case. Thanks in advance. Glen 08:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, I've been editing as IP but I finally decided to make an account and build an edit history. The IPs I edited from constantly change and I travel a lot, but rest assured i am here to be a constructive editor.  NYC Guru (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Synagogue of Deal for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Synagogue of Deal 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/Synagogue of Deal 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. Alansohn (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I notice, but the article has been improved to the point that the AFD discussion already has 4 keep votes. NYC Guru (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * All credit to those who expanded the article. It looks likely to be retained. Alansohn (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I already watching it. NYC Guru (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, I left a note on your Commons page. Could you take a clearer picture of the synagogue in the daytime? Also, since the article has been significantly expanded, perhaps you could also take an interior picture, if not of the sanctuary then at least the lobby? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:01, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll be happy to supply more images. I never thought to the that so many editors with be interested in expanding the article. NYC Guru (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I also nominated it for a main page appearance at Did You Know? Yoninah (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That's very nice of you, I never imagined it could make it to the main page. NYC Guru (talk) 21:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's now in the image slot for a main page appearance tomorrow, August 18, daytime on the East Coast. Best, Yoninah (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for File:Vahavta.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Vahavta.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like (to release all rights),  (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * File copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 09:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Synagogue of Deal
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow! Over 4,300 clicks! Yoninah (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I never thought it would become that good. Thanks for your help, Yoninah.  NYC Guru (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The picture added a lot of interest. Your article also inspired me to write another article about a Sephardi congregation in Philadelphia, Beit Harambam Congregation. Do you ever get over there to take pictures? Best, Yoninah (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm afraid not. I was able to get the pics of Synagogue of Deal because I'm staying in NJ near that neighborhood for the Summer, but I unable to take a picture for the other one.  You'll have to try and find pics on a search engine.  NYC Guru (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * OK. Well, if you want to take pictures of any of the other synagogues in Deal and add them to Syrian Jewish communities of the United States, that would be helpful. We could even start articles about them! Best, Yoninah (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I can tell you that I updated a pic of the Synagogue of Deal's interior sanctuary. Take a look and compare it to the old version an you'll notice the difference.  NYC Guru (talk) 05:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You did that a while ago, before the DYK appeared, right? Huge difference! Your photography is really good. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 11:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Vahavta.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vahavta.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

AfD
Hello NYC Guru, in cases like this were a user is repeatedly recreating his autobiography, discussing it at AfD usually doesn't lead to them realizing they're not notable. There's also very little to discuss since the article doesn't really make any claim of significance, and sources don't exist. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:20, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Also a tip to make nominations easier: If you go to Preferences > Gadgets and turn on Twinkle, nominating articles for deletion is much easier. The third step of adding this nomination to the log was missing, but I'll add it there for you. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I only sent it to AFD because it appeared the automated notices were not getting through to this person.  Now that the article will be deleted by consensus, the create/delete cycle will be put to bed and the AFD can be referred to in any further speedy deletions should it be re-posted after this closes.  NYC Guru (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Leaving Brooklyn?
! It's a safe bet this person is from Brooklyn, but did you try to spell your name as on the sign only to find it was alrady used? NYC Guru (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, it was a safe bet; I write back from Brooklyn. (May I assume you're somewhere in the five boroughs as well?) There are many ways to spell it. It started as a running joke between friends with exaggerated emulation of older relatives and their go-to expressions, became an internet handle, but I literally can't remember anymore if when I signed up I tried other spellings or not. How'd you happen across my userpage?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I review my watchlist from time to time are I noticed you edit one of the articles. Yeah, I'm from Brooklyn too.  NYC Guru (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Issue with the bots template on your talk page
Hi,

I see you're using the "bots" template. Specifically, "bots|deny". This talk page is listed as using the template incorrectly. I think if you don't want any (compliant) bots to edit this page, you need to change "bots|deny" to just "nobots". I don't want to make this change myself in case that's not actually your intention.

Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
 * . Done.  Thanks for the heads-up.  NYC Guru (talk) 11:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"Pralape" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Pralape. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 11 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 16:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

"Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 29 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin (she/they) &#124; o toki tawa mi. 02:47, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Edmond J. Safra Synagogue, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New York. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:07, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Sat Oct 29: Wikidata Day in NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Sat Nov 12: WikiConference North America in NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Nov 30: WikiWednesday Salon in Brooklyn + online
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 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) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

License tagging for File:KingsPlazaAtrium.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:KingsPlazaAtrium.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Vayishlach scroll.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Vayishlach scroll.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next seven days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 07:21, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Dec 28: WikiWed Salon (+ Wikipedia Day on Jan 15)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Sun Jan 15: Wikipedia Day returns to NYC!
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Your RFA
Hi, I have reverted your edit adding Requests for adminship/NYC Guru to the main RFA page. It is not ready for transclusion yet, you have to answer the 3 standard questions and properly format the page before transcluding it. At just 600 edits, you would most likely fail and get closed quickly as WP:NOTNOW. But if you still insist, take a look at some of the recent RFAs to see how it is prepared. Thanks. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 10:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed that you are not ready for adminship yet, and your RfA would only cause stress to you and waste time for others. Even your nomination has errors in it which show that you are not ready: "experience dictates that it's not about quality of edits, but quantity so it would be silly to reject me based on edit count alone." Surely you mean the reverse of what you wrote there? " I even had one of my synagogue articles evolve into featured article status: Synagogue of Deal. " That article is C-Class, far removed from FA. Fram (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also: " I've had a passion for editing bible articles since I joined. Many of my bible edits cite anomalies in the bible text. " None of your most recent mainspace edits (only 100 in the last 2 years) seem to match this description? If your nom has so many errors or problematic statements, it only goes to show your lack of experience: insisting that it is allowed to run for 7 days anyway comes across as arrogance, just wanting an editor review instead of actually believing that your RfA has any chance of passing. This is not really appreciated by most RfA regulars. Fram (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure many others will share your sediments and if you want to oppose on that, you have every right do that. I've addressed that at the top of the nom.  I think many editors waist more time vandalising wikipedia than this so there's no reason to be concerned.  I take being bold very seriously and to say it's arrogance is mistaken.  100 accounts for a fifth of what I did, so remember it's quality not quantity.  NYC Guru (talk) 11:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not going to pile on the RFA, but did you read Advice for RfA candidates before going ahead with this? ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi NYC Guru! Your recent RfA was closed pretty soon, despite you having asked to keep it open for the full seven days in order to get community input. I'm not entirely sure if hundreds of opposes and no support except for the few strictly moral support !votes that you would indubitably have gotten is really what you would have wanted, and so perhaps it's good that the RfA was closed early after all. Nevertheless, since I already wrote most of it by the time your RfA was closed, I will post my input here at your talk.

The fact that you seem to believe that the way to change our practices regarding blocking is to become an admin shows that you have a very inaccurate idea of what it involves to be an admin, which is to implement the consensus of the community about what should be done, not to unilaterally determine what should be done. Inaccurately describing a C-class article which you contributed 6% to as an FA and citing this as your best contribution further shows that you are completely unfamiliar with how things work here and what truly constitutes a valuable contribution (i.e. how difficult it is to really write an actual FA). The fact that you cite "editing bible articles" as your main interest also raises serious concerns with regard to competency, since anyone who is familiar with the scholarly literature on the Bible would know that this word is always capitalized.

I'd dare say this goes beyond WP:NOTNOW (which says you are welcome to reapply in a few months when you have more experience) and ventures into the territory where I would advise you not to return to RfA at all, or at least not before having edited quasi daily for a few years in a wide range of back areas in the project. Wikipedia is great not because of its ~500 active admins, but because of the thousands upon thousands of people who contribute in small ways. That's to say, Wikipedia is based on very effective crowdsourcing, and I sincerely believe that you would be much better off taking satisfaction in simply remaining a part of that crowd. Regards, ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 13:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the input, but seriously I do intend to become an admin someday. I don't have to luxury of being able to edit every day do to real life issues, I'm certainly hoping to address the issues put forth next time in maybe 2500 to 5000 edits.  NYC Guru (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me for being blunt, but there are some things that need to be said; I want to be clear here; I am not laying this all out to make you feel bad or in any way insult your behavior. That is most emphatically not my intent. My intent is to make it absolutely clear to you that the way in which you handled this was unequivocally wrong. Understand, WP:RFA is NOT editor review. Keeping your RfA open until you had a set number of opposes or more is not the intent. The intent is to find appropriate candidates to become administrators. If it were editor review, then leaving it open for a set period might make sense. Another person directed you to Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. But, even that is not editor review. After you've been here a couple more years, and gotten considerably more experience (which is not judged by edit counts, but by demonstration of your experience), you might consider using that tool instead of attempting another RfA. My advice to you; If you need help, let me know. I'll be happy to answer your questions. Just, if you ping me, make sure you add your signature in the same post! :) All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
 * First, it is blatantly clear that you didn't read this, which appeared on your screen when you added your RfA to WP:RFA. Had you done so, you would have understood a few things.
 * One of the pages that links to, and asks you to read, is Advice for RfA candidates. That clearly says, in a rather prominent box, "most RfAs that fail nowadays do so simply because candidates did not read the instructions and advice pages.". Had you read that, you would have realized that you needed to invest the time to understand exactly what it was you were doing, and how to proceed. Yet, you didn't.
 * You botched your creation of the RfA ,
 * couldn't figure out how to fix it ,
 * and were still confused about how to do this.
 * For reference, you should have been reading Requests for adminship/Nominate. Had you read the advice provided to you, you would have known that. You didn't.
 * Despite this, you proceeded ahead with your RfA anyway, and someone had to fix the edit you made to RfA.
 * Off to a poor start, you were then upset the RfA was closed before you wanted it to be, and you voted in support of yourself when the RfA was already closed.
 * Further, you then attempted to ping editors back to the now closed RfA in the hopes of continuing discussion but didn't realize that your pings didn't work. Had you read the documentation at ping, you would have known that "notification will work successfully only if you sign your post in the same edit in which you use this template.". But, you didn't read that either.
 * Now we're at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/NYC Guru, where you are apparently wanting to continue discussion about you, in hopes of improving.
 * Stop worrying about feedback on your recently closed RfA. It's closed, and that's the end of it.
 * Do read appropriate Policies and guidelines when venturing into a new area of Wikipedia.
 * Ask questions of people who are more experienced in areas unfamiliar to you.
 * It's ok to make mistakes; just make new ones.
 * Try. By that I mean Ignore all rules. Obviously don't be disruptive, but do try.
 * Being an administrator is NOT a goal for someone to have on the project. It's not a prestigious posting. It's a steaming pile of refuse that has to be dealt with by experienced users who have gained the trust of the community. The true power users on the project are the editors themselves, like you. Becoming an admin is something that you might realize you need to have in order to more efficiently do work that you're already doing on the project. It's not the other way around.


 * +1 to everything that has said - this is solid advice.  Girth Summit  (blether)  21:08, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

, it's easy for you to say since you've become one. makes me wonder why you wanted to become one in the first place. NYC Guru (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See my answer to Q7 on my RfA. And, it's not easy for me to say. Being an admin sucks at times. Really sucks. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Edmond J. Safra Synagogue


The page The Edmond J. Safra Synagogue has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it was an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguated only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ended in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguated zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * was a redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that did not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Deletion Review. Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

One editor, one vote
You cast two votes at this AfD. I've struck your second. Each editor gets one vote at any given AfD. You're welcome to amend or add to your original vote, but you cannot make two bolded votes in the same AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Andrés Camilo Mosquera Hoyos
You closed this AFD two days early. Since this required admin attention to complete the deletion, per WP:BADNAC you should not have SNOW closed it. Do you have a reason to act outside of policy? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * besides the early closure, I'm not sure if non-admins are allowed to close discussions as deleted. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 13:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, see WP:BADNAC #4. Fram (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus to delete. Even if it would have went 2 days more, it still would have likely been deleted. NYC Guru (talk) 06:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * But you (or I) can't delete an article, and thus we are not allowed to close AfDs as "delete" no matter how obvious the outcome is. Closing early should rarely be done, it has been long decided that 7 days is the minimum length to give enough people a chance to give their opinion and more importantly look for sources, which isn't always easy. But even in those cases where seven days aren't needed, you still may not close it if the outcome is delete. Please keep that in mind in the future. Fram (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Feb 15: WikiWednesday Salon in Brooklyn
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The Magic Box (TV show) moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, The Magic Box (TV show), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel 5969  TT me 13:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Mar 8: WikiWednesday Salon by Grand Central
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Apr 12 WikiWednesday + Earth Week (Apr 15-23)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Sat: Earth Day Edit-a-thon + Sun: Wiki-Picnic
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

May 17: WikiWednesday Salon + Queering Wikipedia
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

June 21: WikiWednesday Salon back in Manhattan!
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Wrong link at Requests for adminship/Firefangledfeathers Q10?
Hi, did you intend to link Requests for undeletion/WP:RFU in your questions at Requests for adminship/Firefangledfeathers? Based on the text of the question, I assume you meant Category:Requests for unblock/CAT:RFU. Ljleppan (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Gege Gatt (2nd nomination)
Hi, could you please elaborate on your decision to close this AfD as keep?

You cited this Forbes article as a reliable source, however it is written by a Forbes.com contributor, not a Forbes journalist, and is considered to be generally unreliable, per WP:FORBESCON, and shouldn't count towards notablility. In addition, there are only two editors who voted keep, against four who voted for delete. In my opinion, closing it as keep falls under #2 at BADNAC. ARandomName123 (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I closed these because they over a week old and specifically made it clear they anyone was free to correct any closures I made. Consensus doesn't mean "majority rules".  You could have a discussion where there are 2 keeps citing sources and policy and one delete stating why the editor doesn't like the article and three other "Delete per" comments.  Rest assured I do take the time to read the discussion and it's it unclear I'll just relist it.  NYC Guru (talk) 01:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation.
 * In this discussion, there's one argument citing sources, though I have already discussed these sources ad nauseam over at Talk:Gege Gatt. I admit, I probably should have mentioned this somewhere in the AfD, but the points within are still valid, as the sources the editor mentioned in the AfD are just repeated from the talk page. ARandomName123 (talk) 02:35, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @ARandomName123 Thank you for bringing up these concerns again. The decision to keep the article was clearly based on the strength and quality of arguments and not merely a numerical count of the votes. The principle of notability, which is the main point being made, does not solely depend on one source but is rather established by significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And this copiously evident from the article. The delete votes, while outnumbering the keep votes marginally, did not, in my opinion, convincingly demonstrate that the subject of the article fails the notability guidelines. The keep arguments were well-supported by policies and guidelines, and by reliable sources. I assure you that I took the time necessary to evaluate all the sources before proposing them. It appears User:NYC Guru considered these factors before closing the AfD after circa 10 days with no new position emerging. It's the right call.
 * I see that the decision is currently under deletion review since the close Keep result was not accepted. Whilst in my view vexatious in this specific case, it is an essential part of the process to ensure that all decisions are thoroughly examined and are as fair and accurate as possible. Our goal here should be to improve the encyclopedia and ensure that all content meets Wikipedia's standards for reliability and notability. If there are concerns about the article's quality or the validity of its sources, the appropriate step would be to improve the article, rather than delete it. Repetitive claims on the matter in discussion bring to the fore (WP:BITE) which warns against being too harsh on newcomers, and (WP:VAND) which argues against unfair deletion/removal of content. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello again, @DigitalArchiver2020.
 * I understand that the process isn't just counting up the number of votes, and seeing which is higher, and I won't discuss the sources here, since we have already discussed them at Talk:Gege Gatt. Regarding the votes, there was only one keep argument citing policies and guidelines (yours), while all four delete arguments cited policies and guidelines.
 * The reason the decision is under deletion review is because, as mentioned before, the source the closer cited is considered generally unreliable, and given the amount of votes, too controversial for a WP:NAC. I understand that this is annoying, and your dedication is appreciated. I apologize if it seems like I am biting you, that was not my intention. However, I don't see how WP:VAND applies. I don't believe anyone here is actively trying to harm Wikipedia.
 * On a side note, I would suggest double checking your decision on the deletion review. It seems like you support the closer's decision, in which case you should endorse, not overturn. If you would like to continue this discussion, I would suggest bringing it to my or your talk page, seeing as it no longer concerns User:NYC Guru. ARandomName123 (talk) 02:48, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the guidance on the label correction @ARandomName123. I appreciate it.
 * Agreed on the debate-point-exhaustion at this point. I wish to grow the Wikipedia work around Maltese notable individuals especially in the tech field. However the progress is somewhat stunted at this stage. DigitalArchiver2020 (talk) 11:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gege Gatt
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gege Gatt. 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. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 03:17, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I have overturned your close and deleted the article. This was a terrible NAC and it reflects badly on you that you left it as it was an refused to respond to the feedback from more experienced users. Once the DRV was clearly against you, you should have self reverted and saved the community the wasted time arguing a clearly established point. Its OK to make a mistake. Its not OK to actively not learn from it or responsive to the concerns ofnthe community. You are not ready to close difficult discussions and I hope you learn from this. Spartaz Humbug! 08:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Edmond J. Safra Synagogue (Florida) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Edmond J. Safra Synagogue (Florida) 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/Edmond J. Safra Synagogue (Florida) 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. Oaktree b (talk) 04:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Ati Kepo
Hello, NYC Guru,

You relisted this discussion two days early. Please do not do that, nor do NAC closures early. There was no reason not to wait until Monday to see if this discussion could be closed. I get that you are enthusiastic but areas like AFDs have written and unwritten rules and one of them is that discussions last at least 7 days. I originally relisted this last Monday and it might have been closed on 7/10 when it appeared on the daily log page for 7/3 but now it has been moved to the daily log for July 9th and probably no discussion closer will look at it until next Saturday. This can be avoided by not jumping the gun and act too soon. This isn't a race, it's a process. Unless you are dealing with a vandal, it's always better to do things well than to do things quickly. Just please keep this in mind for your future actions. Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Liz: okay what about this one? Just one keep vote over the past week. NYC Guru (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * this was a mixed bag so I relisted. NYC Guru (talk) 02:20, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I saw that one (Alcazar arson) at Articles for deletion/Old/Open AfDs as it was not removed from the old log page, and it was quite surprising to me when I saw the relist notice. May I ask why you think that one was a mixed bag? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Both side had good arguments. Again, I don't go by the number of comments toward keep or delete.  After a few more comment another editor closed the discussion.  NYC Guru (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to elaborate in a bit more detail your evaluation of the arguments prior to your attempted relist, with reference to the relevant policies and guidelines? While I've not seen a relist ever taken to DRV, it is considered good practice to write a statement on how you weighed each of the comments in the discussion, and in general to explain administrative actions where questions are raised. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:08, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In a nutshell, comments that were a back and forth discussion or over 50 words of text were somewhat complicated and were not clear cut. I relisted because the discussion was stale and no one had added anything for 2-3 days.  NYC Guru (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to bring this topic up again, but during the week I spotted another relist where you did not complete all the steps that need to be done (AI in maths), and now that I look you did so for Audel Laville as well. Even if relisting was the correct thing to do (which is very rarely the case for discussions that have already been relisted twice), you need to follow the instructions so that you do so correctly. Your "in a nutshell" response also makes no mention of the relevant policies and guidelines, and relisting is explicitly not a substitute to a no consensus closure even if it were correct to evaluate the discussion as evenly balanced. If things were "somewhat complicated", that's a sign to leave it to a more experienced closer, many of whom patrol discussions that have been listed for more than 7 days. Can I ask you to please take a break from performing administrative actions at AfD until you're a bit more familiar with the policies and procedures? Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Charlie Pellett for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charlie Pellett 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/Charlie Pellett 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. Bearcat (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

July 19 WikiWednesday + New York Botanical Garden Edit-a-thon (July 29)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Magic Box (TV show)
Hello, NYC Guru. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Magic Box (TV show), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Fondazione Child
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Fondazione Child. 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. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 18:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Magic Box (TV show)


Hello, NYC Guru. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Magic Box".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 16:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

WikiWednesday (Aug 23) and Governors Island Wiki-Picnic (Sun Aug 27)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Sunday: NYC Wiki-Picnic @ Gov Island
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sep 20: Wikimedia NYC Annual Election Meeting
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Non-admin closes
I see that you have already been counseled above regarding erroneous non-admin closes and relists. You made another bad relist at Articles for deletion/Lewis Josselyn, where there was already a clear consensus. I have overturned that and closed the discussion.So, since apparently advising you and asking nicely for you to be more careful had no impact, I am going to be clearer: You do not have sufficient experience to be closing or relisting AfDs. Stop it, or you will be helped to stop it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * That discussion was opened September 2nd and I relisted it a week later. Isn't 7 days enough to decide whether to close?  Is there a certain amount of edits needed to qualify?  NYC Guru (talk) 08:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not clear on what you're asking. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, alright, after a couple rereads I think I've got it. Are you asking if your relisting was done too early? If so, no, that wasn't the problem; the discussion had run long enough. The problem is that the relist was the wrong decision. Relisting is for discussions which haven't reached consensus, but where further discussion stands a reasonable chance of reaching it. That discussion had already reached a consensus to delete the article, so relisting was unnecessary. Keep in mind that every relist uses up more of the community's time to continue the discussion, so if it is possible to close a discussion rather than relisting, that's what should be done; relisting should be saved only for times where there's no consensus yet but there's a reasonable chance of one developing with more discussion.So far as a minimum number of edits? No, but you are, to be frank, making too many mistakes, so it's clear you're not ready. What I would suggest is that you first participate in AfD as, well, a participant. Evaluate the article and its sources, and the arguments of those who have already commented, and decide what you think that means our policies and guidelines call for to be done with the article. Argue to keep it, delete it, merge it, whatever you think is the best way forward. Then, check back in after the discussion closes. Was what you suggested in alignment with the final result, or in opposition to it? If the latter, why did other people think differently than you, and why did that end up being the result?You also might consider, when the list of AfDs to be closed gets posted by Mathbot every day, picking out a few. Don't close or relist them, but just record what you would do (in Notepad or something; no need for it to be on-wiki). And then check back later, and see if that's ultimately what the closer chose to do. If not, try to figure out why they did differently and what you may have missed seeing.If you do that stuff for a while, and you're getting very good at figuring out how the close (or other decision, such as a relist) is going to go, then you're probably ready to start helping out yourself. But right now, you're not. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There were 7 !votes (including the nom) for delete while 3 !votes to keep. NYC Guru, two months ago you made a badnac close that had the same problem as this one: someone was WP:BLUDGEONing in the discussion. When you close or relist discussions like this it gives the impression of a WP:SUPERVOTE. 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 09:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Well the last thing I want to do here is cause a conflict and waist someone else's time. I'll just participate and vote and when I gain more experience, I'll read the discussion more carefully before closing or extending it.  NYC Guru (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And you doing so should not take place week after next. Between your RfA, your multiple clashes over closing, and everything in between, what is glaringly apparent is that you keep on trying way too hard, way too soon, with way too little experience, to be Someone In Authority.  With just a little over 300 article space edits, you shouldn't be dealing with AfD, or voting in RfAs.  You should be improving articles.  And not just for a desultory month or two, with a handful of edits.  Start participating again in AfD -- by which I do NOT mean closing or relisting discussions -- a year from now, with a thousand more mainspace edits under your belt. As far as relisting goes, while others have said it, I'll reiterate it: non-admins have no business closing or relisting particularly contentious AfDs.  I myself think there was a strong consensus to delete on the Josselyn article, but while GregHenderson's walls of text just pointed out how little he understood proper sourcing and valid criteria (some of the reasons for which he was TBANned from article space), that all in itself made that a contentious AfD, and something that should always, always be dealt with by an admin.  Full stop.   Ravenswing      21:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Sun Oct 1: NYC Hispanic/Latinx Heritage Month 2023
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Wiki.NYC Pavilion for Open House New York (Oct 21–22) and Wikidata Day (Oct 29)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Nov 15: WikiWednesday Salon + Wikimedia NYC Executive Director job
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Requests_for_adminship/0xDeadbeef
Hey Congratulations, 0xDeadbeef on your RFA passing. I know it's late but I find it reassuring there are still people who can join and then reach sysop leavel within 6 months 3 years. Back in the day (mid 2000s) it was very commonplace but these days you're pretty much the exception. After the debacle of AfD closes I decided to take a break hoping everyone who wasn't happy about my closing AfD discussions had moved on at this point. I was told I should focus on article improvement and I'm happy to say I do have a history of article creation and improvement. For example, I launched a Charlie Pellett bio and it survived the AFD process -- you even voted to keep it! While it's a long way off from good article status it will be one of the things I cite if I ever go through to RFA process again. --NYC Guru (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks, though I'm not sure what you meant by join and then reach sysop within 6 months, since I joined more than six months ago? 0x Deadbeef →∞ (talk to me) 06:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I guess I read your creation date wrong. Good luck anyway. NYC Guru (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Cobble Hill School of American Studies moved to draftspace
Thanks for your contributions to Cobble Hill School of American Studies. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris talk! 06:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Wed Dec 6: Hacking Night + job listing
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 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 2023 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 2023 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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thu Jan 4: Hacking Night + Wikipedia Day soon
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Thu Feb 8 NYC Hacking Night + Feb 21 WikiWednesday
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Tue March 5: Wiki Gala NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiNYC: 3/14 Hacking Night + 3/16 Queens Name Explorer
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

WikiWednesday (April 10) and City Tech Library LGBTQIA edit-a-thon (April 11)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Thu April 25: WikiNYC Hacking Night
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Cobble Hill School of American Studies
Hello, NYC Guru. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Cobble Hill School of American Studies, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

May 8: WikiWednesday Salon with new Executive Director
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Cobble Hill School of American Studies


Hello, NYC Guru. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Cobble Hill School of American Studies".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 07:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

June 2: Hacking Sunday (+preview of June 8 Wiknic)
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Sat June 8: Governors Island Wiknic
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

June 26: ONLINE WikiWednesday Salon NYC
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Fri July 19: Wikicurious in NYC, Editing Wikipedia for Beginners
(You can subscribe/unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by adding or removing your name from this list.)

--Wikimedia New York City Team via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)