User talk:Tazerdadog/Archive 4

ANI closure
I think this is what you were missing. No comment on the actual closure/result. --kelapstick(bainuu) 03:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fix! And I welcome comments on the closure/result here or at ANI.  I did have to go a bit outside of my comfort zone, but that needed to be closed.Tazerdadog (talk) 03:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tazerdadog. I do have some concerns about your closure. I and several other users asked for a specific list of pages, which Rob gave. Therefore, I'm surprised that your closure doesn't make any mention of specific pages, and I don't feel that you addressed the concerns that the protection would be "overly broad." There's no requirement in your closure that an SPI confirm that the users vandalizing a specific page are Nikita socks. Theoretically, any admin could examine a page, conclude that the vandal was a Nikita sock without so much as asking for a second opinion, which is the benefit that SPI provides, and protect the page. Some admins hear ducks quacking much more readily than other admins. On the surface, your closure seems perfectly reasonable, but the more I reason through the possible scenarios that will result from your close, the more it feels like carte blanche.

I also have some more general concerns about extended confirm protection. I joined Wikipedia back in 2006. Those were the golden days when articles expanded quickly and I half-expected to get into an edit conflict on any article covering a subject known to the general public, all because so many users were trying to edit at the same time. Since then, I patrol recent changes besides expanding articles that interest me. One thing that has stayed consistent since 2006 is that vandalism still gets reverted very quickly. A lot of vandal patrollers that I know have gone inactive, but a lot of new vandal patrollers have joined in the meanwhile. But when I slow down and look at the articles I'm reverting vandalism to, an alarming portion of them are extremely outdated. They have updates up until 2009 or 2010 and the record thins out from there because that's when Wikipedia lost a great portion of users. Then I put myself in the shoes of a newcomer in 2016. I come across a page that is semi-protected. 10 edits, 4 days still seems doable. I come across a page that is extended confirm protected. 500 edits, 30 days&mdash;that seems like nothing to seasoned editors like us, but keep in mind that this newcomer is unsure about how to edit and may have received a litany of templated warnings on their talk page. If they become interested in reverting vandalism or fixing typos, they soon find this threshold is easily overcome, but if they only want to write new content, 500 edits seems like an insurmountable barrier. The more pages this newcomer encounters that are extended confirm protected, the more they will conclude that Wikipedia does not want them. My point is that in 2016, Wikipedia has an easier time attracting "maintenance-oriented" editors than potential new content contributors, so it is critical not to drive the latter group away, not to undermine our ethos as an encyclopedia that "anybody" can edit.

Those are my thoughts; if you read through them, thanks for bearing with me. I'm not asking that your closure be reverted. At this point, it would be more productive for me to drop the stick and move on the RfC Krakatoa Katie is starting. It really is very kind and honorable of you to invite feedback on your closure. Had it not been for that request, I probably would have felt out of my comfort zone voicing my concerns. Thanks, Altamel (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Altamel, and thank you for voicing your concerns. I definitely owe you a detailed explanation on why I closed the discussion the way I did.


 * A specific list of pages was given by . My understanding was that this list was intended to exemplify the types of articles that protection was requested for, rather than be an exhaustive list.  Pinging Rob to confirm this is the case.  Rob also mentioned here having to watchlist 100+ pages in order to combat the vandalism, and it seemed clear from context that the request was intended to cover all of them, so simply listing the four examples given as the only cases would have been a misreading of the scope of the discussion.  Another factor that I was attempting to do throughout my close was to give protecting administrators enough flexibility to address the concerns without hamstringing them.


 * Regarding the overly broad concerns, I was trying for the most narrow application of the protection that would be effective. Fortunately, the close only has to be in effect for ~40 days while the RFC is set up, run, and closed.  If you can find a way to narrow the closure without hampering the protecting admin's ability to prevent the vandalism, I'd love to hear it.  The way I am currently contemplating is requiring each instance of 30/500 protection to be posted on a noticeboard for community review.  I don't want to red tape the admins, which is why I haven't included that in the close, but it's a thought.


 * I intentionally did not require a SPI confirmation for two reasons. First, I wanted to reduce the red tape on the administrators.  Secondly, this vandal appears to have a very established and distinctive MO.  THis suggests that involving a checkuser just to stop simple vandalism is excessive process, and DUCK is sufficient.  Other admins will hear quacks at different volume levels, but in general they are reasonable people.


 * Regarding the concerns in your second paragraph, I sympathize, but most of them will be hashed out at the impending RFC. However, I think it is important to consider the alternatives to the solution the community ultimately decided upon - semiprotect the article and accept that many of our increasingly limited volunteer hours go towards reverting the vandalism that semiprotection is insufficient for, or full protect the article, and exascerbate all of the (very real) problems you've mentioned.  Thinking of 30/500 protection as an alternative to full protection may make it seem more palatable.


 * Finally, I want to mention that I set up my close very deliberately to simply add 30/500 as a tool which can be used when it is appropriate within the scope of the discussion. I was very careful not to mandate that it should be used as the primary or only line of defense within these articles.


 * Let me know if you have additional concerns, or if I haven't addressed any of your concerns to your satisfaction. I recognize that we are unlikely to agree fully here, but I hope my explanation makes the close more palatable.  I look forward to seeing you in Krakatoa Katie's RFC on July 4.  Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Tazerdadog, and thanks for your explanation. I think I better understand how you did try to balance both sides of the debate, and your justification for the close was quite reasonable. Regarding SPI confirmation, I should have been more clear on that point. I did not mean I wished for a CU to confirm every sock, as that would take too much time. As is normally the case, sometimes other admins or users will weigh in during an SPI and give their opinions, especially if CU is not requested. Your proposal that each instance of 30/500 protection be brought before the community for review is excellent. I think it will help discourage the excessive use of this protection level. My issue with the 30/500 as an alternative to full protection rationale is that it many cases, it is a logical fallacy. Admins are extremely reluctant to full protect pages (as was the case with the pages Nikita vandalized), so rarely will there be cases where 30/500 protection would have actually relieved an article from being full protected. For the most part, you have addressed my concerns&mdash;thanks for your patience. I look forward to seeing you in the RfC as well. Altamel (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yay Tazerdadog!
Hi, Tazerdadog. Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. I really appreciate that you asked me a question. It means a lot to me and I am truly grateful for your question, your comments, and for your !vote. Cheers! 07:28, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of James E. Wolfe for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article James E. Wolfe 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/James E. Wolfe until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Speedily Deletion for Dennis Schwab
Hi Tazerdadog,

It's Oldmanreid. You proposed a speedily deletion for my page on Dennis Schwab. I put on the talk a couple of reasons why I do not believe the page should be deleted.

I will reiterate that I am new to wikipedia. This is the first webpage that I am creating, or even editing. So, I have almost no experience. Second, I have only been working on this for about an hour, maybe less. So, it is not really detailed and not exactly knowing what I am doing with all of the controls did not make this easier. Third, Dennis Schwab did have a big impact on real estate in Oshkosh. He worked for 50 years in Real Estate and worked well into his battle with ALS. I have talked to people in the Oshkosh community at his funeral, and by the way they talked about him, he had a huge impact on Oshkosh. So, please do not speedily delete the webpage. With time, it will be a better webpage.

Old Man Reid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldmanreid (talk • contribs) 04:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello Oldmanreid,
 * Unfortunately, It looks like Dennis Schwab does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (see here). The basic criteria are that subject must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."  I sympathize that you are new to this process, and if I can help you out in any way, let me know.  Unfortunately, I have to stand by my deletion nomination as appropriate in this case.  Tazerdadog (talk) 05:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion???
I'm trying to wrap my head around this one. Katarina Zavatska became one of the top 15 junior tennis players in the world this year and has now turned pro. She played an impressive Wimbledon match against the No. 1 junior player in the world in Anastasia Potapova (who has a Wikipedia page). Rebeka Masarova and Mira Antonitsch are ranked much lower than Zavatska, 130 and 314 positions lower respectively, and yet both have their own Wikipedia page. And your reason for deletion is that Katarina Zavatska is not sufficiently noteworthy?

Zavatska completed a rare golden set as listed in that particular Wikipedia article, her stock is quickly rising in the world of tennis, and I sought out every link related to her career that I could find. I thought it was an appropriately-composed article about an important tennis player. Maybe you should propose deletions of Mira Antonitsch first, then Rebeka Masarova, and gradually work your way up to Zavatska. Heck, with patience and focus you could eventually work your way up to the proposed deletion of Serena Williams' article. She's a tennis player by the way.

--Superdupereditor (talk) 02:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi there. The standard for inclusion of tennis players is at WP:NTENNIS.  I am gong to reproduce the guideline below so that we don't have to keep flipping back and forth:


 * Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if they:


 * 1) Are a member of the International Tennis Hall of Fame, either in the contributor or player category
 * 2) Have competed in one of the international team competitions: Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or World Team Cup
 * 3) Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest level professional tournaments:
 * Grand Slam tournaments (the Australian Open, the French Open, Wimbledon, or the US Open)
 * Men: ATP World Tour tournaments (the ATP World Tour Finals, ATP World Tour Masters 1000, ATP World Tour 500, or ATP World Tour 250)
 * Women: WTA Tour tournaments (the WTA Premier, the WTA International, or the WTA Tour Championships)
 * 1) Have won at least one title in any of the ATP Challenger tournaments
 * 2) Have won at least one title in any of the ITF Women's $50,000–$100,000+ tournaments. Until 2007, the notability threshold shall be winning a $25,000 tournament based on the lowest payout for a men's challenger tournament in the same year.
 * 3) Hold a tennis record recognized by the International Tennis Federation, ATP or WTA


 * This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players. Junior players are presumed to be notable if they have won at least a junior Grand Slam title, have been in the top 3 of the junior ITF world rankings or can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.


 * Rebeka Masarova is the reigning women's junior french open champion, satisfying the last sentence of the guideline.


 * Mira Antonitsch does not appear to satisfy the guideline. I'm about to PROD it. She is notable because she played in the main draw of a WTA Tour tournament


 * Either way, the relevant guideline is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.


 * Addressing Zavatska: top 15 is not top 3 junior, which is the line.  Simply being a pro tennis player is not enough to satisfy the guideline.  If the golden set attracted enough media attention, then you could try to claim she meets the general notability guideline.  If the wimbledon match was in the main draw, rather than in the juniors tournament, that would make her notabble.  From context, this doesn't seem to be the case, but I could be wrong.  The article was well-composed, the only problem that it had was notability.


 * You are of course free to remove the proposed deletion tag if you think I missed something. Either way, let me know.


 * Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 03:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Your explanation makes sense, but it's a pretty nitpicky way to disqualify Zavatska and keep Antonitsch. I firmly believe Zavatska is more notable and will become even more noteworthy over the next year.


 * Zavatska played in the main draw of the $25,000 Beinasco tournament in February of 2016 at the professional level [|source] which is a WTA tournament [|source], and that seems to be sufficient in my opinion.


 * --Superdupereditor (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * She well may become notable within a year or two, that would not surprise me. However, she is not notable now according to the accepted standard on Wikipedia.  I'd direct further energies on this to the AFD in progress.  Tazerdadog (talk) 13:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of the Article on R.C. Natarajan
Hi there! I have left messages for you on this article's entry on the 'Articles for Deletion' page. Please help by reverting at the earliest. Amazingandlively (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I see them, but I'm going to let the deletion discussion run for now. Notability is not a concern that can be edited away -a subject is notable, or they are not.Tazerdadog (talk) 14:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

MOS:DATERANGE RfC
Hi Tazerdadog! I noticed you closed the MOS:DATERANGE RfC at WP:VPP with the decision that the community consensus was "that four year date ranges (i.e. XXXX-XXXX) should be the default style used in Wikipedia." (FTR, that was basically my reading of the RfC as well.) The problem is that no one has subsequently updated MOS:DATERANGE itself to reflect the new consensus. So, I'm not sure who's in charge of doing that – whether it should be you, or the editor who opened the RfC – but somebody should definitely update MOS:DATERANGE (or at least leave some kind of message about the RfC and the new consensus at WT:MOSDATE...). Pinging here as well, as the editor who opened the RfC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the message, I had forgotten about that. Ultimately, it is my responsibility to implement my close.  I didn't want to do so immediately for a couple reasons.  The first is that additional wordsmithing is desirable.  The second is in the event of a challenge to the close, an unimplemented close is a lot less messy.  However, that delay was supposed to be a couple of hours, not days.  I will implement the RFC now.  I would appreciate if you, or anyone else, would help be wordsmith it well.  Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 04:14, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I link to MOS:DATERANGE quite a bit, so I'll definitely see what you end up doing over there, and am certainly willing to make any refinements that seem to be needed!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:34, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm done with a first draft, copyediting and/or feedback is appreciated. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I was away for a bit and didn't check here until now, but thanks for the ping... the changes by Tazer and EEng look great to me. — Crumpled Fire  • contribs • 15:00, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Neelix redirects
I think you're being a bit "tight" in deciding which ones should be trashed, i.e. I declined several of the speedy deletion requests that you made, but I also deleted a good number of them. Beyond that, I really have no comments on your editing. Having gone through a bunch of these previously, I can tell you that it's easier for you if you just do a lot of links consecutively: just open each link, tag it for speedy or don't tag it, and then remove the whole batch from the list, rather than leaving the links to the redirects that you tagged. You don't have to, of course; I just found it more convenient for myself when doing the frogs five months ago. Nyttend (talk) 22:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a matter of judgement, fundamentally, and your opinion of what's appropriate is just as valid as mine. Two of the ones I just declined have been taken to RFD by DGG, who has at least as much wikiexperience as I do.  Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Do you still need User:Tazerdadog/NeelixList1? When I go to delete something, I get a warning if I try to delete something with links, and it seems like every time I check just to see that list! I'm obviously okay with it if you're still using it, but I thought I'd ask. Cheers, -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:50, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, those were used to generate the wikicode I used to update the lists. User:Tazerdadog/NeelixList1 and User:Tazerdadog/NeelixList2 can both be deleted, and I'll use the appropriate CSD's on the other lists as I make them.  Tazerdadog (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * They've been deleted. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk ) 01:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

You are too trigger happy
Hey you, why did add a deletion on one of my articles?

You made a speedy deletion while I was working on the sources for that person.

I have made a new article about that name and fixed more sources and external links and references, it's ok now but because of your speedy deletion on the former article, the new article has been nominated for deletion because you couldn't give me 5 minutes.

If something needs to be fixed I fix it, but do not speed delete anything until it's been several weeks or something. Cool it with your trigger happiness ok? Neo Asian 2010s (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * I do feel like my deletion nomination was justified. The discussion lasts a full week, and it is unlikely to be deleted before that week is up.  If you can demonstrate notability by providing multiple reliable sources of sufficient quality, I'll happily strike my comments and argue to keep the article.  I doubt that these sources exist, which is why I nominated it for deletion.  I understand that it is frustrating.  If I can answer any questions you have, please let me know.  Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 03:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump
There was a previous admin determination to keep this RFC open for the traditional 30 days. See here. It's a very high profile article, and the lead edit is of a sensitive nature. Also, per WP:LEADCITE, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus...." Was there editorial consensus to put footnotes in this lead, which heretofore has not had any footnotes?Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Pinging the three other major contributors in that conversation  . Tazerdadog (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I was not aware of that conversation when I closed the discussion. I did explicitly address the timing of the close in my close.  30 days is a default, not a requirement, and it looked like the discussion was petering out.  I am very open to being in error on this point, but I don't see the timing of the close, in itself as enough to invalidate it.


 * Regarding your other point, on citations in the lede, WP:LEADCITE also says "Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead." That statement about Trump had already been challenged. It needed a citation.  Tazerdadog (talk) 08:49, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought there was plenty of time to mull over the matter, solicit further input, et cetera. As to putting footnotes in the lead, I don't think there was editorial consensus to do so.  My !vote was combined with an explicit and lengthy objection to putting footnotes into the lead.  I was not the only editor who thought this was a good point.  Did you tally editorial consensus on this specific question?  If there is no editorial consensus to put footnotes in the lead, then that leaves lots of other locations in the article to treat this matter with the nuance and context that it needs.  And there are other formulations that could be put into the lead that would not require any footnotes (e.g. the one that is subject of a separate RFC).Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. I have no immediate problem with the close decision itself (it looks thoughtful and detailed, and I haven't spent any time analysing the detail of the debate contributions), but I do feel it is too early. The actual issue of debate seems fairly minor, but (a) this is a prominent page by pageviews, (b) the page is apparently relevant to a current issue in some country on the other side of the world, so even minor wording changes can generate major discussion, and (c) the last contribution was only around 24 hours ago, which is not very long given global time zones.


 * There's a reference above to a previous admin decision not to close the debate, which is correct in that it was a decision taken by editors who happen to be admins. However not closing the debate was not of itself an admin decision (at least on my part), and you have every right to close it if you feel consensus was reached and there is not trenchant objection from fellow editors. However, given the points above I'd ask you to consider reopening it, at least for a few days, to ensure that everyone who wants to comment has the chance. If there's no more comments in that time, by all means close it again as something that has entirely expired.


 * Oh, and in passing I agree the RFC was about "or false" and not about cites in the lead. Lead cites might credibly require a further RFC, if only to avoid further needless debate. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I stated thirty days "is traditional". No issue with closing early if appropriate. --Neil N  talk to me 09:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you all for the input. I reread the RfC with an eye towards the timestamps.  Unfortunately, it confirmed my initial assessment that the discussion was dying down quickly.  The timing seems OK to me, but I reiterate that I could be wrong.  If I had it to do over again, I would have waited an additional 24-48 hours, but I don't and I think reopening and reclosing would be more disruptive than just leaving it closed.


 * With respect to citations in the lead, I see no way to include the "or false" phrase uncited. We can't state that a BLP, any BLP publicly lied, and then not promptly source that accusation.  I sympathize with Anythingyouwant, I believe that the citations in the lede are ugly and inconsistent.  Unfortunately, I also believe that the citations in the lede are mandated by policy, and for good reason.  Tazerdadog (talk) 09:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well thanks for sympathizing, but you never said whether there was editorial consensus for citations in the lead per WP:LEADCITE. The lead is now indeed ugly and inconsistent to say the least, and the timing of the close was not as agreed upon.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's 4 am local time, and I'm going to bed. If consensus starts to emerge that my close was too hasty/in error, feel free to reopen/modify it in my absence. User:Tazerdadog (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to say I'm really surprised and disappointed that this RfC was closed early. The justifications I could see for that would be if the community sentiment was overwhelming in a particular direction or if input had basically stopped.  Personally I had to count the votes to determine which version was "ahead", so it wasn't obvious to me.  And there were 3 "votes" on the 31st and 1 on the 1st, so it doesn't appear that "voting" had subsided.CFredkin (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I could provide arguments for why I think the close should stand, but more importantly I think any consensus to reverse Tazerdadog's decision should be composed in substantial part by editors who did not directly participate in the RfC. Otherwise this dispute is likely to devolve into a rehash of the original dispute. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

has reverted the close in violation of the relevant policies and guidelines (WP:CLOSE and WP:TALKDONTREVERT). DHeyward, please note that Talk:Donald Trump is subject to discretionary sanctions. Could please self-revert and either participate in this talk page discussion or post something at WP:AN? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Per your statement, I didn't participate before the close. I'd prefer the BLP violation noted in the close statement get fixed.  "Many ... are false" is unattributed.  Many is a weasel word.  Both are listed in the BLP policy as something not to do.  A close that implements a BLP violation is problematic especially with a note that acknowledges the problem but leaves the BLP violation up for editorial discussion.  That's not how BLP violations are handled and the statement itself indicates the fatal flaw in the conclusion that it should be implemented immediately.  Sorry but violation of Discretionary Sanctions is implementing a change that introduced a BLP violation into a contentious article, not the actions to discuss it.  Please remove the "Many...are ... false" statement and we can skip the "Many ... are ... true." discussion as it's the test for unattributed weasel words.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a !vote to me. Crying BLP doesn't entitle you to violate other policies and guidelines. And I'm not very experienced with DS but I'm confident that it applies to talk pages. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not a BLP violation. Why do so many people cry BLP and POV without even explaining what part of the policies apply? A fact that is sourced in numerous reliable sources (that many of Trump's statements are false) can absolutely be written in Wikipedia's voice.- MrX 17:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog, hope you had a good rest. In case you weren't aware there is now a closure review open at Administrators' noticeboard. ~Awilley (talk) 17:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the notice. I am reading it now.  Tazerdadog (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought you would be pinged by my post at AN, sorry if it didn't work.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The ping worked fine, I just came here first, and wanted to let everyone know I was available.  Tazerdadog (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I have self-reverted this closure after consideration of the comments at the administrator's noticeboard. Tazerdadog (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Thanks for reviewing Yana Demian, Tazerdadog.

Unfortunately Marvellous Spider-Man has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

"Hi, I have unreviewed this page as the page is unsourced and nothing in news"

To reply, leave a comment on Marvellous Spider-Man's talk page.


 * Looks good. Sources exist for this article, but universally appear to be of low quality.  Tazerdadog (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Though born in Russia, she is mentioned as American. I did expect something in English, news search. If she would have lived in Russia only, then search would have included her Russian name. Marvellous Spider-Man 08:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

NPP & AfC
A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks at Neelix list
Thanks for tidying up Anomie list 2 after I have trogged through some more and rcatted them and so on. Of course I can just remove them from the list and keep a total to update the progress counter, however I feel it is better to get a second set of eyes to do that rather than do it myself. What I could do once I have kinda finished a bunch of them is move them to a "Done" section as a holding area, like we have the "X1" section. This might make it then easier for someone else then to batch remove that section and update the progress bar?

One reason I don't want simply remove them myself is that I and others have in the past been accused of "Neelix bashing" etc and it is difficult to point out that actually I do keep and rcat some Neelix redirects and don't just blindly sweep all of them into the dustbin. That is easier to demonstrate if I can point to an edit where there's a bunch of these "keeps". So I am quite inclined to have this as kinda a staged "done as keep" for the sake of history. What do you think?

This convo is probably better off discussed at User talk:Anomie/Neelix list where I have suggested something similar,but perhaps you're not watching that page. Move this there if you want. In the meantime I'll continue to mark them inline, and thank you for then consolidating them. Si Trew (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll continue the discussion at User talk:Anomie/Neelix list, which is the better forum I think. Cheers, Tazerdadog (talk) 07:47, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Style for nobles (Neelix list)
Hi Tazerdadog,

You may not be aware but about seven years ago I raised a nomination Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_23 which I generally refer to when I have loads of variations of nobles' names. I see you have been trogging away deleting a lot of them (thanks!) but I thought you might want to have some confirmation that there is (or was in 2009) consensus that we don't want every possible combination of a [foreign] noble's title.

Keep going! [User:SimonTrew|Si Trew]] (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I was certainly not aware, and will consider noble names somewhat more stringently. Thank you for the feedback. Tazerdadog (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Removing things from X1 section
Hi Tazerdadog,

If you disagree with entries at the X1 section of an Anomie Neelix list, as you did with with ES "  I'd like to see these two have an Rfd", can you then please list them at RfD or move them elsewhere on the list page, rather than just remove them. Otherwise the effect, unless another editor (me) notices the edit summary, is just to remove the X1 tag and effectively they will go keep, which rather defeats the purpose of the X1 criterion. (It's like just removing a CSD tag off the redirect page itself: not putting CSD tags on was the whole purpose of creating the X1 and these sections). Thanks Si Trew (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's not a problem. I will make a section in the list for "Contested X1 nominations" or somesuch.  Is that OK with you? Tazerdadog (talk) 18:48, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No need. WP:JUSTDOIT and list them at RFD. (Or keep them, retarget them, etc). Perhaps I am too anal in desiring a second set of eyes, as an engineer I am just so used to it (it also means I never get offended or take it personally when someone disagrees with me, so there are personal benefits!)


 * Keep going... now we have X1 it makes trogging through these so much easier for everyone. I have a small beef with the wording, that only admins should CSD as X1 (a real CSD) but I am basically ignoring it. Si Trew (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm also an engineer, and I understand the desire for multiple pairs of eyes. I'm not sure I follow your beef with X1 - isn't it just like any other CSD where a non-admin tags, and then an admin makes the final call?  Tazerdadog (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You might be right, I took the wording at WP:X1 as meaning that only admins should suggest X1: "This applies if the reviewing administrator reasonably believes that the redirect would not survive a full deletion discussion under the snowball clause. Admins are asked to add the word "Neelix" or "X1" to their deletion rationale in order to clarify that it was done under this temporary criterion". By exceptio probat regulam, that [only] reviewing admins should close it as X1,and nothing should be raised by anyone as such, but that perhaps an admin reviewing a list (i.e. not in the capacity of reviewing the CSD, but reviewing the list of redirects) might be able to it. My literal interpretation is that nothing should be raised as X1 by anyone, only closed as X1, which would make it a bit nonsense really. It's just bad wording, really, but since the X1 concession is only temporary I'm not going to argue to fix it, but ignore it. Yet as the good Albert Haddock remarked, "the quickest way to end a stupid law is not to ignore it but to enforce it".
 * I am aware that Twinkle etc don't have it, but that's not the problem, I just add "(WP:X1)" to my rationale (under WP:G6) rather than put "(neelix redirect)" as I was doing previously to nod to the closing admin. Of course most go via the X1 section of the list, but some Neelix ones have escaped and need CSD manually (at least, I have assumed it is not good form to add things into the list). Si Trew (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Adding into the list is fine if you are quite sure that the redirect never was present in the original list (add them into a new list 6, though, not into one of the existing lists). Readding ones that have already been removed would be frowned upon for hopefully obvious reasons.  I would argue your interpretation of the criterion if it mattered, but fortunately it does not matter. Just keep plugging.  Tazerdadog (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Basically, I think the distinction is academic wikilawyering that isn't going to matter because everyone who is plugging away on these redirects appears to have a modicum of common sense and is following the spirit of the rules, and not necessarily the letter. (I say this as someone who wrote the first draft of the X1 criterion) Tazerdadog (talk) 07:46, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Whisperback
20:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications
Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:02, 10 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) 01:52, 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

New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Tazerdadog. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

WikiProject Good Articles's 2016-2017 GA Cup
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:X1 listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect X1. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:X1 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer - RfC
Hi. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter
Hello ,


 * Breaking the back of the backlog

We now have New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action. If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work! Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.
 * Second set of eyes

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation. Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .
 * Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

Village pump: List Generation
produces
 * Updated. --Unready (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've WP:BOLDLY removed the list. Feel free to revert but I figured it's in the history of this page and User:Anomie/Neelix list/6 if you need it again. (same reason we discussed previously, it allows me not to have to check links manually before the delete screen). Cheers, -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that was inconsiderate of me to leave it there. Tazerdadog (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review - newsletter #2
Hello ,


 * Please help reduce the New Page backlog 

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.


 * Getting the tools we need

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .
 * Improve the tools: Vote here.
 * Reduce your review load: Vote here

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) 20:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh come on!
when you should know better. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 19:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to discuss my rationale for that support vote in detail if you would like. I still think it was a good vote, and stand by it, but I am interested in hearing why you disapproved of it. Tazerdadog (talk) 23:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * as if you recognize no one will agree. If that's so, then I why embrace NETPOSITIVE? You say "While you are not quite ready yet, you are doing the right things" where the first half invalidates the second half. Some editors argue NETPOSITIVE but they don't couch their comments with an explicit admission that the candidate isn't worthy. I just don't see any internal consistency. That's what the trout is for. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 06:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I did recognize that nobody was likely to agree with me, and brought that up in my vote. My personal assessment was that despite the short and gap filled resume, as well as all of the other shortcomings I and others noted in that RfA, the candidate would have been a net positive to the encyclopedia as an administrator.  I recognized that my opinion was a small minority, and specifically encouraged my vote to be disregarded for the purpose of SNOW closures in the edit summary.  My vote also served a second purpose - to encourage the candidate to keep volunteering, and soften the RFA bludgeoning that he was receiving as much as possible.  To address your specific quote, I was using ready in the sense of 'at the level the community expects administrator candidates to be at before applying', not in the sense of 'the bare minimum experience level that I will support for adminship'.  I can see how that wording may have been unclear.  In a nutshell, I was arguing net positive as my personal opinion, while conveying that they didn't meet typical community standards for adminship, with an overarching goal of both not discouraging the candidate or unnecessarily prolonging the proceedings.  Ultimately, I think my vote accomplished those goals.Tazerdadog (talk) 06:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)