User talk:Yashovardhan Dhanania/Archive 6

New Page Reviewer granted
Hello Yashovardhan Dhanania. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 07:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * 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.
 * Thanks a lot! Yashovardhan (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Rajeha
The request by the IP looked to me like it had some legal implication to it, such as a demand to remove something from their page. As you know, any account making a legal threat is blocked, and any account making what is ambiguously a legal threat is normally either told to clarify or blocked pending clarification. In this case, the IP has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and there is a very substantial history of sockpuppetry and paid editing concerning Rajeha. So you were right not to accept the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * that case was actually closed by . I just had a look after your message. In any case, even if I had seen it first, i would've closed it with a similar rational. I also checked that the logo in question is being discussed on the article talk page. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * --Yep, I was the one who closed it.And this monkey business had been going on for years involving several UACs and near-always veering into legal threats. Winged Blades Godric 10:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding my draft Draft: The Tech Portal
Hi,

Please once again review the draft. Valid external links from reputed sources have been added and have also made the article extremely neutral.

Looking forward to hear from you. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deep2701 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting in touch . I'll take a look soon. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Please reconsider
Hi Please can you re consider my removal of the redirect to Stonewater Golf Club from 'Stonewater' as a new page for Stonewater (the Housing association) has been created in Drafts and the existing redirect from Stonewater to Stonewater Golf Club will be confusing for searches for Stonewater.
 * That won't be an issue. If the new page is moved to main space, stone water can be changed to a disambiguation page. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for your reply - Ive submitted the draft Stonewater page already so hopefully whoever reviews it will move it to main space and change the redirect. Thanks again.
 * You're most welcome. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Constantin Iliescu
Hello Yashovardhan Dhanania. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Constantin Iliescu, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Winning a notable award indicates importance/significance (WP:CCSI, WP:CCSI). Thank you.  So Why  12:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the message . Yashovardhan (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Please untag deletion of page "Constantin Iliescu"
Dear Yashovardhan,

Please unmark speedy deletion of page "Constantin Iliescu". Constantin Iliescu is referenced as winner of 2nd prize of the 2nd edition of George Enescu International Piano Competition in year 1961. Please see for additional information the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Enescu_International_Piano_Competition and the Festival Enescu history page @ http://festivalenescu.ro/istoric/istoric-concurs/ Please see also following link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2017_04_26_10-58-21_Constantin_Iliescu.jpg Please let me know in case you need additional information.

Many thanks, Adrian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ailiescu (talk • contribs) 10:21, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if the article is satisfying our notability policy. An admin will check the contested reason you gave on the talk page and take a call. Yashovardhan (talk) 11:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You will be happy to know that the speedy deletion was denied and the tag removed. Thanks! Yashovardhan (talk) 13:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Xu Xianqing
Thank you for you message. I think it would be nicer if you can just give the author a bit more time to expand it rather than putting arbitrarily a deletion template just minutes after the article was published.Dirrival (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem with that. A prod tag remains for 7 days before being deleted. So you have literally 7 days to expand. Also, once you think the article is good enough, you can remove the prod tag without any problem. Just a suggestion - when you need time to complete an article, its best to use the Draft or the User space to avoid risk of deletion. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Walde Aldam Hospital
Dear Yashovardhan,

I am new to Wikipedia and want to start a page for Warde Aldam Hospital in England because people are looking for information on it and it's not easy to find. Please feel free to help by editing any unsuitable text I've accidentally used. I'm not sure what was wrong with my page, but please edit out anything that's incorrect (I just deleted most of the references I had originally as I thought this might be the problem).

Thanks, Heather.Noreen McNair (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You got it wrong there. The problem wasn't with the references but with the subject itself. You see to have its own wikipedia aricle, a hospital must fulfill certain criterias listed at WP:NHOSPITALS. Now, if you could read through those and confirm whether this hospital meets these criterias, it will save us a deletion discussion. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Yashavardhan.

I checked the Hospital criteria out. The hospital closed down prior to online articles and there is very little on it available, so I think you are right about it not getting it's own page. I think it would be better to put the information under the local history for South Elmsall, so I'll do that instead.

Thank you for your help in correcting this error, Heather.Noreen McNair (talk) 21:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call
This is a volunteer roll call sent to you on behalf of the current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Coordinator, Robert McClenon, and is being sent to you because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to the roll call list. Those who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after May 31, 2017 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after May 31, 2017, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)  (Not watching this page)

Vladikavkaz and Sierra Leone
For your information, those are areas where the disputants are persistent, but are not meeting the requirements for DRN. As you will recall, a previous filing had to be closed about Vladikavkaz, which was a dispute with only one statement by each editor, and one of the statements was in Russian, which isn't considered valid discussion in the English Wikipedia. The Sierra Leone dispute seems to have involved sockpuppetry, and you were right in trying to stay away from cases that involve sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notes here. I believe there's even a criteria for closure where if the talk page discussion has been mostly about the conduct rather than the content, we can close the case. I'm not really sure about that though. I try to stay away from overly complex cases as these will anyway go on to some other forum (such as ANI) sooner or later. I particularly didn't like the comment made by Ms Sarah at the DRN where she called me unfair. But I agree with you. It must have looked wrong and I should have given both of them equal time. My set of rules at my user space were actually in accordance with control of meditation guidelines which allow the mediator to condition his acceptance on a set of rules framed by him. Thanks once again!
 * Yes, overly complex cases are not a good fit for DRN. I have sometimes suggested formal mediation for overly complex cases.  Also, your wariness about cases involving conduct allegations is appropriate; cases in which there is sockpuppetry are even worse than other bad cases.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

DRN roll call

 * Oh and you think a roll call at the DRN would be appropriate now as many listed volunteers seem to have been absent for quite a long time?. Yashovardhan (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. A roll call or reminder to reply and participate or declare oneself inactive would be a good idea.  As to your interaction with Sarah, I agree that it was mutually unfortunate.  I don't think that you were unfair, but it did look unfair, and you were right to say that you would not moderate, and to ask for another volunteer.  (I was already planning to say that I would not moderate.  I have dealt with them before, and may be biased, and I know that one of them is overly verbose and has even been taken to ANI about walls of text.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess it's the editor for whom extra time was asked. I had a look at his user page and saw that he uses an alternative account when matters get heated up (which is pretty often). He had also been taken to ANI over this dispute many times though I couldn't find the archived discussion there. Anyway, how and when can a roll call be organized? Yashovardhan (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can think of two ways. The first would be to use a bot.  I don't know how to do that, so I would suggest asking at the Help Desk for help.  The other would be simply to post to the project talk page WP:DRN and ask editors to reply there.  !!

I guess the last roll call was held here. I guess I'll post a request at the help desk to see if anyone can come up with something. Or we could even ask who did it the last time. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've asked for help at the Help desk here. Let's wait for someone to reply. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to have a bot created for this purpose, that's fine, but I'm concerned that it might be somewhat difficult to maintain. But as long as I'm around, since I have mass message bit I can avoid that need by sending a mass message (i.e. multi-party talk page message) to everyone directing them to a new roll call at the bottom of Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering/Roll calls. On the other hand, if you'd rather use a bot, that's fine and wouldn't depend on me, individually, to do it (though anyone with the mass message bit could do it). Leave me a note here about which way you'd want to go. And if you want to go with a bot, I'd suggest talking to our bot maintainer, Hasteur (you might want to email him as he's not around as much as he once was), rather than going to the help desk since the basic code needed to parse the current volunteer list is already in place in our status bot. If you'd like for me to send out a roll call, let me know. It'll probably take a few days since I'm meeting myself coming back in the RW these days, but I'll do it ASAP. Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 15:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess mass message a better idea if it won't be much of a problem to you. Final call is with you . Thanks TransporterMan! Yashovardhan (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Yashovardhan Dhanania, User:TransporterMan - Since mass message (not to be confused with mess or massage or mass massage or messy designs) will work, I would suggest that the simplest approach is to send a mass message and request replies to a single page, and then we can manually weed out those who did not reply. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. How much time should be given for responding? We can use the roll call page for receiving the response. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * A week should be enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (Replying to 15:01, 26 April 2017) summoned me, and I happened to be reading an article.  Some things to consider: What is the minimum threshold for being a volunteer?  How often should the Roll Call/Nag/Reminder be ran?   IMO it would be something to the effect of: Go down the list of DRN volunteers not marked as inactive, for each volunteer see what the last time they edited WP:DRN or WT:DRN.  If the last time is more than 6 months ago, send a talk page note reminding them that DRN works when volunteers help resolve disputes.  Remind them how long it's been since it appears that they've helped.  See if they want to go inactive or leave the volunteer list. I could see running this once every 3 months or so as to remind them but at the same time not spam their talk page incessantly.  I also think that if we post 3 times (i.e. at least 6 months idle + 9 months of reminders) without a change, then we auto mark them inactive. Hasteur (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Though I don't object, that will take a lot of a time and manual labour. It's easier to call a roll call and wait for a month or so and then just remove those who don't respond. Yashovardhan (talk) 05:23, 27 April 2017 (UTC)