User talk:Elahrairah/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Elahrairah/Archive 8 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Mheart (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reply

Thanks for the reply on Chillum's talk page. I'm nearing a (long overdue) a wiki-break and will revisit when I return and then either a: agree with you, or b: explain why you're wrong. NE Ent 23:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You mean "b: why I think you're wrong". You're not right about everything. Sometimes you disagree with people when you haven't really got it. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal ^talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

AFD notice

An article you have previously deleted has been nominated at AFD. You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZippCast. Toddst1 (talk) 18:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Haven't heard from you in a while, hope life is treating you well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Same to you! Life is busy, as I'm sure you can appreciate. My job makes it difficult to be very active here; it only takes one nut-job to disagree with my use of semi-colons and my employer will be getting angry letters. The GMC has very little sympathy for such things... Hope things are good your end. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Basalisk. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Elahrairah.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Basalisk. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

It's been four years, today.

Wishing Basalisk a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

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

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Obituaries

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

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Euan Bennet

Hi. I was wondering how i could go about getting a copy of this page so that it can be resubmitted at a later date when the article perhaps meets the wikipedia criteria better. ChrisGFA (talk) 22:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I've placed a copy of the article at in your userspace at User:ChrisGFA/Euan Bennet. Feel free to work on it there. However, please be aware that the subject must become notable before you recreate the article properly; see WP:N. Let me know if you have any questions. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Bob Harlow

Hi, unless I'm mistaken, the article said he was a candidate of a notable party of a notable office. That coupled with citing reliable sources would almost certainly pass the A7 threshold, would it not? Adam9007 (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. No, I do not believe it would. The notability guidelines suggest that politicians and judges become automatically notable if they have held a significant office. The guidelines do not automatically confer notability on individuals who are merely candidates. At least that is my reading of the guideline. The article is now in draft space anyway so it can be moved to mainspace if this ever becomes appropriate. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, but significance is a lower standard than notability. Proving notability is above and beyond what's needed to survive speedy under A7. Adam9007 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. However, your original question asked about notability, did it not? If a subject is notable it automatically becomes significant. However, the article does not contain any claims which, if properly sourced, would confer notability. There are no claims to significance of the subject either; unsuccessful or prospective candidates in elections are often included in compilations of candidates but they generally do not need their own articles. All of this is in the guidelines if you look hard enough. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

10 years of editing, today.

Hey, Elahrairah. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Elahrairah/Archive 8,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Marcio Stambowsky article

Hello. An article that I created, which you saved from speedy deletion on February 13 2017, was nominated for AfD on May 25 by the same group of contributors. I have defended the article and the notability of the subject, and I have added references exhaustively. The debate has grown stagnant, drawing little outside attention, and I have just now noticed that the article itself does not seem to be listed at all on the corresponding AfD page for that date. I am a new user, and I don't know how to remedy this apparent oversight. Anything you can do to provide guidance, as a nuetral force, would be greatly appreciated. ToddLara729 (talk) 23:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for heads up about me attacking other Wikipedians.

Thanks for the advice but this user had provoke me to trashtalk for his vandalism to my Jason Brody article and to others by adding speedy deletion templates on a devilish way. There are plenty of users complaining about his vandalism. So will you please check out the article and report this user (If you will)? I just signed up 6 months ago so I'm still in the basics.

My thanks

Travis

@TravisGTAGamer: Ok, I had a look at the article and what's been going on there. I have to be honest, I can't see any evidence of vandalism there. Wikipedia has a strict definition of vandalism - edits that are intended to make the encyclopaedia worse. There might be edits that you think aren't much good, but if the other editor is making them in good faith then it's not vandalism. I know what it feels like to write an article, put a lot of work into it and then have people criticise it or even try to delete it. I've been there. But you just have to take it on the chin and remember that sometimes there'll be other editors here who disagree with you. You've just got to accept that, even if they don't do it in the best way.

When it comes to article tags, I can see that the article has a number of them, and I have to say they all seem justified. The article doesn't have enough references and needs more; it does seem a sensible suggestion to consider merging it with the Far Cry 3 article or at least have a discussion about that; and it may not meet the WP:GNG. Whether you disagree with that or not, it really is your responsibility to go to the talk page and discuss these issues with the people who've raised them, and try to convince them of what you think. You might not be able to; ultimately you might not get your way. That's just what happens sometimes and you have to accept it. But getting angry and throwing insults around will definitely end up with you getting blocked, so it makes no sense to behave like that. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Basalisk: Yeah, the vandal I am mentioning are the templates except for the "improve article template" It was clean before I saw this wikipedian adding the templates (again, except for the "improve this article" template) without reason so I had to spit out my anger to him to let him speak as he wouldn't speak on my first discussion on his talk page. I always keep an eye for my article without someone tagging it for a speedy deletion until this tough guy spawned. I was being nice to him on my first post on his talk page but keep on doing it. I also told him that I am still gathering more information for it to be a great article (that is why I did not erase the "improve this article" template). I just want to lock it to avoid users like him.

As you would see on his talk page, there are bunch of Wikipedians complaining about the same problem I am facing (same as my problem: using templates to ruin someone's work without a reason), but I had him explaining on my talk page. Sir, I am desperate for your help to stop this guy from his dirty works. I tagged him as a vandal user but he keeps on removing it. I don't know if real human Wikipedia admins are responsible for their inspection on every articles. I am concern if this article will be erased just because of this naughty guy using speedy deletion templates to vandalize articles that aren't really worth it to be erased.

I will be expecting your help, my thanks

AfricaMetro

Sorry, but, you're way off the mark on this one. If you'd like to share what sources you've found to make you think this meets WP:NME, you're welcome to do so on the AfD. I didn't find any at all. The entire site seems to be a bot driven copyright infringement machine designed to make people think it's a news site. Otherwise, we probably shouldn't be judging CSD criteria by notability criteria, because they're not the same thing. In this case, we can't even legally include the external link to the main site. TimothyJosephWood 20:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: That's fine. I'm not right all the time. You do realise, though, that notability is a higher standard than claim to significance, right? If you find yourself having a debate about whether a subject is notable then it's probably a good marker that CSD is inappropriate. Problems like "not enough sources" and "bot driven" are reasons to run an AfD. There's a reason there isn't a CSD criterion for "not enough reliable sources". Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 22:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

I had no such debate until it was declined. Before it was declined, my only debate was whether the purpose of the article was to funnel people to the EL. In your refusal, you were the one that brought up notability guidelines, so I looked into it. TimothyJosephWood 00:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Ok, fair enough. Either way, you don't have to take any notice of what I might have to say about notability as that's what AfD is for, and I wish you all the best with that. I stand by my decision on CSD, though. At face value, the article claimed to be about a news service with regional importance which would satisfy WP:NME. If that is not true then I'm sure it will come out in the AfD, which is exactly what that process is designed for. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 07:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Typo?

Is the word "eternal" on your user page a typo for "external"? Lineslarge (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:PROF

I see you deleted [ this article [1] on an IEEE fellow as A7. I assume it was some sort of confusion with a rightfully deleted article on another person of that name.-- see [[2]] , since all IEEE fellows are notable under WP:PROF. I will of course restore it as an apparent error, but perhaps you want to do it yourself. DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC) @DGG: thanks for pointing this out. For future reference, feel free to fix mistakes like this without inviting me to rectify it myself. Out of interest, how did you come across this? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I try to sometimes look at the deletion log. (In fact, the reason I became an admin was specifically to look at deleted articles to see what I could rescue, as I said at my almost unanimous RfA back in 2007.) Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DGG The difficulty in doing this is trying to guess which ones to look at, since there is no one-step way to see them. I try to look at academic people and things, non-profits, book titles, and geographical features, and also on G13s. I expect to look at 20 or so for every one that can possibly be rescued; the error rate is now about 5%--back in `07, it was twice that. This article had the title "Gaurav Sharma (IEEE Fellow)" which made it particularly easy to spot. If it were just the name I might have missed it, as I can not check on all bios.

I do other things than that, of course, but I am concentrating a little more on the deletion log these days, especially because there are a great increase in the number of rescuable G13, and also because there are one or two admins who are deliberately ignoring WP:PROF because they oppose all exceptions to the GNG. (Of course, while I'm there I also try to check items on the deletion log that have become blue links--about half are legit, half need re-deletion.) DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Technicality

I hate to drop by again over a technicality, since it seems that was also the last reason I posted here, and while I agree with the sentiment on ANI, it does seem like you've imposed a single-article TBAN, and since the subject isn't covered under discretionary sanctions, I'm pretty sure you can't actually do that unilaterally. TimothyJosephWood 12:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: I disagree. Warning editors that they may be blocked if they continue edit warring is not a topic ban. Unless you're reading something in my comment that I'm not. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Ooh. Apparently I am. Friends don't let friends edit before their morning coffee. I read that as "any edit" not "any edit warring". Carry on carry on. TimothyJosephWood 16:56, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

@Timothyjosephwood: Ha, I thought that might be the case. It's time for beer rather than coffee here, and apparently friends don't let friends edit after beer either. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:57, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Hospital People

Hi, can I ask what state the Hospital People article was in before it was deleted? I appreciate it was created by a banned user, but (assuming it was written correctly) it's a legitimate topic - it's a sitcom the BBC aired in the last few months. If it's been written in a decent style, is there a chance it can be restored and I can knock it into shape. Thanks, HornetMike (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@HornetMike: Hi. You're right it's a legitimate topic, and if you're thinking of writing an article about it that's great. However, it wasn't in good shape when it was deleted. It didn't cite any sources at all and was very brief. I don't think there's any material in the deleted article which would give you a worthwhile headstart and it's probably worth starting from scratch if you feel like taking it on. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Your block of 24.180.168.42

Might want to block the editing of their own talk page as well. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 17:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:NGRIDIRON and the Arena League

Hi. As an administrator, would you care to withdraw and close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delvin Lamar Hughley? I believe you may have misread WP:NGRIDIRON, which expressly includes the Arena Football League. It is in fact the first one listed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Hello Basalisk, I recently created a page meQasa which was deleted. The purpose of the deletion have i had a connection with the company. Could you please tell me why you assume so and what do i need to do to show that page has nothing to do with me. That it was created because it was my first page to create which i chose to do. Stephenaidoo (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stephenaidoo. Editing in areas where you have a conflict of interest is discouraged on Wikipedia, but that's not the specific reason why the article was deleted. It was deleted because it was WP:NOTADVERTISING written like an advertisement; it was clearly promotional in its tone. If you want to create an article on Wikipedia, then it has to read like what you'd expect to find in an encyclopaedia, not an advertisement in a magazine or an endorsement on a website. You should also be aware that Wikipedia has standards for notability, and an article may be deleted if it does not reach these standards. I would recommend you read the pages I've linked to in this paragraph, as well as this page on how to avoid using Wikipedia for advertisement, before creating any more articles. Let me know if you have any other questions. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 15:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Kim seok-Jin

Hello,

Earlier today you declined a CSD for this article by stating that it was significantly different than the version in feb 2015 that was redirected. I worked on the article adding a few new references. A user has tried without discussion today to redirect it to the bands article. He stated he could due to the feb 2015 afd outcome. Please check on this and leave it as a stand alone article. If someone wants to afd it now, at least there could be a fair discussion, not just some unilateral decison. Thanks for your time. Antonioatrylia (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Zahiril Adzim (actor)

Hallo, Having decided that this article has a future, could you please move it to Zahiril Adzim, the correct but salted title? Or do I need to do a formal WP:RM for it? Thanks. PamD 09:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:41, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2017).

Administrator changes

Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 ^{(first RfA to reach WP:300)}

Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

• Following a series of discussions around new pages patrol, the WMF is helping implement a controlled autoconfirmed article creation trial as a research experiment, similar to the one proposed in 2011. You can learn more about the research plan at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial. The exact start date of the experiment has yet to be determined.
• A new speedy deletion criterion, regarding articles created as a result undisclosed paid editing, is currently being discussed (permalink).
• An RfC (permalink) is currently open that proposes expanding WP:G13 to include all drafts, even if they weren't submitted through Articles for Creation.

Technical news

• LoginNotify should soon be deployed to the English Wikipedia. This will notify users when there are suspicious login attempts on their account.
• The new version of XTools is nearing an official release. This suite of tools includes administrator statistics, an improved edit counter, among other tools that may benefit administrators. You can report issues on Phabricator and provide general feedback at mw:Talk:XTools.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Help to find meQasa Page

Hi Basalisk. I have read everything and i think the only mistake was mistakenly writing the page in a way which may sound like an advertisement. I am ready to make edits. However, how do I get to this same page and make edits? Because I can't find that page anywhere. I mean meQasa. Please help.

The page has been deleted. You can recreate it if you want, but make sure it conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines on notability and promotional material. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:55, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I wanted to check how to correct the copyright violation on Lochlan Bloom. I aimed to rewrite from all the references I used but may have used some text that was too similar? - what section of the text in particular was an infringement? how do i change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tororro (talk • contribs) 22:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC) 

Reason for Deleting the "Docear" page?

Hello Basalisk,

I am one of the core developers and founders of the software "Docear". I noted that a few days ago you deleted the "Docear" page from Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docear. As a reason, you mentioned that the page would be too much written like an advertisement. I would very much appreciate if you could elaborate on your reasoning for deleting the page and provide information on what parts of the article exactly you considered "advertisement".

Docear has several thousands of users, we received start-up funding some years ago and there have been quite a few reviews and news articles about our software. I hope you agree that this justifies an article on Wikipedia and hence, if the article should not meet the quality criteria of Wikipedia, the article should be changed but not completely removed. I suggest and kindly ask you to restore the old article, and change the parts that do not meet Wikipedias quality criteria (I will happily make a proposal/draft for a new version if you prefer).

Best, Joeran

JoeranB (talk) 04:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I find it difficult to "elaborate" on the observation that I feel it sounds like it is written like an advertisement. It's a fairly self-explanatory statement and I don't really know how I would explain it further. In particular, though, I would say that the "features" section is particularly problematic and completely unacceptable. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your product's features or promote its superiority to competitors. In terms of whether the software "justifies an article", I do not, and did not, pass any comment on that.

I have no real interest in writing an article about an obscure piece of software. I'm sure there are plenty of people interested in that, and so I decline your suggestion to re-write the article. If you wish, you are free to submit a draft or re-write the article yourself, though bear in mind Wikipedia discourages editing in areas where you have a conflict of interest as this can make it difficult to maintain a neutral point-of-view. Also bear in mind that another promotional article about this software is likely to be deleted again. Let me know if you have any further questions. Regards, Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

On further investigation, I found that the article has actually been through the articles for deletion process in the past and was found not to be notable. If the article is recreated without demonstrating notability it is likely to be deleted. Furthermore, your edits here are clearly directed at promoting this piece of software, including the construction of a promotional userpage with an inappropriate external link, and so I have blocked your account indefinitely for advertising. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 02:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@Basalisk: Can you elaborate on the deletion procedure for the article. I read G11 but from my memories of the article I have the impression that {{Advert}} would be more appropriate. I did not find any discussion on this topic except for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Docear, which did not result in a "delete" but in "merge". Since the history was deleted as well, it's hard to judge if the content was "written like an advertisement". I think for it's important to have a transparent and fair procedure for the deletion of articles. --Physikerwelt (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I get this question from time to time and I can never really think of any way to elaborate on "I think it sounds like an advert". It's a subjective judgement by definition. It's part of an admin's job to make that call. Every time you make that call, there'll be people who would agree with you and people who would disagree. In my judgement, the article was promotional and that's why I deleted it after a G11 nomination. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:54, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

@Basalisk: I understand that. However, the definition of G11 which you specified as reason is slightly different:

This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.

I guess the notability of Docear is clear. Thus please undelete the article so that the Docear community gets a chance to improve the article in a suitable amount of time. That way the article history is preserved and the article can be improved as a community effort. --Physikerwelt (talk) 00:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Simply being written about a notable subject does not exemplify an article from deletion under G11 if it is promotional. Part of the whole point of G11 is not to preserve the revision history. For those reasons, I decline your request to restore the article. Regards, Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 08:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2017).

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2017).

Administrator changes

Boing! said Zebedee • Ansh666 • Ad Orientem

Tonywalton • AmiDaniel • Silence • BanyanTree • Magioladitis • Vanamonde93 • Mr.Z-man • Jdavidb • Jakec • Ram-Man • Yelyos • Kurt Shaped Box

Guideline and policy news

• Following a successful proposal to create it, a new user right called "edit filter helper" is now assignable and revocable by administrators. The right allows non-administrators to view the details of private edit filters, but not to edit them.
• Following a discussion about mass-application of ECP and how the need for logging and other details of an evolving consensus may have been missed by some administrators, a rough guide to extended confirmed protection has been written. This information page describes how the extended-confirmed aspects of the protection policy are currently being applied by administrators.

Technical news

• You can now search for IP ranges at Special:Contributions. Some log pages and Special:DeletedContributions are not yet supported. Wildcards (e.g. 192.168.0.*) are also not supported, but the popular contribsrange gadget will continue to work.

Arbitration

• Community consultation on the 2017 candidates for CheckUser and Oversight has concluded. The Arbitration Committee will appoint successful candidates by October 11.
• A request for comment is open regarding the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 Arbitration Committee election, and how to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2017).

Administrator changes

Longhair • Megalibrarygirl • TonyBallioni • Vanamonde93

Allen3 • Eluchil404 • Arthur Rubin • Bencherlite

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Anti-Harassment Tools team is creating an "Interaction Timeline" tool that intends to assist administrators in resolving user conduct disputes. Feedback on the concept may be posted on the talk page.
• A new function is now available to edit filter managers that will make it easier to look for multiple strings containing spoofed text.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors will be invited to submit candidate statements for the 2017 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 12 until November 21. Voting will begin on November 27 and last until December 10.
• Following a request for comment, Ritchie333, Yunshui and Ymblanter will serve as the Electoral Commission for the 2017 ArbCom Elections.

Obituaries

• The Wikipedia community has recently learned that Allen3 (William Allen Peckham) passed away on December 30, 2016, the same day as JohnCD. Allen began editing in 2005 and became an administrator that same year.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Your attention needed at WP:CHU

Hello. A renamer or clerk has responded to your username change request, but requires clarification before moving forward. Please follow up at your username change request entry as soon as possible. Thank you. Nihlus 00:38, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

!

	Happy Adminship	from the Birthday Committee
	Wishing Elahrairah a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! -- NikolaiHo☎️ 04:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

dear Authorized,

I rejoice if you re-activate the page. At least I will continue where I left off. please re-enable.I need your help in this regard.( Ayselonline (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC) )

Hello. What page are you referring to? EA ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 19:47, 3 December 2017 (UTC)