User talk:MrClog/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:MrClog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Thanks for clarifying. I'm glad to see you've set up an email on this account which should prevent the same happening again. Could I suggest some kind of disclosure on your userpage to prevent others misreading the situation. Some of us who change names make declarations (User:Cabayi#Disclosure) & some don't. For the time-being, while your actual experience is greater than your apparent experience, it may save you some grief. Hope that helps, Cabayi (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi: the reason I had made the edits I did to the talk page for van Raan is that if it's left as is, it shows up on the list of biography articles without living parameter and biography articles without listas parameter maintenance categories; these are part of the WP Biography tag on the talk page. They show up as hidden categories at the bottom of the talk page (at least in the format I see). May I update those parameters? --FeanorStar7 11:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@FeanorStar7: I see. Go ahead and edit it! :) MrClog (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@MrClog: Thank you. --FeanorStar7 11:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You left a message on my user-talk page asking about my username. I've recently been subject to two doxxing attempts, and false accusation of canvassing to smear my account. My name is in process of change to address this. Please don't note the old name again, thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

You're not the first admin to notice this, despite my assurances from a previous admin pre-name-change that it wouldn't draw such suspicion. Could you assist please with redacting my old name from my user page and from the article page that draws controversy? Thanks. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I see now (here) you've just told one of two person who attempted to dox me that my new name is "fake", you confirmed for them my old name. Could you please redact this? I was specifically advised this name-change was the correct course, following the redaction of the doxxing attempt. Please help stop this dog-piling so I can continue editing without needless controversy. Thank you. A145GI15I95 (talk) 16:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@A145GI15I95: Even when you put a different name under your messages, the page history still shows your actual username. You should request courtesy vanishing. MrClog (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ministry of Transport. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Just imagine the cattle were  the main source of wealth in an  African State and a man's status was determined by the number of cattle he owned.The women were responsible for growing crops like millet and sorghum. Xulu Ayanda (talk) 11:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Xulu Ayanda: I'm very sorry, but what exactly are you trying to say? --MrClog (talk) 12:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed a new user put some information in the Lee(Korean Surname) and Kim(Korean surname) section, saying that 6 million Korean people trace their lineage to Heo Hwang Ok. Imagine how funny this argument is. I just checked the souce, and could not find any reliable information on this opinion. Please check. Also, I would appreciate if you could help me with adding some new information to Lee(surname) section. This is a very important information. Korean surname Lee(李) was originally written as Ni(니) in Korea. You can check this fact in a lot of historical materials. However, as time passed, Koreans started to pronounce Ni(니) as Ee beginning from 19th century. And during the Japanese colonization era, We built a new language system, that has changed all the words that start with ㄹ(L pronunciation) to ㅇ(Y or I sound) including surnames. So basically, over 12 million people's surname spelling has changed. This is very important, because in North Korea or China, this is not the case. This rule is only applicable in South Korea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.198.112.251 (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@211.198.112.251: Whilst I would love to help you on your page, I personally lack the knowledge to do so. Feel free to do it yourself though! Thank you. --MrClog (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I will edit the document when I have time. Have a good day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.198.112.251 (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A lot of the URLs do mention the name of the suspect in Utrecht shooting. The name is only excluded from the article. Is that alright? RookerBowman (talk) 21:22, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we should keep it excluded from the article itself until there is a conviction. Mentions by the URL are fine. --MrClog (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jeremy Corbyn. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

A recent job advert by the spectator magazine asks applicants to find out the location from which the wikipedia entry for John Bercow was last edited. ^[1] As you will know this edit was done by yourself. I don't know if the magazine told you about this before they did so or whether you are aware now but thought you'd like to know that there may be a few people trying to find out where you are based!

I would also be enormously grateful if you could help a budding journalist with this query! If you wouldn't mind doing so (obviously I would only expect a town/city from you, not a precise location) then I can give you some contact details to do so.

Many thanks in advance. Sax1511 (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Sax1511: The job advert appears to have closed last year (2018) already, aren't you looking at the wrong one? --MrClog (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I think it is up to date because that's the list they asked us to complete. Could be one horrible April fools day joke tho. And I'd be grateful for a location too if you don't mind. I'll give you my email if you'd like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I-dunno-im-just-here-4-ze-bants (talk • contribs) 22:40, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sax1511: @I-dunno-im-just-here-4-ze-bants: Please send me an email via this page. --MrClog (talk) 07:33, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox officeholder. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thanks for being part of the Guild! GrammarDamner (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello, MrClog, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison with other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and Orphan Wiki 08:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Note: Having a username change after you start using STiki will reset your classification count. Please let us know about such changes on the talk page page to avoid confusion in issuing milestone awards. You can also request for your previous STiki contributions to be reassigned to your new account name.
Orphan Wiki 08:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Hey, sorry to bother you on your vacation - feel free to ignore this message if you're livin' it up far away from trivial internet arguments, there's no rush.

The dispute case about Sampling was automatically archived by a bot, even though it wasn't closed. Is that the normal state of affairs? Popcornduff (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: Sorry for my late response, I had to work on some things I wasn't able to work on whilst on holiday. It shouldn't have archived the case for as far as I know. The line that normally would prevent it from being archived was still present. I have no idea how it happened. --MrClog (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hope you had a nice trip!

What should I do about the dispute? Is it OK to just restore it to the page? Popcornduff (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Popcornduff, yes, that's OK. --MrClog (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Popcornduff: The bot has once again archived the dispute. I have no idea why it is doing it. --MrClog (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello MrClog,

I think Forum for Democracy shouldn't be labeled as far-right on Wikipedia. This sketches the wrong image of this party. Labeling a party 'far-right' is a serious accusation, since it throws the party in a heap with some of the most violent, antidemocratic, racist and fascist organizations in world history like Hitler's Nazi Party and Mussolini's National Fascist Party. Because of this, I don't agree that the cited articles shouldn't explain why FvD is far-right. Labeling a party 'far-right' should first be discussed properly before it's added to Wikipedia. Looking to the edit history, I'm not the first person that objects to this label. Therefore I hope you'll take my objections seriously.

With kind regards,

Fresiae — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresiae (talk • contribs) 18:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Fresiae, thank you for your comment. I would like to make a few points:

1. We don't just label FvD as a far-right party, the article says it's "[r]ight-wing to far-right", which seems to accurately describe what reliable sources say about the party.
2. I don't agree that the cited articles shouldn't explain why FvD is far-right. - I understand where you come from, but here on Wikipedia there is no requirement for reliable sources to justify all claims they make.
3. The fact people associate "far-right" with only Nazis and fascists is not a reason to only label those people/groups as far-right.

Regards, MrClog (talk) 18:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrClog,

Thanks for your quick reaction and explanation. If it's alright with you, I would like to make a few other points.

1) Shouldn't we be more critical of who is listed as a reliable source? For example, you added a report of Willem Wagenaar as a source of why FvD can be considered far-right. But he stated in a Volkskrant article that calling FvD far-right goes too far. An opinion also held by Sarah de Lange, professor at the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences of the University of Amsterdam. They both were interviewed by the Volkskrant, a highly respected newspaper in the Netherlands. They stated that although FvD is quite radical, they aren't unconstitutional and antidemocratic and therefore calling them far-right is going too far. Moreover, Willem Wagenaar is a convicted criminal who played a role in an attack on a Dutch far-right political party in Kedichem on March 29, 1986. Shouldn't we be more cautious to cite people who may be prone to personal bias?

2) One of the cited authors is Thijs Kleinpaste. He wrote the Foreign Policy article that is cited. But if you look at his Twitter account, you can see that he's very politically motivated. He's full of personal bias to the point that can be considered unprofessional. Yesterday he retweeted a tweet of Cas Mudde in which he even called the Dutch conservative-liberal party VVD of PM Mark Rutte 'far-right'. I don't think he's very reliable to be honest. My point is that unreliable and/or politically motivated authors can write for reliable and credible newspapers.

I would very much like you to read both Volkskrant articles since it perfectly sums up the discussion about 'how right-wing' FvD really is. The conclusion of both articles: FvD is a right-wing party which sometimes copies far-right rhetoric. But that alone is not enough to call the whole party far-right.

[1] https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/ombudsvrouw-extreem-rechtsvraag-bij-stuk-over-forum-voor-democratie-wekte-verkeerde-indruk~bc228ef8/ [2] https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/hoe-rechts-is-forum-voor-democratie~ba78261bc/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresiae (talk • contribs) 18:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Fresiae, thank you for your response. Please allow me to respond to your two points:

1. It is indeed true that numerous reliable sources do not see FvD as 'far-right' (and to be fair, I personally agree with them), but there are also numerous reliable sources that argue differently. Therefore, I think that "[r]ight-wing to far-right" is fair. Regarding the report, mister Wagenaar (of the Anne Frank Foundation) only "provided support" to the authors, the authors themselves seem reliable to me.
2. I have removed that source, as it seems to be an opinion article by someone that just happens to have an opinion, and thus it's not reliable.

Would it be an idea to add a section to the article that discusses the "Right-wing or far-right" discussion as a form of compromise?

Regards, MrClog (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrClog,

Thanks for the answer again. I think it's an excellent idea to add a "controversies" or "how right-wing is FvD?" section to the article. But, this section should be written very carefully. I don't want to ignore the fact that from time to time there are serious concerns about the extreme character of the party. But, most controversies surrounding FvD started with statements from party-leader Baudet. He sometimes flirts with dubious ideas like "The great replacement" and other aspects of white supremacist ideology. The party program itself, however, doesn't contain any of that. That's why I objected to the labeling of 'far-right'. But I get why the cited articles call FvD far-right when its leader says dubious things. But it still gives a wrong impression of the character of the whole the party. In fact, an important figure of the party, Henk Otten, strongly criticized Baudet for his rhetoric a few days ago in NRC newspaper. There's a lot of internal critique on Baudet's behavior. A separate "controversies" section would do justice to this internal and external discussion.

Kind regards,

Fresiae — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fresiae (talk • contribs) 20:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

	Maraming Salamat Po
	For reviewing the article Demographics of Filipino Americans. Thank you very much! For your efforts, enjoy this image of long/tapsilog. RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 01:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello MrClog,

I noticed we were almost starting an editing war and would like to continue the conversation here. Could you give a constructive reason as to why you were reverting my edits. You have to know I wasn't advocating and do not have any agenda on here. I want Wikipedia to be factual and politically neutral and the 'Forum for Democracy' article clearly wasn't. The party has consistently denied any connection with the far-right and always identified as either a 'middenpartij' or just right-wing. The party's word itself is a much better source if you want to know what they stand for than second-hand sources by journalists, who could very well be opposing FvD and trying to smear their name by connecting them to xenophobic, racist and/or far-right groups and parties. I added proper sources for all my edits, often sourcing the party website when talking about ideological stances. I wasn't advocating, I was adding more information while also trying to make the article more politically neutral and factual.

Please explain your accusations, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freerka (talk • contribs) 23:04, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Freerka, the way a party self-identifies is not more reliable than how independent sources describe them. There were 4 reliable sources that describe FvD as far-right linked to the article, and you remove them because the party leader denies being far-right. The party's website is obvious not reliable in this case. Thanks. --MrClog (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

How so? If the party's official party line doesn't have a single correspondence with the Wikipedia definition of 'Far-Right' (Extreme nationalism, nativism, authoritarianism, often associated with nazism, fascism, chauvinism, ultranationalism, xenophobia, racism etc), why should the party be categorised as 'Far-right' on Wikipedia.

You can suspect the party of secretely being far-right and hiding behind centre-right standpoints, but that would be a (conspiracy) theory and an accusation of deception towards the party. That's very subjective on your (and the journalists') part and does not belong on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freerka (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If reliable sources call the party far-right, Wikipedia follows that, even if you disagree with that (and believe me, I personally do not consider FvD far-right). Thanks. --MrClog (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

If (reliable) sources think the party might have some connections to the far-right and their ideology, you could add a specific part to the article talking about what kind of criticism the party gets. Adding this to the sidebar strongly implies the party is an undisputed 'right-wing to far-right' party. The party doesn't claim to be far-right. Most people don't think the party is far-right and an honest look at the characteristics of far right politics will also show you the party isn't far-right. Please keep the party's own identification for the sidebar and add possible accusations and suspicions by others in a specific section called 'criticism' or something similar to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freerka (talk • contribs) 14:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Freerka, can you point me to any Wikipedia policy that says that we should follow the party's own identification? You seem to base all your arguments on your personal opinion and not on reliable independent sources. If these sources call them right-wing to far-right, the article should reflect that. Also, please sign your comments by ending your message with 4 tiddles (~~~~). Thanks. -MrClog (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

I can't point to any Wikipedia policy specifically saying that, but doesn't that speak for itself?

Many newspapers and magazines have written about how a party like Groenlinks is moving further to the left, sometimes even accusing them of flirting with the far-left, yet their party's Wikipedia article says they are 'centre-left to left-wing'.

Same goes for a party like D66 or VVD, which - according to many sources - have moved further to the left in recent years, yet their Wikipedia pages still describe them as 'Centre' (D66) and 'Centre-right' (VVD).

I think this is fair. These parties self-identify that way and their own description of their ideology is the closest you're going to get to factual truth. The sidebar is for a factual description of these parties' political position, not for an opinionated suspicion by some journalists. I'd like this to be consistent for all parties, including FvD. -Freerka (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Freerka, if you can find reliable sources that call GreenLeft 'far-left', you are invited to change it. Same goes for D66 and VVD. - I can't point to any Wikipedia policy specifically saying that, but doesn't that speak for itself? No, it doesn't, and that's also why there is no policy supporting your idea. - their own description of their ideology is the closest you're going to get to factual truth Unfortunately, parties don't always tell the truth; that's why we rely on reliable sources. --MrClog (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

No I will not change Groenlinks' position to 'left-wing to far-left', because some newspapers have written about their association with far-left groups and their history as a Maoist party, because I'm an honest person. Groenlinks isn't far-left. FvD isn't far-right. Most Dutch parties are near the centre and associating these parties with extremist ideologies is unfair, hinders productive debate and could potentially motivate people to 'fight against nazis' or 'fight against commies', leading to situations we've seen happen before in The Netherlands. Let's be fair here, Al Jazeera (a Qatari news source which is often accused of having a left-wing bias on European and American affairs) is not more trustworthy than the party's own website when it comes to labeling a labeling a party as something as extreme as 'far right'. Sources only quickly referring to FvD as 'far-right' (with no further explanation) aren't enough to back labeling them as far-right on Wikipedia. You'll need a concrete and detailed explanation and look into their ideology from a trustworthy source to do something like that. -Freerka (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Freerka, the sources I listed match the requirements at WP:RS. Your sources do not. --MrClog (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:SNC-Lavalin affair. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Since you appear to have come back to active editing, can you resume dealing with the music sampling dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I will do so tomorrow. --MrClog (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You seem to have gotten hit with backlash from some sort of left-wing dispute over ideological orthodoxy. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Administrator changes HickoryOughtShirt?4 • RexxS Necrothesp Bratsche • Kyle Barbour • Kzollman • Madman Interface administrator changes Pharos

Bureaucrat changes Primefac CheckUser changes Reaper Eternal

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment concluded that creating pages in the portal namespace should be restricted to autoconfirmed users.
• Following a request for comment, the subject-specific notability guideline for pornographic actors and models (WP:PORNBIO) was removed; in its place, editors should consult WP:ENT and WP:GNG.

Technical news

• XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

• In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
• Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

• A request for comment is currently open to amend the community sanctions procedure to exclude non XfD or CSD deletions.
• A proposal to remove pre-2009 indefinite IP blocks is currently open for discussion.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Feminist views on transgender topics. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your help resolving the sampling dispute, especially since it dragged on so long. Popcornduff (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

--MrClog (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I don’t understand why you reverted my edit and called it “Good faith” it was perfect and I have been trying to find out which issue it is for months — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.196.116 (talk) 8 May 2019, 06:48 (UTC)

Because they were unsourced. Also, may I ask why you vandalise your own talk page and then revert it yourself? --MrClog (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I’m just making a joke and nobody ever sees my talk page anyways (I don’t know how to sign) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.196.116 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

You can sign your replies by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. --MrClog (talk) 17:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canadian law. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrClog. While I admire your enthusiasm to work in difficult areas of Wikipedia, I'm concerned that whatever is driving you may be preventing you from learning the basics of Wikipedia that are needed to work in those areas.

I don't expect that's an answer you like or want to hear, so let me try to provide some context.

I greet many new editors, and have a standard greeting for those that I think could use some direction around the more difficult areas to work in. Here's the main portion:

If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter. Regardless, editing in a manner that promotes an entity or viewpoint over others can appear to be detrimental to the purpose of Wikipedia and the neutrality required in articles.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

In a nutshell: I'm emphasizing the need for editors to learn Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and identifying areas of Wikipedia where not understanding policy well can quickly lead to actions against an editor. (I'm ignoring vandalism, spamming, etc. because I'd simply leave a warning instead.)

Other editors have written essays that go into far more breadth and depth in orienting new editors. I especially like User:WLU/Generic sandbox and User:Jytdog/How. Finally, there are a number of essays addressing the required competencies of editors, of which Wikipedia:Competence is required is a good introduction.

I hope that's at least enough to get a discussion started if you like. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Ronz, this does not answer the question I asked, being which concerns of you I did not address in my 3OR response. --MrClog (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. I was first answering your question about your being a new editor, hoping that would give us some context for discussion. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello- I am working to expand Richars Zorza's page- please do not immediately delete. I do have some good sourced material and am currently editing it. Thanks Bradby (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I have already started to address your comments. Amitchell125 14:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:UFC 239 Poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Indian general election. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

So the full history of the "Did you know..." entry is no longer supposed to be listed at the article talk page? Just that little entry in the "milestones" section, which does not link to the discussion? When was that decided? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, it links to the discussion. If you click on fact from this article, it sends you to the nomination page. --MrClog (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I see. And when was this shortened version decided? Are you changing it everywhere? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, Template:Article history says: This template combines all the "content milestone"-related templates into one, to reduce clutter on talk pages. I do not know if there has ever been a decision to always combine milestones into {{Article history}}. It seems to me though, to be WP:COMMONSENSE to combine multiple milestones into 1 template that was specifically designed for this purpose to be used (instead of having separate templates), so I figured I would be a bit WP:BOLD. Also, is there community consensus that only {{DYK talk}} is appropriate? If so, could you link me to the discussion? --MrClog (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know it has never been discussed one way or the other. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, so I suppose it's fine to combine them into {{Article history}} as well as having them separate? Or is there the necessity to have a community discussion about this (trivial) matter? --MrClog (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The template suggests including "multiple FACs, FARs... Good Article status, Articles for Deletion, Peer reviews and WikiProject reviews can also be included." Maybe you were the first one to think of adding DYKs, but I can follow your logic. Did you design the shortened version yourself? -- MelanieN (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN, the option to include DYK/In the news/On this day has always been there for as far as I know. I, at least, didn't create that option. --MrClog (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I don't object; was just surprised and wondering why this happened, since it is the first time I have seen it. If you are planning to change this by hand at multiple articles you will have your work cut out for you, since a bot adds the expanded version to the talk page every time an article gets a DYK. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The party is not a Far-Right party. Sources in the Dutch section clears it up. They are NOT an Ultra Conservative party as they are a Conservative-Liberal Party. Misnaming their ideology is unhelpful

--Gregnator (talk) 18:03, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Gregnator, please discuss this at Talk:Forum for Democracy and also cite your sources there. Do note that this has been discussed extensively already, so you will have to come with good sources. --MrClog (talk) 18:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Jma67 and I worked hard to overcome the draft. My last question is, does it still stand for DYK? Thanks! Best wishes! --LLcentury (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

LLcentury, for as far as I know, that shouldn't be a problem. --MrClog (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the draft. Please see redaction on this [log]. Cheers, Verbosmithie (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Frankfurt School. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Clog! I see that you left a comment of the article being "not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia." May you elaborate on that and how I can resolve this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SlyKiinz (talk • contribs) 20:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

SlyKiinz, the general notability guideline states: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. The subject also doesn't seem to match the subject-specific guideline for scientists and the subject-specific guideline for entertainers. If she really is as unnotable as it seems to me, then you cannot resolve this. After all, no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability. What you could do, is present some sources that I didn't find that support the notability of the subject. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Brian Coughtrey (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Ralph Allen (painter, born 1926) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page I was trying to create for Ralph Allen has been turned down as not notable... I checked out the page that defines notability, and the fact the he has works in the Canadian National Gallery, and Ontario Art Gallery meets the posted qualifications.

I guess I am confused.

Brian Coughtrey (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Coughtrey, does entering important collections mean that his work has been in the permanent collection of these galleries? If so, than I misunderstood the submission and I'll have a look at it again. --MrClog (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, both galleries have purchased his work, and well as the Government on Ontario, and various public University galleries like at Concordia and Queen's. This is my first attempt at a page, but I would like do more if I can get this first one figured out. Ralph recently passed last month... so I will need to do some updates at some point, unless that is something an administrator needs to do.

Brian Coughtrey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Coughtrey (talk • contribs) 17:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Coughtrey, ah, alright. Would it be possible for you to update the article to include basic information on Mr. Allen's death, and leave me a message here once that's done? Then, I'll look at the article again. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 13:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

I have added the date of his death. Do you need a link to his obituary? https://jamesreidfuneralhome.com/tribute/details/1066/Ralph-Allen/obituary.html

Brian Coughtrey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian Coughtrey (talk • contribs) 15:24, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Coughtrey, please resubmit the article by clicking on the blue "Resubmit" button. --MrClog (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I have resubmitted, but it has been declined by Eagleash... Now I am very confused. How do articles get approved? Brian Coughtrey —Preceding undated comment added 13:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I have found some additional links to galleries and articles... to further demonstrate if notoriety. https://hirshhorn.si.edu/search-results/search-result-details/?edan_search_value=hmsg_86.102 https://e-artexte.ca/view/artists/Allen,_Ralph.html I'm not really sure what else I can do? Brian Coughtrey —Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Brian Coughtrey, I left a message at Eagleash's talk page. --MrClog (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! Brian Coughtrey —Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating Gundy v. United States.

User:Rosguill while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

The article is currently overly reliant on citations to actual court proceedings and other primary sources, and needs to be supported by more secondary or tertiary coverage of the subject.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Rosguill, I'm sure there'll be more independent in-depth sources once the SCOTUS has ruled. Will add those then. --MrClog (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Forum for Democracy. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
• An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
• An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

• The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
• Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

• The previously discussed unblocking of IP addresses indefinitely-blocked before 2009 was approved and has taken place.
• The 2019 talk pages consultation produced a report for Phase 1 and has entered Phase 2.

Guild of Copy Editors June 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2019. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 16 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: Our June blitz will soon be upon us; it will begin at 00:01 on 16 June (UTC) and will close at 23:59 on 22 June (UTC). The themes are "nature and the environment" and all requests. March Drive: Thanks to everyone for their work in March's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from 182 of the articles tagged in our original target months October and November 2018, and the month finished with 64 target articles remaining from November and 811 in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 22 requests for copyedit in March; the month ended with 34 requests pending. Of the 32 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the April Blitz; the blitz ran from 14 to 20 April (UTC) inclusive and the themes were Sports and Entertainment. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 267 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 605 articles. May Drive: During the May Backlog Elimination Drive, Guild copy-editors removed copyedit tags from 191 of the 192 articles tagged in our original target months of November and December 2018, and January 2019 was added on 22 May. We finished the month with 81 target articles remaining and a record low of 598 articles in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 24 requests for copyedit during the May drive, and the month ended with 35 requests pending. Of the 26 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I noticed you opened an AE thread and I commented there. On the other hand, you have not indicated what type of enforcement is needed and why. He seems to have been subject to a temporary ban about a particular topic but that too has expired since (Special:Diff/881506754). I didn't check if it applies, but maybe your concern is a 1RR policy violation? In any case, my comment there is mostly irrelevant to existing sanctions, if any, that alone will likely not result in anything. —PaleoNeonate – 09:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, I am requesting discreationary sanctions against the editor (like a TBAN). MrClog (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

You should probably write a statement there suggesting it with diffs/links/arguments showing why (WP:D&L has more information on this, I'm sorry if this is already obvious to you; it's also possible to link to old revisions of pages using WP:PERMALINKs). —PaleoNeonate – 10:09, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I see that my comment is no longer standing alone there, thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 13:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, could you please clarify with what you mean with I see that my comment is no longer standing alone there. Also, when I filed the AE request, I already supplied diffs to the edits that showed why a discretionary sanction was necessary. MrClog (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It's possible that part is a transcluded template and that it took a while to update. When I added my comment, it seemed to be the only one (so I posted a request here about completing the report). It now appears visible and fine, however. Sorry for the confusion, —PaleoNeonate – 13:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

PaleoNeonate, ah okay, that's fine. Also, I know what transcluded means ;) --MrClog (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, MrClog. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Orville1974 (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taiwan. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrClog. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, MrClog to the New Page Patrol team. Congratulations on receiving the New Page Patrol user permission and on becoming a part of the patroller community. Our mission is to accurately, rather than quickly, handle the new articles which are created. As you begin to patrol it's natural to have lots of questions. Feel free to ask on my talk page or ask for thoughts in the New Page Patroller IRC channel #wikimedia-npp connect or on our Discord server (invite link). We also regularly discuss issues and topics surrounding New Page Patrolling at the NPP discussion page and I would invite you to join us there. I hope you find NPP as rewarding as I do and, again, welcome to the community. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to ask why would You want to delete page Pink TV (Serbia), because it is the same text previously used on RTV Pink. The title of ′RTV Pink′ isn't right because it means both Radio and Television Pink, and the article gives only information about Television Pink. — HoneymoonAve27 (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, alright. In that case, I have removed the deletion tag. I did add a different deletion tag, though, because you are not allowed to move pages by copy-pasting them, because it would then be impossible to see in the page's history who made what edits to the page. I have restored RTV Pink. After Pink TV (Serbia) has been deleted, you can move the RTV Pink to TV Pink (Serbia) by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Moving a page. Thanks, MrClog (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Article Pink TV (Serbia) hasn't been deleted. — HoneymoonAve27 (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@HoneymoonAve27: It should be deleted soon. --MrClog (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for helping out with hook promotions at DYK. But why did you blank all the credit lines that hadn't been filled?. Yoninah (talk) 20:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yoninah, I thought those "Example" lines weren't supposed to be there. If they were, then that's my fault. MrClog (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, every set has 8 credit lines. "Example" refers to the page name, "Editor" to the nominator. It's also important to copy the entire credit line from the nomination page, including the "subpage" parameter. Here I did that for your hook promotion. Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Schoharie limousine crash. Legobot (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		I just wanted to thank you for creating the FTB v. Hyatt article. You've put in a lot of work into it, and the results prove it. I'm eager to see how the peer review goes. Orville1974talk 19:33, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I will continue to look for sources and I am also eager to see how the PR goes. --MrClog (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This does not seem like an accurate closing statement. In particular an editor has disputed that the added sources are WP:SIGCOV, there is not enough of an explanation as to why it cannot qualify as SIGCOV -- ???. Beyond the most basic meaning of SIGCOV and pointing out that these are brief mentions in lousy sources, what more explanation could there possibly be? The second keep !vote does not say anything outside of WP:AADD. Meh. FWIW, I guess. I don't plan to challenge it, since I can't imagine it being closed as anything other than "no consensus" (seems hard to avoid most of the time when the numeric majority is based on lousy arguments, unfortunately), but I'll register an objection that we're keeping this poorly sourced corporate directory entry nonetheless. :P — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Upon looking at it again, I do believe that you indeed explained why there is no WP:SIGCOV in the 2 articles which were added. Whilst you could say that the last keep !vote qualifies as WP:SOURCESEXIST, but because the !vote specifically mentions which term to use for a search, I do believe that I should weigh it in (maybe not to its fullest extent). That comment has not been responded to, which is why I decided to go with keep, though I agree that no consensus is possible as well. If you would like, I could revert my closure and have somebody else close the article. --MrClog (talk) 06:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC); edited 06:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Probably not a good use of time to reopen it, since it's been open a while without additional participation and I doubt anyone will have the fortitude for an against-the-numbers delete closure anyway. Like I said, no consensus seemed the most likely outcome, and that's not really different, practically. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you declined the logo update (history here) due to corruption. Can you expand on the issue? The linked image is featured prominently on the groups web page, and loads fine for me.

If it truly is corrupt, I can have them produce a new copy.

Thanks, Burst accumulation (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Burst accumulation: I believe that the file, once uploaded, showed the same as the logo currently updated but then with the height being too low and as such it was essentially a bad version of the current version. --MrClog (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Presidency of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello MrClog,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No I am not talking about a different species to the one mentioned it is just a synonym and the page has been updated to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinRedd007 (talk • contribs) 07:48, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

AustinRedd007, alright, me or another Articles for Creation reviewer will review your page. --MrClog (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Kristine M. Larson at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ergo Sum 20:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@MrClog: please help revert this page Mainul Ahsan Noble in my draft. Because @Anupamofficial: withouit talking or permisson this page in first/front page transfar from my draft page.--Md. Delwar Hossain 08:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, MrClog, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you have already created a few articles but if you are interested in writing biographies of women, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 11:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam¹ • Flyguy649 • Fram² • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe

¹Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

²Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment seeking to alleviate pressures on the request an account (ACC) process proposes either raising the account creation limit for extended confirmed editors or granting the account creator permission on request to new ACC tool users.

• In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

• The scope of CSD criterion G8 has been tightened such that the only redirects that it now applies to are those which target non-existent pages.
• The scope of CSD criterion G14 has been expanded slightly to include orphan "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects that target pages that are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function (such as set index articles or lists).
• A request for comment seeks to determine whether Wikipedia:Office actions should be a policy page or an information page.

Technical news

• The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

• In February 2019, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) changed its office actions policy to include temporary and project-specific bans. The WMF exercised this new ability for the first time on the English Wikipedia on 10 June 2019 to temporarily ban and desysop Fram. This action has resulted in significant community discussion, a request for arbitration (permalink), and, either directly or indirectly, the resignations of numerous administrators and functionaries. The WMF Board of Trustees is aware of the situation, and discussions continue on a statement and a way forward. The Arbitration Committee has sent an open letter to the WMF Board.

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Kudpung. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, List of Toronto District School Board elementary schools, and have marked it as unpatrolled. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I was about to continue my work but could not find my Charles A. Stone article. Not sure why you moved this article from my stub to "draft". My posting comment stated: (Infobox, more info to start on important bio). For what is there, we have plenty of references for all as per the link to his NYT obit which has substantial info. Please reverse. Thank you. Stretchrunner (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Stretchrunner, thank you for your comment. First of all, I still believe the page should currently be in the draft namespace. Now, second, let me explain why: references 2 and 3 don't talk about Mr. Stone, but about his company. As such, they do not help the article meet the general notability guideline. The article currently has only one reliable source that discusses Mr. Stone in a significant manner. I wasn't able to find more sources via Google, though I may have missed sources or I may not have access to all sources about Mr. Stone. I, therefore, suggest that you add enough sources to demonstrate notability and then hit the Submit your draft for review! button, so a volunteer will review the article to make sure it meets the notability guidelines. --MrClog (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Please don't take it upon yourself to update block notices as you did here. While I understand that you were doing so in good faith, there may be any number of reasons why the blocking Admin/Clerk/Checkuser may choose not to do so. If you think it was missed in error you can always ask the admin who modified the block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ponyo, I just asked the admin on their talk page. Thanks for the notice, MrClog (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry, he knows exactly why he's blocked. The NOTHERE applies even if he wasn't socking though. -- ferret (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ferret, thanks for the message. (I just posted a message on your talk page concerning this issue; no need to reply there). --MrClog (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Andy Ngo. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

~Swarm~ ^{sting} 04:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! --MrClog (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mr.Clog, Thanks for the feedback on this biographical article. I have removed the image AIGBONA-IGBAFE.png as I have just realized it is a copyright material. Would you be kind enough to help me understand what other materials makes you recommend the article for deletion. Danielos69 (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Sure! On Wikipedia, we have the principle of "notability", which determines which subjects (like which people) should have an article on them. For example, there is no article on me, because I am not notable. All articles must meet the general notability guideline, which means that there should be significant coverage from independent reliable sources about the subject. In addition, we have certain subject-specific notability guidelines, which help us determine which subjects are likely notable. In the case of Mr. Igbafe, I have not been able to find significant coverage in independent reliable sources, nor did I find that he meets the notability guideline for scholars. As such, I recommended the article be deleted. Note that no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, but what you can do, is finding independent reliable sources to proof that Mr. Igbafe is notable. Feel free to ask any other questions you have. --MrClog (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I got this.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Good. Make sure you do not get hacked by some evil person too. --MrClog (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: The reason I "removed" the unblock request was because they didn't actually file a new request, they simply removed your answer to the request. MrClog (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

On this computer that would be harder than anyone could imagine.08:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

On 23 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that per a recent Supreme Court ruling, U.S. states are immune from private suits against them in courts of other states without their consent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Maile66, thank you for moving the prep to the queue! --MrClog (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Free Palestine Movement. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)