User talk:Espresso Addict/archive13

You are one of the good ones. Don't resign your tools. Legacypac (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confidence, @Legacypac:! I'll see how an enforced break from banging my head against a brick wall the role works out. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request at WP:BN, your sysop flag has been removed. Should you wish to return to sysoping you may request reinstatement at BN subject to the administrator policy. Best wishes and thank you for your prior admin service. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you're taking a break from the Wikipedia admin roles (or this project) for an undetermined period of time. While I'm sad to see you step away, I completely understand and I commend you for keeping your happiness as your first priority. Yours truly and my very best - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 07:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Oshwah! I'm not leaving the project, just trying to refocus on less-stressful areas for a while, like perhaps creating the odd article here and there... Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understandable; I commend you for making that decision and to keep the stress in your life down. Life is never fun with stress, and if you let yourself get to the point where volunteering here becomes no fun to do, then what's the point? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your careful, helpful, kind review of my DYK for Shepard tables. I hope to finish it tomorrow, and I will ping when it's ready. My daughter got permanent relief from carpal tunnel with massage treatment; she said the massages were painful but really worth it. Wishing you all the best. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, HouseOfChange! My physio thinks the carpal tunnel is very atypical and isn't sure the symptoms I'm complaining of are really caused by the carpal tunnel that the neurologist says I've got... Sigh. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Espresso addict. I just want you to know that there are organisations that there are organisations that can help you with your addiction. I have been there myself and if you ever need to talk you are welcome to get in touch.

Hi Jonas -- Welcome to Wikipedia! I'm comfortable with my coffee 'addiction', thanks! Do remember to sign your comments on talk pages (not in mainspace) using four tildes like this: ~~~~. You can put them in a separate headed section by clicking the 'New section' tab at the top of the page. Happy editing! Espresso Addict (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note.

Much of what you say touches upon the reasons people contribute, stay, leave. There's sociology and psychology to it, and it's been studied by the WMF and a handful of universities. There is a tension between two sets of goals:

• Retaining capable contributors, recognizing their work, honoring the history of the project, maintaining continity so we aren't constantly re-inventing the wheel and rehashing settled policy; and
• Dealing with the very large group of people who have left the project and have no meaningful intention of returning, but who are holding onto their adminship as a trophy.

I've been through my own personal drama and I get it, life happens, sometimes in the real world things come unglued for a period of years. Then we return to things we used to do. I've been there, and there are a handful of other contributors in the same spot. Generally these are people who first came to Wikipedia as adults who had finished school, and who made participation in the project part of their lifestyle. It's a relatively small bunch. The majority of admins came here as students, and most of them lose interest when they complete school and develop competing interests. Lots of exceptions but that's the overall pattern.

Matters are made worse by the fact that there are relatively few editors who understand all this and agree with it, and who have the skills and willingness to write individual messages and so on. It's demoralizing doing it, because 90% of the people contacted don't respond. They may make other edits but they don't respond to the messages. They've checked out, and are busy being professors or attorneys or whatever it is that they do now, and that gives them the social sustenance that they once obtained here, and they don't care any more.

Anyway, glad you're here, keep up the good work, and thanks again for the note. UninvitedCompany 21:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did removed A7 from Huawei Honor 5A but what about notability of the product and is that necessary ?MrZINE (talk) 06:54, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back :) Legacypac (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Legacypac! (I was trying to make it to a month but my itchy deletion fingers got the better of me!) I'm going to try to continue doing more actual article work -- it's too easy to get distracted from what we're all really here for. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Espresso Addict: The article you deleted CricTracker now I'm again creating though the previous one wasn't created by me, I've been following cricket stuff from this website & from their social media and they are probably the only media company after Cricbuzz so quick about the updates on Cricket, So if you find it does not Passes WP:GNG please let's have an AFD about it. I have got the information from their social media about section & from facebook's media portal. I'll be updating that information. MrZINE | talk 22:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Espresso Addict, I just want to say thank you! Does the Wikipedia platform allow direct messages? It seems stange to start a topic just to say thanks. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by No sense of humour (talk • contribs) 10:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Our team at the Wikimedia Foundation is working on a project to improve the ease-of-use and productivity of wiki talk pages. As a Teahouse host, I can imagine you’ve run into challenges explaining talk pages to first-time participants.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis – to ask questions, to resolve differences, to organize projects and to make decisions. Communication is essential for the depth and quality of our content, and the health of our communities. We're currently leading a global consultation on how to improve talk pages, and we're looking for people that can report on their experiences using (or helping other people to use) wiki talk pages. We'd like to invite you to participate in the consultation, and invite new users to join too.

We thank you in advance for your participation and your help.

Trizek (WMF), 08:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The previous message about the talk pages consultation has a broken link.

The correct link has been misinterpreted by the MassMessage tool. Please use the following link: Wikipedia:Talk pages consultation 2019.

Sorry for the inconvenience, Trizek (WMF), 08:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you help with the clarinetist. Would you mind giving ITN credit, just for history? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Your wish is my command! (I don't usually bother with credits -- the main page slot is the real carrot.) Espresso Addict (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The carrot will be eaten in a few days ;) - thank you for the record! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Werner Bardenhewer please. I am so happy that I managed to write his article before he died, and it was a pleasant surprise for him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking at Portal:Beer. It could use something like

{{Transclude selected recent additions|%f[%a][Bb]eers?%f[%A] |%f[%a][Bb]rewery%f[%A] |%f[%a][Bb]rewing%f[%A] }}

%f[...] here is a "frontier" which only matches if the following character is in the set but the preceding character was not, so %f[%a] means "start of word" and %f[%A] means "end of word". Ideally we might use this sort of technique to improve many newer portals, but realistically there is probably only time to apply it to those selected for public ridicule. Certes (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've commented at Wikipedia talk:Portal/Guidelines#Automatically harvested DYK pattern matching problems so I'll move discussion there. Certes (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Certes! Let's discuss communally. What I'm hoping might be possible is to edit Transhumanist's script itself, as the trickle of new template-based autoportals seem to still be including this rather basic realisation of what is actually a much more flexible search. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had proper approvals through BAG been done, with proper testing, say on some abandoned existing portals, these laughable errors would have been caught and addressed. Now it is on 4500 pages because creating portals was a "race against time" with the expectation that someone else wpuld fix them someday, even though editing this code is not something most editors know how to do. Legacypac (talk) 04:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly true, Legacypac, but I don't believe that either I or Certes is responsible for the actions of other editors. I can't speak for Certes, but I haven't used this code anywhere reader facing. I've just played with it on talk pages to generate suggestions. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... for filling me in; most appreciated. (I went out to dinner and missed the fireworks :) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, SandyGeorgia; ITN is one of the clique-ier parts of the encyclopedia, and can be, shall we say, abrasive. Thanks for your efforts in keeping this important topic area updated. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say it has been a pleasure (buried in negative news all days about a humanitarian crisis), but it's good to have a clean suite of articles on the main page! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

regarding your edit [1] where you say "no reason to prefer Wikidata version, and it impedes editing for a heavily edited article":

• Wikidata templates reduce duplication of information, yielding less obtrusive code and real-time upates
• Wikidata templates allow overriding fields, entailing that they are exactly as difficult and as easy to edit as the manual version of the templates.

In short, there are compelling reasons to prefer them and they change nothing to the ease of editing. Rama (talk) 07:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that we are in fundamental disagreement here. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Kim Il Sung, and Jinnah. They are all national heroes. The first three of them are considered villains by most Westerners. I think that Jinnah, the founder of modern Pakistan, will be a controversial figure for historians for a century or more. He is a hero to most Sunni Muslims, and a villain to Indians and Hindus (two overlapping sets). I personally think of Saddam Hussein and Khomeini fighting or otherwise tormenting each other forever, and Kim probably opposing and fighting both of them. They had three incompatible religions, militant Sunni, militant Shi'ite, and militant atheist. I don't think Jinnah is likely to see them in the future, but Allah knows better than I do (and I don't call Him Allah, but that is simply the Arabic word, and He knows that we know Him by different names). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Jinnah might well be a sufficiently controversial figure to cause problems, but one could present a flat description of his achievements – the foundation of Pakistan – which some people will think is a positive and others a negative. I suppose the same could be said for the other three, but I don't know many westerners who would fall into the positive camp in that case. It could probably be said of many politicians for whom a portal might be viable; Margaret Thatcher was a hugely polarising figure in the UK, for example. At least there are no BLP concerns! Espresso Addict (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The American counterpart of Margaret Thatcher was Ronald Reagan. You may take note of where I said Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, and Kim are. Reagan is looking better to center-left Americans as time passes and was always a hero to the right, and Thatcher always seemed pretty good to Americans. As you said, views on Jinnah will depend largely on views of Pakistan. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Most, if not all, "great" political leaders come with some controversy. (Even Mandela had all the Winnie Mandela brouhaha.) From the UK perspective, Reagan looks better & better with time – hell, Bush, Sr looks better & better with time, and I never thought I'd write that – maybe one day we'll look at the US president and say Trump looks better & better with time... I hope not.

The only American politician who doesn't still have controversy about his leadership is George Washington, and he has personal criticism (as do seven other more contentious Presidents) for having owned slaves. The only British politician who isn't subject to criticism in the United States is Winston Churchill, and criticism of him in the United Kingdom is probably about colonialism. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Churchill gets a fair amount of criticism for his actions not related to WW2, but is revered for his leadership at that time. The spirit of his "We shall fight on the beaches" speech has to be one of the pillars of British citizenship. One of the few UK politicians of the modern era that I can think of that no-one now vilifies is Nye Bevan, perceived as the architect of the NHS & the welfare state; perhaps Mo Mowlam for her contribution to the Good Friday Agreement, and Robin Cook for resigning over the Iraq War, both aided by dying relatively young. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re Thatcher, the Falklands War and in particular the sinking of the Belgrano was when I became politically aware. One of my abiding & character-forming memories is of being forced by my school to wave off the Falklands fleet with little union jacks provided. It's not for nothing that some Brits danced on her grave.

Well, I was a young man during the Falklands War, and the Falklands War was popular in the United States. We weren't fighting and our ally was winning. The question is whether May will look better with time. The question about Trump is only whether he will be less polarizing because his supporters will all be either disillusioned or dead. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May is clearly the wrong leader for the current job but I don't understand why Cameron, who got the UK into the Brexit mess, isn't more widely criticised. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the portal perspective, I suspect this means that we should steer clear of all living politicians on BLP grounds, while long-dead politicians need to have a format that can readily be watched. The main disadvantage of the massively multi-page format for portals IMO is that it's relatively easy for vandalism to sneak in on the subpages, particularly if it's subtle. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:31, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the death section in Winters' bio. I am looking at Rod Steiger' bio who has a star article and a normal death, has a section of its own. Of all the star articles I have seen none mix personal and death even Phil Hartman. They are other ways to do it so like Terry-Thomas, be my guest and follow that format. So please if there is such rule please present it, because it match with what I see in star articles.Filmman3000 (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmman3000: I edited the article on Rod Steiger too, if you notice. That's a featured article (I assume that's what you mean by star article?) but the version that was reviewed (in 2015) had the sections combined. You can have "Later life and death", but that really only works for articles where the person retired from their notable role and did a range of other things before dying. Or "Death and legacy", where the section relates eg to things named in honour of the person. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes by star I mean feature. Is there a consensus or a written rule regarding that? To be honest I strongly feel both should be separated or death to be put in a sub section. I often put myself in the shoes of the casual Wiki reader who doesn't edit, and to be honest it would seem confusing to me as it is already.Filmman3000 (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmman3000: I did look but failed to find any formal written guideline (the relevant guide is Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography); however, I personally think there is consensus. But if you feel strongly, and are the major editor on the page, then within reason you are able to decide your own subsections, and I certainly won't revert you. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of you, I will think about it. Also thanks you for you work on the page you have been quite productive and nice.Filmman3000 (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work to improve the encyclopedia here, there and everywhere. Also, I was not aware until recently that you previously performed admin tasks. Seems like you're enjoying the break! North America1000 14:05, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, North America. Thanks! I'm on a sugar-restricted diet, so virtual cupcakes are great :) It's good to feel appreciated. Actually, I caved and took up admin duties again within three weeks of resigning, I just never got around to updating my user page. I've always mainly worked on bits of the main page, and completely avoid the drama boards when I can. I should probably update my user page to avoid confusion. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No sugar, not so bad. Well, I've been trying to get some collaboration going at the Portals project page, so maybe something positive will occur from this ideation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: I looked at the wall of text on the portal talk page, and decided I'd better check the main page first, or I'd never get round to it (and everyone else who usually works there seems on Easter break right now)! I'm thinking of trying to come up with some major non-geographical topics with decent hits & poor portals, and solicit improvers. I selfishly can't offer to do much myself, partly because I can see at least two of my three are queued for MfD when someone gets round to them, and I rashly offered to make proper portals for a couple of literary figures if the MfD closed as keep, as proof of the concept that individual people can sometimes merit portals, and need to retain some spare capacity in case porcine aviation is in the air. I haven't looked at the new MfDs for 24 hours either. Anyway, your efforts to get the project to look forwards are appreciated in this quarter, at least. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking it out. I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, and am knowledgeable about the workings of portals, but everyone makes mistakes every now and then. I overlooked some cats, which I've restored when it wasn't done yet, and am checking for others to restore. It wasn't done intentionally, but I have been mischaracterized as having done so. It's disheartening to be severely chastised there for a few honest mistakes, to the point that any post I make there in good faith is immediately followed-up with with beration, but I do learn from the mistakes. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Indeed! I'm not fond of automatic assumption of bad faith from long-term editors, let alone admins; usually even the stupidest of errors/apparent insults have an innocent explanation (cat jumped on my laptop and managed to hit post, internet went down mid-edit, US & UK English insults are not the same, ping didn't go through &c&c...). I don't much like the new portal maintenance status options; they don't relate well to manually maintained portals at all. Take a look at Portal:Viruses; I hacked in a real update status to the notes field, so that the thing at least has some utility for me as maintainer. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guess I wont be seeking to change the format at the viruses portal. Guess I'll be taking a break from the project talk page for a while. Well, at least I tried to get some collaborations going. I also posted a sort of essay there, but I thought it was rather neutral. After all, many pages were MfD nominated, and hundreds of older portal subpages were also marked for potential G6 deletion. Should I have just kept quiet about it, in fear of how others could respond regarding the essay and matter? I didn't create that problem, but it seemed important to let the community know about it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belatedly I see what you are meaning here. I don't see any reason at all why you should not solicit collaboration on geo portals; I thought that was a great idea. I do think we all need to try to talk constructively, however difficult that might be, given the spectrum of viewpoints we hold. At least MfD seems quiet at the moment in the absence of Legacypac. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got tired of the negative energy, so I archived the threads I posted. I may try again to post for collaboration; hopefully others can have a chance to respond, rather than my good faith query being buried in a scolding wall of text immediately after posting. My post was very neutral and sincere, simply seeking collaboration, and it was immediately met with inappropriate, knee-jerk scolding. I mean, the user could have went to my talk page to discuss their concerns, but never did, and instead chose to take over my thread and eagerly scold me publicly. I guess that's their preference. If anything a user posts is immediately met with anger and disdain and assumptions of ill intent when none are present, it obfuscates the process of communication. This is not how people function in the real world when interfacing face-to-face in professional environments. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I posted a notice at Talk:WikiProject Portals notifying users about the categorization matter (diff). It was easy to not know about the template automatically populating Category:All portals, because there was nothing in its documentation anywhere stating this, so I updated the template page with a notice (diff). Also, thanks for your kind words here, which is appreciated. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to withdraw any form of a nomination for Cyclone Kenneth. I have changed my mind on the worthiness of it. Noah^Talk 18:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Hurricane Noah. Thanks for letting me know. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:40, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Espresso Addict,

I have basically covered the first 26 years of David Winters (choreographer)'s careers and only 16 citations are left for the next 43 years of his career. What is absolutely insane I am still stumbling on stuff he got involved but aren't cited mostly stage shows. I also rectified that age 12 overlap that bother you. Let me know your thoughts I am fighting hard for this one.Filmman3000 (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Filmman3000: Hi there -- You might want to post in the ITN-C section so that everyone can read. As an admin, I generally have to go by consensus, as long as the minimum standards for sourcing of a BLP are met. (Note the recently deceased still count as BLPs.) You can always hide the material that you can't readily source if you want a short cut. You've still got a little time, as he would slot in between Kilson & Harper. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. This is just to bring to your attention that you forgot to sign the closure of the Emma Parker Bowles AfD. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, The Gnome, so I didn't. I've tried to fix the omission. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, I'll try to do better next time. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk)

To test how it survives being moved around, I have created my first portal.

When you have moment, please could you take a look and see whether it contains a similar set of basics to what a real portals would have. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I like it! Two thoughts for a convincing test.

• You probably want to create at least one of the archive pages to check that also moves smoothly see eg Portal:Cheshire/Selected biography/Archive; they need to be linked off each box individually, as for some reason that was what was recommended back in the day, and that seems the most fragile. (But there were several other promoted ways of handling that, which might need to be checked individually.)
• A lot of portals have a time-based rotation, eg see Portal:Cheshire/Calendar/Archive, which works slightly differently from the randomised-by-subpage number model.

One problem is that there were a lot of ways to build portals – my three are all different – so what works for Reagan's birthplace might not generalise. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did that.

I can see that Portal:Ballyporeen/Selected article will break when moved, but I did a simple tweak[2] to Portal:Ballyporeen/Selected biography, so it wiil be OK.

Next step is the move. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Espresso Addict. I wonder if I could take you up on your offer to take a look at the occasional TFA from a copy edit PoV? Donner Party was promoted nine years ago. It has bulked up by 10% since then and has been unusually active for a historical incident article. It seems broadly sound, but skimming it I spotted several cases of infelicitous phrasing - eg "three of the women mothers", which made me smile. Any chance that you could give it a run through, to at least pull out the worst of these? It is the TFA on 23 May. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if you would prefer a British article, Ashton-under-Lyne is in broadly the same case. (Whichever you don't take I will pass to GoCE.) Gog the Mild (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gog the Mild: -- Sure! I'd prefer the UK one, it's much more natural for me to work in British English spelling and Ashton-under-Lyne is just north of the English region I usually edit in. It's queued for 24 May; when do you want it finished? Thanks a lot for organising this. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's all yours. (It's not that far from where I live, but I only occasionally do major work on non-historical articles.) 23 May would be fine. No problem, thanks for helping out. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peckforton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Beeston (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Try, try again. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals § Collaboration – Country and major geographical Portals. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Northamerica1000 -- given the current climate at MfD and the portals talk page, I fear my only option is to retire from the lists and look to my fortifications. Best of luck, Espresso Addict (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! You sent me a message about the Cheshire Portal. I'd be happy to have my name attached as another maintainer. However, as this late reply may have told you, I'm off and on at the moment. I've been ill and away from wikipedia for a few weeks, and I will be going to stay in China again for about 3 months in a week or so, depending on how fast I can organise a visa. I'll still be able to be on wikipedia, but I'm not sure I'll be on continuously. I hope that helps.  DDStretch  (talk) 12:25, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion taking place as to whether Portal:Adele should be deleted at MfD.
You are being notified because you were a participant in the previous nomination discussion.
Thank you, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there!

You've recently deleted a page I sent for review. I would like to understand more about what triggered my page for deletion and what can be done in order to fix the issues. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessica.cardia89 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jessica.cardia89 -- The article was deleted from mainspace because it was tagged as being sufficiently promotional that it would require complete rewriting. To put it bluntly it read like a press release. You should read WP:NOTADVERTISING and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidance, but essentially articles on all commercial products need to be written from reliable sources that are independent of the company, and not from the company's website. Do you have a connection with the company, or are you being paid to write an article on it? If so you must declare it; see Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for instructions. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Espresso Addict, this is Bowen here. Thank you for your interest in our project again. My colleague, Sensiblekoala and Modestabcd, mentioned here will post our interview questions to you here shortly. Please let us know if you have any questions. Bobo.03 (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo.03: Thank you, that's great. I'll look forward to them. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Espresso Addict! I'm Caitlin here with Modestabcd. Thank you for participating in our interview. I want to give you a brief introduction before our interview begins as follows:

We are working on an AI tool to promote gender diversity in Wikipedia contents. It will create personalized recommendation to editors, specifically targeting the contents that has less coverage due to the gender gap on Wikipedia.

We want to gain input from you, as a community member, in building this tool.

The interview will consist of three groups of questions. Do we have your permission to utilize the messages from this interview in our research? We will keep all information anonymized and only use them in this research project. If you have any concerns, please avoid using names or identifying information during your interview.

Do you have any questions or concerns before we begin? Sensiblekoala (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sensiblekoala and Modestabcd: That's fine, Caitlin. You have my permission to use all material. If you want to cite any direct quotations in a publication then they should be attributed to Espresso Addict. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great! We will now proceed with our interview.

How would you describe your experience in Wikipedia? What is your role and how long have you been in it? Sensiblekoala (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Over at the Teahouse we're having a bit of a 'spring clean' by removing old entries from the list of Hosts that new users see. As you don't appear to have been very active there recently, your 'host profile' has been removed from the list. But please don't let that put you off contributing again in the future - either by signing back up as a Host to assist on a regular basis, or just dropping in whenever you fancy helping out.

Thank you for all your past help and support for new users at the Teahouse. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC) "[reply]

Do you think a block is in order for User:Benleyvoiceover? It appears to be a spam only account—you've deleted his autobiography at Benley Ho Bucky twice, and he's also edited to promote himself at Ichigo Kurosaki. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lord Bolingbroke -- I don't deal in user conduct issues, but the edits to Ichigo Kurosaki don't seem recent enough to merit a block, nor has the editor been appropriately warned. I don't generally salt until the article has been created at least three times, unless there's some pressing reason to do so. If it gets recreated again, just note that it might need salting for the deleting admin to consider. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. If this user continues with the self-promotion I'll consider opening an AIV report. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I couldn't quite believe how far OTT it was! Have a good day, cheers 2A01:4C8:29:E501:18F6:9790:48F0:A722 (talk) 07:27, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thanks for tagging it. Unfortunately it is far from the most promotional biography I've seen. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I sometimes wonder what horrendous gulf must exist between what many of us think Wikipedia is, and how it gets used by people who seem, perhaps sincerely, to think that self-promotion here is legitimate and necessary, just a part of their overall business strategy ... I'm stopping myself ranting right now, though, as I am trying to have a wikibreak and getting cross about stuff doesn't help me stay away! Have a good day. Best wishes 2A01:4C8:29:E501:18F6:9790:48F0:A722 (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi expresso you sound like a nice person ,i have contributed to wikipedia and edited several times but i was schocked when my article "Lanie Banks" got deleted without further notice, i know wikipedia rules but these older editors just keep removing our articles. Yet we volunteer and work so hard and use our time.editors Like bearcat, they do not deserve to review wikipedia articles. I need your help where do i report biased reviewers??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elizabethfoundationn (talk • contribs) 13:21, 26 June 2019 (UTC) [answered on user's talk page][reply]

Hello Espresso Addict, I had a quick question in regards to the deletion you performed on useless encyclopedia. While I fully understand the A10 rationale and am not opposed to a neutral, well-cited article on the topic (as you stated at User talk:Elizabethfoundationn, the reason I tagged for G3 was in part due to the title and negative tone, and I am now unsure if my original tagging was correct. If I saw a similar page in the future, what would be the best course of action? ComplexRational (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ComplexRational: -- One could make a case for vandalism, certainly, but with users I consider broadly good-faith newbies I always try to find the least-pejorative capsule reason for deleting their content, so as to avoid needlessly antagonising someone who might become an asset to the encyclopedia as a content creator in future. I had wondered about contacting you over your warning over removing the speedy tag; whilst it wasn't incorrect, it did feel as if it escalated an already difficult situation. Always try to put yourself in the shoes of the person receiving the message, who might not understand the complexities of our rules. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the warning, perhaps I jumped to conclusions too quickly upon reviewing their track record, particularly the fact that they were already warned for removing an AfD tag. I'll keep this in mind in the future to avoid WP:BITING, unless bad faith is obvious, although cases such as these are often borderline and somewhat open to interpretation. Thanks for the advice! ComplexRational (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for routinely helping to refine POTD blurbs. I would just like to point out that Wikipedia uses two main templates for each day's POTD: the protected version (for use only on the Main Page) and the regular version (everywhere else). As such, when you make changes to the protected version (the one to which ERRORS links), please ensure that you make the same changes to the regular version, so both continue to display the same text. Cheers. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 09:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ravenpuff, I'll try to remember. It's a bit odd that we need to duplicate it, but given that we do, I can see that it's a pain for non-admins to have to go round following up on the admin edit wars ;) Espresso Addict (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please ignore my ping over on Talk:Basia Letuka. I was confused by an edit conflict. GoldenRing (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: No worries, I thought that must have been what happened. Good to know we agree, at least :) Espresso Addict (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Expresso Addict, First I wanted to say thank you for reviewing my article. I also wanted to ask you what are the next steps to get the article I wrote on Eric Viardot officially published Thank you, Kind Regards,

Alexandre [answered on user's talk page]

Hallo sir,you are very resourcefull to me and i would love to ask u one last question, how do i know that an entry am writting about has news and magazines coverage is it through the the 'the google search NEWS tab/section' or their is more i still dont know. Elizabethfoundationn (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC) [answered on user's talk page][reply]

Hello. You recently deleted a page that I'd created called Resident, citing that it's a fork of the existing Nectar Sleep. As per Forbes, the name of the company is now Resident and Nectar Sleep falls under that umbrella. I strongly believe the page was created after thorough research and the content was non-promotional, and hence should stay on Wikipedia. However, if the page is not going to be undeleted, at the very least, the name of Nectar Sleep's page should be changed to Resident, considering that it would be inaccurate to not do so. Let me know your thoughts. Reddest Rackham (talk) 07:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good day. You recently deleted this page(here). I went through the initial process of submitting it since last year. I was told it was advertising and needed a re-write. I did the re-write earlier this year and re-submitted it, but go NO feedback. I didn't even know if anyone reviewed it. I only recently saw that my page was marked for "speedy deletion" since June and suddenly it was deleted... There wasn't even any time for me to contest it. What's my next step? I'm trying my best here. TheChau26 (talk) 08:47, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You may recall, and possibly regret, offering to help out if needed with looking over scheduled TFAs for possible copy edit issues if I were to get overloaded. With that in mind, I wonder if you would mind skimming Tropical Storm Faxai (2007)? I have no particular reason to assume that anything is wrong with it, other than it passing FAC ten years ago, when things were a bit looser.

I realise that it doesn't fit into any of your preferred categories - sorry - but it is the only one which may need attention that isn't in a category which you would actively prefer not to edit. If you don't fancy it or don't have the time, no worries - it's two weeks off and I am sure that I will get round to it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Aaron Petersen

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 01:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Michael Rosas Cobian
• Draft:Pronominal Argument Hypothesis
• Draft:Yuri Torchinsky

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Priyoor mango

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Antonio Alcala Malave
• Draft:Antonio Alcala Malave

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Antonio Rodríguez de las Heras

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Dante Boccuzzi

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Amblyomma albopictum

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Cabgan Island
• Draft:Concertante (opera)
• Draft:Forlagshuset Vigmostad Bjørke
• Draft:Mark.A.Chambers
• Draft:Nijagal Betta

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Innocent Guz

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Lars H. Bergqvist

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:BOAZ Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Natural Solar

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:1880 Union Hotel

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Aloyzas Smilingis

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 03:22, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does one get this draft deleted quickly if not via A7? The author Ylevental is POV pushing with this article that has been rejected four times already mostly for a lack of reliable sources. The author just refuses to give this up despite all the obvious signs, and he has a history of POV pushing in Autism as well as politics having been recently warned about his view of Bernie Sanders. The draft has to go, and it needs to be salted as well. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:6D84:311C:79E3:16A8 (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello anon. The only speedy deletion tag that applies to drafts is G11 for promotion, which does not seem to apply here. Despite the declines, it seems possible to me that Clements might meet the minimum requirements of WP:AUTHOR as it is often applied, that is two published works that have received multiple full-length reviews. If you disagree, deletion of drafts is discussed at WP:Miscellany for Deletion; I'm going offline soon but if you wish I can start the process on your behalf, as I believe you need an account to start deletion discussions. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only just saw this, but yes if you could start it for me that would be great. The reasons for deletion are the lack of reliable sources, the author refused to admit to this and give it up on the grounds of his POV push as Clements is a supporter of the medical model of Autism. This is something that the author has done persistently for years (hence my preference - and I'll say this in the voting if permitted - that the article be salted and that the author be blocked for POV pushing). I was aware that G11 didn't fit which is why I tried the A7 speedy as that was the closest. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:6D84:311C:79E3:16A8 (talk) 12:28, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done; see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Thomas Clements (writer). Feel free to comment further there, but please make clear that you are the nominator, as you are not permitted to cast another vote. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already knew about the restriction and have commented. Thanks. 2001:8003:58A3:6C01:20F1:F566:9B6A:EF98 (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David Caruso, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brad Anderson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the article I nominated, however I noticed you used a different criteria.

When a user creates a page for autobiographical reasons, do I use A3 in the future as it would inherently contain no content? Thepenguin9 (talk) 07:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thepenguin9online -- I deleted Mohammad Asam Pasha because it was blank, under A3. Autobiographical articles are (sadly) not usually blank, and there isn't a special speedy criterion for them -- as it isn't actually forbidden to write one's own biography if one happens to be notable. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for the clarification Espresso Addict! I shall take this knowledge forward. Thepenguin9 (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you fr removing speed deletion. you have posted a template of his article may not meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline in my new page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Ganesan. As i am creating biographies of well known personalities can you help me how to work on wiki's guideline for living people ? can you pls help me how to do it and fullfill the guidelines? thank you :) Jayreborn (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jayreborn -- The general way of demonstrating notability is to provide sources that discuss the subject at length, not just brief mentions, and that are reliable and independent of the subject; books, magazines and national newspapers are good sources. Businesspeople are not an area I edit much, but you can ask at the Teahouse for more specific help. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Espresso_Addict - So far i have done some edits using links from national medias. can you or Mr.Teahouse verify now and give me a feedback whether the issue is fixed or need more references. Thanks in Advance. Jayreborn (talk) 10:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Wikipedia page for Evelina Fedorenko. Is it ready to move the page out of the draft and into Wikipedia?

Acroospulle (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)acroospulle[reply]

Hello Acroospulle -- Thanks for working on this. I have done some work on the draft and moved it back into the encyclopedia. Be warned, though, that it might still be subject to deletion requests, although I believe on balance the subject currently meets our threshold for inclusion for academics (WP:PROF), for the citation record as well as the press interest in her research, others might disagree. Good luck! Espresso Addict (talk) 01:50, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007 (talk) 10:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In declining speedy deletion, were you aware of this deletion discussion? ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 12:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiWarrior9919 -- Thanks for the link. No, as it was not linked from the speedy request. I'm not really sure what purpose would be served in deleting it now, having declined to delete it before? The creator appears good faith. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Espresso Addict! I have created a page named Draft:B. K. Misra, could you please review it? Thanks a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vm1207 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Vm1207 -- I'm not currently an AfC reviewer, sorry. I have replied with some advice at the draft. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Espresso Addict, My sincerest apologies for the late reply! Thank you for the words of advice and encouragement! I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia as an editor, even though I've been a reader for over a decade. I know you must be very busy with your personal life and other responsibilities at Wikipedia and I don't want to bother you, but how do we fill the details of references? Some other reviewer mentioned "He is the first" as objectionable so i removed it, also other reviewer suggested that there were not enough sources about him so I added a few, was not sure where to put them. I'm sure you can help me more than any other reviewer, given the rights, privileges and tools you have at your disposal. Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vm1207 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Espresso Addict, eagerly waiting to hear from you. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vm1207 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Espresso Addict, thank you for the kind reply, I was just adding the infobox, if the article is up to the standards, can we please move it to the article space? Thanks again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vm1207 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you assist to deal with the user mr ollie that keeps vadalsing the artice ONIX AUDIO its is well established and its clear he is either being paid or has a grudge to bear with the company as his edits are completley pointless and just designed to make the article worthless as a resouce .. His interest is not updtanding

Thanks you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyb1961 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tonyb1961 -- It looks like consensus on the article Onix Audio is against your version, sorry. Please raise your concerns on the article's talk page. Generally articles on companies should refer predominantly to reliable sources that are independent of the company itself, and MrOllie is correct that material not independently sourced can be removed.

Additionally, your user name makes me wonder whether you are connected with the company? If so you should read WP:Conflict of interest carefully before editing the article again, and follow its instructions to declare your conflict of interest. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYi, I'll leave your revert of my edit, but editing an article is perfectly fine during an AfD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: Editing to improve is fine, but removing a long list of the very thing that is supporting the subject's notability is not so fine. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not against policy; page blanking is. You may believe it improves the ability to asses the article, but it also improves the chance that reviewers will assess false claims as being true.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:08, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had literally typed out "American-born publishing executive" and clicked save, but you got to it first! I will leave it be for you to edit. I added an Early life section.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: Eh, we edit conflicted on me starting a section on Early life & education! Great minds... Espresso Addict (talk) 23:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Espresso Addict, I saw you declined my A7 nomination of Premier World Capital. I'm not going to argue about it, but I'm curious what you saw as a credible claim of significance - I know that I have a lot of trouble with that category, and I didn't see anything I thought counted as a CCS, so I'm curious what you saw. creffett (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Creffett -- Usually your A7s are entirely correct, as I recall. In this instance I'd count multiple international locations and the various ratings as claims. There also looks to be some independent coverage in the sources (though I admit I didn't click through to check it was significant). The board listing should certainly be lopped. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict, thanks, I understand your logic. Not so sure about my A7 accuracy, but appreciated nonetheless. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 19:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Francis A. Arlinghaus

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you very much for your reasonable and accurate judgement. I am happy that we have in Wikipedia reviewers that take time to carefully read articles in order to elaborate impartial and as much as possible, non tendentious judgments. Thanks for your selfless service. Mdsjm (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mdsjm! I always try to remember to pop scientists/medics into Google Scholar to look at their citations and Molmenti does seem to be well cited [3]. Happy editing! Espresso Addict (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for deleting the CSDs I tag. However, Camilla Lee Vitalievna was declined a AfC (See Draft:Lee Camilla Vitalievna) and the same author created this page anyway. I couldn't find a CSD tag for it. Does it pass anything? Thanks N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NonsensicalSystem: Declined at AfC is not a speedy deletion criterion; see the ongoing discussion at the AfC talk page. It's borderline, certainly. AfD is always possible but clean up might perhaps reveal a notable subject. I'll try asking the folk at Women in Red if they can assist. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 09:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I can't see the talk page for the draft or the article though (its red linked), so I don't really know whats going on. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NonsensicalSystem: I meant Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation#Dealing with author "accepting" their own draft, sorry for the confusion. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass (talk) 11:51, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Andrew Lamprecht

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:09, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I see you are creating/editing an entry on Prof. Peter Wildy, my father.

I am seeing my mother and sister bext week, and wonder if you would be happy for us fill in some of the inevitable gaps (eg working with Fleming, Australia etc. Also his military service, etc.

My mail is tom.trerise.wildy@gmail.com.

Yours Tom Tom wildy (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure what you meant in your edit summary: "previous prod does rule out most speedy rationales. Delinking films with no clear notability".

The article was successfully PRODed in the past, and so far as I know - correct me if I'm wrong - a prior PROD does not make an article ineligible for speedy deletion.

Furthermore, there's no clear assertion of importance: "American actress, model and writer". They're ten a penny; and if you think the films have no clear notability either doesn't that all add up to a fairly clear A7?

I'm not too bothered about whether the article stays or not, but what did you mean by "previous prod does rule out most speedy rationales"?

Thanks. --kingboyk (talk) 00:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingboyk: There was a long discussion at various points during the RHaworth arbitration case where, as I recall, several highly experienced admins held that a contested prod rendered subsequent speedies (other than for eg copyvio) moot. There are clear and at least somewhat credible assertions of importance as a Playboy model in the edit history, removed because of copyvio. I certainly would not oppose in a deletion discussion, but I do think one is now required. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. I look at the PROD and CSD guidelines most days and don't recall seeing anything to that affect, nor could I find anything when I searched just now, but it's late and I'm tired, plus, any mention of "the RHaworth arbitration case" is enough for me to back off :) shudders

I don't think there was a contested PROD on that article though. I declined the PROD because it had been PRODed before, and then nominated for speedy deletion instead.

Anyway: Thanks for the prompt reply and I'll wish you goodnight. --kingboyk (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was a little surprised at the conclusion myself. I fear I could not summon the motivation to dive back in there to try to pinpoint the discussions for you. I've not been enjoying the extensive scrutiny of admin actions ongoing these past months chez Arbcom, and it has made me extremely wary of using admin tools unless I am 5000% sure that it is merited and I am not remotely "involved". Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm Christopher Kovats-Bernat. I would like the photo on my own page changed. How do I go about doing that? Kovatsbernat (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Arise music festival
• Draft:Arise music festival

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Somali Literacy Campaign

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joseph Charles Stoddart, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Newcastle and The Telegraph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your post on Joseph Stoddart at the DYK talk page (and I've been seeing your name pop up a lot in other venues, like Women in Red). I just wanted to thank you for your thoughtful approach to inclusionism and all the work you do rescuing notable drafts from the black hole of G13. I was rather annoyed when I saw that the Joseph Stoddart draft had been flatly declined as "not suitable for Wikipedia" - although there was a COI and the article needed work, the Telegraph obituary seems like a solid source and there were several obvious claims of notability. I find your approach to Wikipedia inspiring - thanks again for all you do. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, SpicyMilkBoy -- I suspect I've made myself rather unpopular in numerous fora (though hopefully not Women in Red) with exactly that approach, so it is encouraging to hear that someone appreciates it! I admit I was just a teensy bit peeved myself when I tripped over the article on Stoddart quite by chance; he was obviously notable from the start; The Telegraph is a perfectly respectable source and everything in the original article was actually covered by the obituary. The creator is indeed likely to have COI, but they have a longstanding account, and the rejection would have been unkind in the circumstances even if the subject was entirely unnotable. That's mainly why I'm so keen to get it up on DYK, even if I have to bend the rules a touch. I do wonder quite how many sourced articles on perfectly notable topics do die the slow unsung death of G13 -- my experience would suggest quite a few. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Nandy San Diego

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Prakash Tribhuvan

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:GRVTY Media

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Norbury, Cheshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page No Man's Heath (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Totok Amin Soefijanto

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you didn't make any claims for the village prize! I thought you deserved something out of the £50 for the quality work you did. I think The C of E should get the larger amount for wider geographical area and quantity though.† Encyclopædius 16:55, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Encyclopædius (Just worked out who you are!) -- I fear I got distracted by all the coronavirus stuff and never got around to finishing anything outside Cheshire, so I didn't think I would be eligible for a prize. Thanks a lot for running the competition; it was a good incentive to destub some things I've been meaning to get around to for over a decade. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it had to be a few counties covered to win it. Loved the work you did though, hope that means something. If only every hamlet on Wiki was written like those! Wikipedia:The 50,000 Destubbing Challenge is there anyway if you feel like doing more destubs, hopefully we can run a few more contests this year and not let coronavirus get to us!† Encyclopædius 07:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Antonio Alcala Malave
• Draft:Antonio Alcala Malave

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, If you feel like doing a bit of destubbing sometime feel free to add to Wikipedia:The 50,000 Destubbing Challenge. Hopefully we'll run more destubathons to fuel it at some point! Hope you're not letting Coronavirus get to you still!† Encyclopædius 16:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Blakenhall, Cheshire 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! --evrik ^(talk) 19:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Blakenhall, Cheshire 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! Yoninah (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you coming back to this? The reviewer replied a week ago. Yoninah (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde (Talk) 12:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde (Talk) 12:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope you can do some more articles for this sometime!† Encyclopædius 16:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. This is an invitation to join the 50,000 Destubbing Challenge Focus of the Week. £250 (c. $310) up for grabs in May, June and July with £20 worth of prizes to give away every week for most articles destubbed. Each week there is a different region of focus, though half the prize will still be rewarded for articles on any subject. Sign up if you want to contribute at least one of the weeks or support the idea! † Encyclopædius 19:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Espresso Addict I write two article with wikipedia roles. Please I wrote two articles according to Wikipedia rules. 1. Draft:Arash Ghaderi 2. Draft:Hasan Rahnamaeian Please check them and accept if there is no problem. Warm regards. Omid ahmadyani (talk) 10:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Raghu Kalluri, MD, Ph.D.

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Martin Reger

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:DieTrich Thrall

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Heidi Bivens

Thanks, MDanielsBot (talk) 04:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Thomas Clements (writer)

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Karan Bhasin
• Draft:Karan Bhasin

Thanks, HasteurBot (talk) 04:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Janis Jenkins
• Draft:Lumen (app)
• Draft:Nallasivam Palanisamy

Thanks, MDanielsBot (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following pages will become eligible for CSD:G13 shortly.

• Draft:Bourton Model Village
• Draft:Duncan Shanks
• Draft:Ettina Bhuja
• Draft:Friedrich Stammeshaus
• Draft:Germantown, Nashville
• Draft:Joacim Hansson
• Draft:José Seguí
• Draft:Kathrin Christians
• Draft:Kazoo Magazine
• Draft:Phillips Smith Conwell
• Draft:Ramon L. Muzones
• Draft:Rodney L. Hurst, Sr.
• Draft:Shahid Akhtar Hossain
• Draft:Sydney Ernest Castle
• Draft:Veterinarski Glasnik
• Draft:Yeb Sano
• Draft:Yvonne Jones (artist)

Thanks, MDanielsBot (talk) 04:00, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]