User talk:GeneralNotability/Archives/2019/December

This is an archive of past discussions with User:GeneralNotability. 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.

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

Administrator changes

EvergreenFir • ToBeFree

Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

Beeblebrox

Deskana

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC on the administrator resysop criteria was closed. 18 proposals have been summarised with a variety of supported and opposed statements. The inactivity grace period within which a new request for adminship is not required has been reduced from three years to two. Additionally, Bureaucrats are permitted to use their discretion when returning administrator rights.
• Following a proposal, the edit filter mailing list has been opened up to users with the Edit Filter Helper right.

Technical news

• Wikimedia projects can set a default block length for users via MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry. A new page, MediaWiki:ipb-default-expiry-ip, allows the setting of a different default block length for IP editors. Neither is currently used. (T219126)

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 2 December 2018 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

Miscellaneous

• The global consultation on partial and temporary office actions that ended in October received a closing statement from staff concluding, among other things, that the WMF will no longer use partial or temporary Office Action bans... until and unless community consensus that they are of value or Board directive.

16:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi. First occasion to use a Talk page before so I hope I am doing this correctly. Source for my edits on [Kilpatrick] is Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).the inmate locator at ^[1] so the edits were correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C48:607F:E4FA:F11A:FDA6:979E:E28C (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

16:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffett, Thanks for reviewing my page "Alina Mnatsakanian". I'm new to Wikipedia, but in my article I inserted references and the tone of the article is quite neutral, I think. I edited based on previous remarks to change the tone and to have more references. Do you have any suggestions to improve my page? Thanks, Alina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alina Mnatsakanian (talk • contribs) 08:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Alina Mnatsakanian, all I did was tag the article as being autobiographical (considering that you are the largest contributor to the article). I'm not making any judgment with regards to sourcing or tone. creffett (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome message on my talk page. Could I ask you you to offer a third opinion on the matter another editor has raised on my talk page? I think that "19th century" seems idiomatic English, but this other editor has changed it to "19 century", arguing that we don't use "-th" in dates. Thank you for your time. --Chelmsford Correction (talk) 23:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Chelmsford Correction, done. creffett (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

pls provide me the content of my page that you delete, I do not have a backup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VinHabbu (talk • contribs) 02:39, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

VinHabbu, you'll need to talk to Fastily - they did the actual deletion, I only tagged it for attention. creffett (talk) 03:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Here you go: [5] -FASTILY 04:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

00:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffett,

I recently edited the war in Afghanistan page in regards to the war crimes committed by NATO as one which was supposedly commited by Sgt Alexander Blackman has no longer been considered a war crime as he was released from prison and all charges against him were dropped03:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)03:18, 19 December 2019 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.85.249 (talk)

You removed a paragraph of sourced information with the explanation "fixed typo." If there is new information about the case, then you should add it and cite a reliable source, but you should not be deleting sourced information without a good reason (and using a misleading edit summary will make people think that you're vandalizing). ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 14:12, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

I saw your comment on RHaworth's Arbcom case request. I've been thinking for a while about opening a RFC about the CSD criteria and how they are being applied. It sounds like you might think that's a more productive route than having Arbcom tackle it in the context of a case about RHaworth.

One thing I thought might be a good idea would be to pick several examples of articles that are borderline and bring them to the RFC for discussion, however I wouldn't want to step on anyone's toes by, in essence, accusing them of making too many mistakes. In your statement you say you "subscribe to a "looser" interpretation of G11 and can be a bit trigger-happy with that tag". I'm wondering if you would like to collaborate on such an RFC. Perhaps I could review your speedy work (both those you delete and those you decline) and you could review mine (again, both those I delete and those I decline) and look for instances where we would have come to opposite conclusions and use them as test cases for an RFC?

If we want to do this, it would probably be a good idea to wait until Arbcom does whatever they're going to do with RHaworth. Also, I'll be pretty busy until the end of January, so I probably won't have much time to devote to it until early February. At any rate, give it some thought and let me know. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

ONUnicorn, thanks for the message! I'd definitely be interested in collaborating on an RfC; whether or not it agrees with what I currently do, it at least would standardize things. I'm not an admin, though, so you'd just be reviewing what I tag, not what I delete :).

I mentioned it in one of my follow-up ArbCom statements, but to restate: when I talk about interpreting loosely, I'm thinking about intent. Things like "XYZCorp Marketing" creating a draft for non-notable XYZCorp, or "MC creffalot" creating a draft about himself and linking to his SoundCloud or YouTube channel. Even if they're not saying that XYZCorp is the best manufacturer or MC creffalot is an amazing singer, I feel that the intent is to promote/increase visibility. I've been suitably chastised for it on the ArbCom case page, but the fact that admins are deleting those pages after I tag them suggests that it's not just my misinterpretation.

Since you've mentioned three different criteria, here are my thoughts on each:

• G4: Not one I use much; I suspect that part of the problem is that we non-admins can't see the old version of the page, so it's hard to be sure whether or not the new page is substantially similar. Might be useful to have a less aggressive way to request that an admin review a delete page.
• A7: This is one that I have trouble with, I'm probably batting less than .500 with this. I think part of the problem is that notability is clearly and thoroughly defined throughout the encyclopedia, but "credible claim of significance," while clearly defined, is not so frequently encountered (heck, WP:CCS is an essay, not a vetted guideline, and I just discovered WP:CCSI as I was writing this), the way it interacts with existing notability guidelines isn't super clear, and CCS isn't used anywhere else on the wiki besides CSD A7/A9/A11. For example, I tagged an article about the mayor of a small town as A7 the other day and it was declined; being the mayor of a small town doesn't seem especially significant to me (and doesn't meet WP:NPOL), but apparently someone disagreed. If nothing else, perhaps it's time to expand WP:CCS and elevate it from essay to policy.
• G11: Mentioned above, I think the root issue is how we interpret "promotional."

I'm in no rush and I agree that we should wait until the RHaworth case is done, so just let me know whenever you want to discuss this further. Cheers! creffett (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Driveby comment from the arbitration request... I'm possibly the admin who declined your mayor -- I'm not sure Gorakhpur counts as a "small town" though; it's a city with a population of 673,446 (2011). A7-passing claims are explicitly set at a standard significantly lower than our notability guidelines.

I disagree with you on your G11 examples. Intent and COI are irrelevant; either the text is eye-searingly promotional or it isn't. The type of articles you note would probably go as A7 in a lot of cases, though. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Espresso Addict, oh, hi. Hmm, I really thought it was a small town, I must have been thinking of something else...Anyway, part of the reason I lean so heavily on G11 is because I'm spotting a lot of these in draftspace, where A7 isn't permitted. As for intent and COI, I understand what you're saying and I mentioned in the ArbCom discussion that I'll stop tagging those. creffett (talk) 02:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi there -- I'm not a fan of using G11 in draftspace -- except on the type of writing that makes your eyes bleed -- as the whole point of the draft/Articles for Creation pricess is to allow this type of writing to be reviewed and improved, even though in practice that rarely happens. Anyhow, nice to meet you after actioning a fair number of your speedy tags over the years. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Creffett, after stumbling upon your user page, I thought, yes there is a template I've been looking for but could never find, which is for inserting unsourced content in between a sourced fact and its reference. Vandals sometimes do this with the intention of making it look as if the added content is also cited, but more often I suspect that it is done unwittingly, thinking it is the best spot to include their original research. I would like to see a uw-template to this effect, unless I am missing something and it already exists somewhere. It could read something like this:

Hello, I'm Jimbo Wales. I noticed that you added content in an article, Article, in such a way that it looks like it comes from a reliable source when in reality it does not. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

StonyBrook (talk) 09:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

StonyBrook: Hi! Acknowledging that I've seen this, probably won't get a chance to work on it for the next couple of days, but I agree that it's useful and am definitely up for making it. creffett (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

20:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Creffett: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

DBigXray, thank you! Happy holidays to you and yours! creffett (talk) 23:29, 24 December 2019 (UTC)