User talk:Randykitty/Archive 28

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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 2020).

Administrator changes

Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

Izno

Guideline and policy news

• There is a request for comment in progress to either remove T3 (duplicated and hardcoded instances) as a speedy deletion criterion or eliminate its seven-day waiting period.

Technical news

• Voting for proposals in the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey, which determines what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year, will take place from 8 December through 21 December. In particular, there are sections regarding administrators and anti-harassment.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections is open to eligible editors until Monday 23:59, 7 December 2020 UTC. Please review the candidates and, if you wish to do so, submit your choices on the voting page.

---

Just an FYI, TheActorAndrei is the same disruptive edits as Andreibobo701 and 2603:8080:E740:327:68FC:726E:ED89:D967. I had just posted this on AIV. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

• Ah, I missed that one. Blocked, too. Drop me a note if one of them starts again and I'll indef them. --Randykitty (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 13:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Human Sexuality cover first edition.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) 03:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Could you please undelete Dragon Promotions to User:SMcCandlish/Incubator/Dragon Promotions? I recall that the founder's bio was moved to that title, and something presumably was done with it after that, even if it ended up being CoI-infested. I can probably dig something out of it to work on. I think the company is notable and it'll just be a matter of source research (they're probably the leading cue sports event organizer in the world, for both snooker and pool pro tournaments). It would also be helpful to be able to examine the editing history; if someone had being doing CoI stuff at that page they might also have been doing it at articles on DP-organized events.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

 Done My first reaction was: "just do it yourself", but to my surprise I see you're not an admin. I've seen you around and was convinced you're a sysop. Perhaps time for a run? Cheers! --Randykitty (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. As for adminship, I have avoided it for over a decade on purpose. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow, that really is just a bio for Charlie Williams (pool player) which has since been created. Dragon Promotions are certainly notable, just a case of writing it up cleaner. I can drop some help SMcCandlish, but I'm in the middle of a house move and I don't have internet yet! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Will take that up at my talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey, We could really use your help. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2facediani (talk • contribs)

I am looking for feedback/advice regarding the recently rejected submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Canadian_Medical_Education_Journal I've read and reread the criteria for notability, and I would love some examples of how this submission could meet that criteria. If not now, then down the line. I don't want the article deleted, so I would like to figure out the right source before I waste anyone's time. I was looking at various other academic journals, and CMEJ seems to fit the same criteria. Any insights would be great! Hickeygamez (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what to say. You have been pointed to WP:GNG, which for academic journals usually is very difficult to satisfy, and to WP:NJournals, which is easier to satisfy. However, in the present case, there is no sign whatsoever that this journal comes even close to meeting GNG. You shouldn't look too much at other articles (unless they're really good). There are over 6 million articles on WP and the number of people patrolling them is limited, so it is to be expected that some of them don't meet our inclusion criteria. There's no deadline, sooner or later somebody will come along and either enter sources establishing notability or propose the article for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thank-you for your response. I'm disappointed. Mostly because I spent so long researching and editing - but I am sure that's the case for all wikipedia declines. I was looking at other journals only for tips and tricks, not to pit them against my work here. I guess what I can't figure out is how an academic journal would ever qualify since they feature other peoples' work and rarely the other way around. Hickeygamez (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• That's why we have NJournals: it documents the fact that some databases (like Scopus, for example, extensively vet a journal before including it. Therefore, we interpret such an inclusion as an independent relable source documenting that a journal is notable. This way, more than ten thousand journals qualify for inclusion (we still don't have articles on many of them). Databases like DOAJ don't count, because they are not selective enough. DOAJ strives to include any open-access journal that is legit, no matter how otherwise insignificant. In contrast, in order to be included in Scopus or the Science Citation Index, a journal has to be shown to have a significant impact on their field. --Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thank-you. That is helpful. What about a database like https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/ That database seems to be closer to Scopus than DOAJ. CMEJ is only listed in one line on Erudit, but seems to have a "coming-soon" description: https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/cmej/ Hickeygamez (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• As the first line on their website says: "Discover the list of scholarly and cultural journals disseminated by Érudit and its partners (NRC Research Press, Persée, Centre for Digital Scholarship)." So they are selective in the sense that they only include journals published by themselves and their partners, but not selective regarding impact/notability, because they include all journals of the mentioned publishers. --Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

• Are you sure? https://apropos.erudit.org/en/publishers/erudits-editorial-policy/ that policy statement seems like it is more selective. Can you undo the "REJECT" button from the article if I promise not to submit it until it meets your criteria?? Hickeygamez (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm sure. Those criteria have nothing to do with the journal being influential/notable. Hence, I see no reason to come back on the "reject". Sorry... --Randykitty (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• My reason for requesting the undo reject is because I think, given more time, I could prove its notability. I don't want you to just accept it, I'd be happy to go back to the middle "decline" stage.Hickeygamez (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Hickeygamez: The criteria for notability in the Wikipedia sense of the word is related to real-world impact/attention, not reliability/legitimacy (which it may well be, I'm no medical professional here, so I'll let other be the judge of that). The two will often be related since nonsense journals are rarely impactful or have any attention given to them, but we do require independent sources to have taken note of the journal in some way, or have some way to attest to the impact. Most often, this will be through indexing in selective databases like SCOPUS or have an impact factor. But it could also be that the journal has been the focus of (independent) press coverage or was recognized for specific achievements by independent organizations (like winning a prize for innovation in a specific area of publishing). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• Thank-you. I guess I think https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/cmej/ proves its notability. It is a selective database, though just not as selective as SCOPUS I don't think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89rudit Hickeygamez (talk) 17:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• It is a publishing platform, not a database and as I explained above, it is not selective in the sense of NJournals. --Randykitty (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

It seems this article has been deleted by you. It is a movie released in 1977 with a notable cast and crew. It is also available for streaming online. Just trying to understand what is needed to restore or create the article (haven't seen the original content) - InTeGeR13 (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Wow, that's an oldie :-) It was deleted uncontroversially under WP:PROD, so there's no problem in restoring it to your userspace so you can address the problems noted in the PROD and then move it to article space once done. Let me know if you like me to do that. --Randykitty (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

• Speedy deletion criterion T3 (duplication and hardcoded instances) has been repealed following a request for comment.

Technical news

• You can now put pages on your watchlist for a limited period of time.

Arbitration

• By motion, standard discretionary sanctions have been temporarily authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). The effectiveness of the discretionary sanctions can be evaluated on the request by any editor after March 1, 2021 (or sooner if for a good reason).
• Following the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Barkeep49, BDD, Bradv, CaptainEek, L235, Maxim, Primefac.

---

Thanks for the help! Fractalfalcon (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Randykitty,

Admin Drmies had reverted the redirection (on Jan 10) and was not going to touch it for a week (until Jan 17). I am wondering why you rushed into a decision? Votes look even, and I wanted to keep working on the article until Jan 17th. Thanks. Neckhumbucker (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• The debate was listed as ready to close and I don't see anything that would justify another close. --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Reply : First delete was an overzealous deletion. I have been providing info to rebut that overzealous deletion, but admins don't seem to be going through the info provided. Criteria for MUSICBIO is met, and votes are even. You have a responsibility to be more thorough than this.Neckhumbucker (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Two admins have now come to the same conclusion. Feel free to take this to WP:DRV. Discussion here closed. --Randykitty (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• If the article wasn't changed between the decisions, you might've been right. But thanks for confirming lack of logic.Neckhumbucker (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

• Randykitty, we're well into trolling territory with this one here--but they also had to go and create a few more accounts, so now they're indef-blocked. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Randykitty/Randykitty,Can you tell me,why you deleted "'Gaur Rajput"' page. Thanks. ScPolice (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

• ScPolice, because I closed the deletion debate as "delete". --Randykitty (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty. I see you have made a number of edits to the Nature (journal) infobox, so I trust that you know much more than me about the subject. I was doing a few minor edits at The Lancet when I noticed that there is no mention of location (head office or otherwise). By comparison, at Nature (journal) it says "(subsidiary of Springer Nature) (United Kingdom)". Could you let me know what the practice is in terms of identifying where a journal is edited? Thanks for whatever assistance you can provide. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, if you go through the edit history, you'll see that it wasn't me who added UK to the Nature infobox. I don't think it actually belongs there any more. Yes, when the journal was founded it was British, but by now? It is owned by an English-German conglomerate that in its turn is owned by a German-Swiss multinational and has offices in at least 6 different countries. The same is the case for The Lancet: originally purely English (not even "British", it has ben owned by a Dutch company since 1990, which is owned by a British-Dutch joint venture and has offices all over the world. Publishing nowadays is a very international business and only in the Social Sciences and Humanities do you still find a lot of journals where the use of the "country" field is justified. For scientific and medical journals we only fill in the "country" field if the journal is really obviously connected to just one particular country (for instance, if it is a journal owned and published by a national society. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Randykitty, I was aware that you did not add the infobox, but you edited it, so I thought it would be fair to assume that you would be able to assist, which you indeed did. Yes, your reply does clarify things. Thanks, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello,I noticed that you are a Wikipedia editors. I would like for you to review my draft article 'Draft: Rebecca Nengi Hampson', and tell me of changes to be made if any and also kindly help me accept it and allow for it to officially be posted on Wikipedia if it need not be edited. This Biography article has been in the draft space for over 3 months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justice Faith (talk • contribs) 07:16, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry, but beauty pageants (i.e. objectifying women) and other such sexist trivia are absolutely not my thing. --Randykitty (talk) 11:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

• The standard discretionary sanctions authorized for American Politics were amended by motion to cover post-1992 politics of United States and closely related people, replacing the 1932 cutoff.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2021 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2021, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2021, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• Wikipedia has now been around for 20 years, and recently saw its billionth edit!

---

Hello Randykitty or Miranda and Additional Names:

I liked reading your biography and philosophy regarding Wikipedia and language and communication. Thank you. The journey that led to discovering you is from the Tongva wikipedia site. I had considered reading and possibly editing, but discovering what I was reading at the Tongva site, instead I became interested in the history of the Tongva site, so I checked in at "View History" and then I went to earliest creation, way back, circa 2004?, linked to you, so I opened up your Talk page, discovering the nice and intelligent explanation of your philosophy on communication, proper encyclopedia narrative, such as not using "famous" with a good example of Albert Einsteine.

And so thank you again, for enlightening me, something of a renaissance, and epiphany for me, as I had already not liking the use of the word "famous" but reading your writing solidified my philosophy.

On and on ... jus sayin ... more later, possibly .... Peace, 'Roy' Robert Jan van de Hoek Los Angeles County, California PS - oh my, I had a hiatus of a few months from editing until this one and an earlier one this morning, so I nearly forgot the request for us to us "~" four times, and so not quite sure, if needed here, but going to err with caution that it is needed.Robert Jan van de Hoek (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for your kind words, glad you liked my userpage :-) --Randykitty (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at the recent history of the Linda Gottfredson article? The recent edits to that article seem to go against the consensus we reached in this discussion.

I don't want to get involved in that article again, but if the same person who tried to add this material before is going to make another attempt at it, the other people who were involved in the past discussion about this material ought to be notified. For now I'm just notifying you, but it might be a good idea to also notify the other two editors who were involved in the earlier discussion who are still active (DGG and Atsme).

Perhaps you already knew this, but that particular article seems to be a magnet for BLP violations. This article described a case of hoax material in the same article that stayed there for about two years, and eventually was repeated in a book. 2600:1004:B150:36C4:64D5:D32A:E475:F895 (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Belatedly, Special:Contributions/2600:1004:B100:0:0:0:0:0/40 was indefinitely banned from all topics related to race and intelligence, broadly construed. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1049#Race and intelligence block and ban issue explains this. Randykitty, I know you like to give academic sources the benefit of the doubt, but you were canvassed by a banned editor into participating in that discussion because they knew you would be sympathetic. This is not even close to the first time this editor has done this. Consider the possibility that your commitment to NPOV is being manipulated and taken advantage of. Grayfell (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

• I don't care whether someone canvasses me or not, as I will form my own opinion independently. In the present case, an old discussion was revived and it is quite normal to inform previous participants of that fact. My opinion on the issue at hand has not changed. --Randykitty (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equal Education, I wrote, "The initial 13:12, 12 August 2010 (UTC) version of the article is not promotional and can be reverted to if the current version of the article is deemed to be too promotional." I plan to revert to the 2010 version of the article, add some of the sources mentioned by Walter Görlitz, and restore the article to mainspace. Would that be supported by your AfD close? Cunard (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I restored the article to mainspace after shortening the article to remove promotional and unsourced material and after adding two sources. Cunard (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The sources that are currently in it still aren't up to the standards of WP:NORG. Is there a reason you couldn't have just waited to put it back into main space until they actually were? What was the rush? It's not any less promotional now either. Really it should have been sent through AfC before the AfD was reverted. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Any editor in good standing can move an article from draft to main space. That said, I agree with Adamant1 that it would have been preferable to go through AfC, to avoid the impression of wanting to circumvent the AfD. I am agnostic about the quality of the sources, but given the history, I don't think that there is any problem with taking this to AfD again. --Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

TJMSmith

Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

• A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
• A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• A request for comment seeks to grant page movers the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target. The full proposal is at Wikipedia:Page mover/delete-redirect.
• A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
• There is a discussion in progress concerning automatic protection of each day's featured article with Pending Changes protection.

Technical news

• When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
• When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
• There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

• By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
• The Kurds and Kurdistan case was closed, authorizing standard discretionary sanctions for the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2021 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: AmandaNP, Operator873, Stanglavine, Teles, and Wiki13.

---

Hello,I had created a page named Manan Shah (Buisness).It didn't know that the page Manan Shah and Manan Shah (Buisness) is same.An admin informed me that both are the same person.So the admin deleted the page Manan Shah (buisness). Now I want to create the article but the article was salted by you.Can you please unprotect the article so that i can edit.Thank You. Bapinghosh (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

• As far as I understand your message, you'd like to create an article about a person named "Manan Shah". The previous articles have a checkered history and were deleted/recreated multiple times. The best thing to do is to use the articles for creation process, create an article in draft space (Draft:Manan Shah), and when you're done have it reviewed. If accepted, the protection can be removed easily. Be careful not to make the draft too promotionaland not to copy text from elsewhere, as previous versions have repeatedly been deleted as spam and/or violations of copyright. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Martin Mares--I should have removedit sooner. DGG ( talk ) 08:56, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

You have moved the article without any discussion but it does not need any discussion, though. If you have read the article it is not a newspaper, but a magazine as indicated by all the sources. So I will revert your move. --Egeymi (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Egeymi, that's fine, but if it's a magazine, then the dab should be "magazine"... Please move again :-) --Randykitty (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay :)) --Egeymi (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Randykitty, there was discussion on the AfD for Manuel López (artist) regarding Draftifying/Userfying the article. It was created by a student editor and nominated for deletion 35 minutes later, then closed as delete following the usual discussion and !voting. Would you be willing to draftify it instead of full deletion?

I have no connection whatsoever with the artist, the student, the student's teacher nor the institution where the Wiki-Edu project was initiated. However, seeing value in the student's efforts and the fact their semester is not over, I offered to incubate the article (in it's improved state when it was deleted) as a draft in my sandbox, or to have the (improved) article sent to the student creator's sandbox for development.

Having never made a request like this, I'm not sure this is the correct way to request this change, or if there is a more formal process to request drafitication. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have moved the article to Draft:Manuel López (artist). It should not be moved into article space without substantial improvement, lest it gets deleted again as WP:CSD#G4. --Randykitty (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of John Allen (Irish cricketer). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. StickyWicket (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• AssociateAffiliate, thanks for the notification. Given that apparently you decided to skip the customary discussion of the close before going to DRV (where my closing statement was weirdly and tendentiously truncated), I assume that you're not interested in any clarification from my part, so I'll refrain from participating in that review. --Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Literally had no idea this was even a thing! StickyWicket (talk) 16:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	John Ely (surgeon). You were right to keep it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks! Wow, that article looks quite differently now! --Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
• Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

• When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
• Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

• A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

---

I want to retrieve my deleted material to keep improving it as it is not promotional or spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMH2021 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Randykitty, please help me to recover my deleted material so I can improv it and resubmit it. It is not spam or promotional, it is part of the Women in red project with King's College London, to visibilize women scholars. Thanks JMH2021 (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC) JMH2021

• Well, two different admins thought it was too promotional. In any case, the person to contact in this matter is the deleting admin, not the editor tagging the draft for deletion. If they agree to restore the draft, that's fine with me, but most admins are hesitant to restore something deleted for being promotional. --Randykitty (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

IMO based both on strength of arguments given and also by simple count the discussion was about 1/3 "delete" 1/3 "merge" and 1/3 "keep. Arguable, but certainly no consensus to delete. You closed as "delete" and deleted all of the material and references. Also, my understanding is that the closing is to be based on the discussion, but instead the basis you gave was your own interpretation of what should happen with respect to the guidelines. IMO it should clearly have been closed as "no consensus" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I spend quite a while evaluating the different !votes. WP:NOTAVOTE. I stand with my closure. --Randykitty (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• I concur with @North8000:. The stated reason for the nomination was the lack of secondary sources. That issue was resolved. --evrik ^(talk) 20:28, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, you reverted a change of mine adding "openaccess = no", saying that one should not indicate the value "no" for this parameter. I was wondering if you could point me to the policy justifying this? Indeed, I don't understand why it would only make sense to indicate "openaccess = yes" (and thus have ambiguity between non-OA journals and journals whose OA status has not been indicated on Wikipedia). Thanks! --a3nm (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please see the documentation and explanation with the infobox journal template. --Randykitty (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I have searched the documentation (which says nothing as far as I can tell) and the talk archives where the only relevant thing is this discussion which seems to hint that explicitly indicating non-OA journals would make sense (search for "black" there). So as far as I can tell there is no reason not to indicate "openaccess = no". For this reason I'll undo your revert -- if I missed anything please consider pointing me to the exact place where this is explained, and/or start a discussion on the template if you'd like to gather consensus towards forbidding "openaccess = no" for some reason. Regards --a3nm (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The template doc says "|openaccess = Availability of open-access content, with wikilinks if appropriate (put Yes if journal is completely open-access, or Delayed or Hybrid if more appropriate)". This clearly indicates that we indicate here whether something is OA, a possible "no" answer is not indicated. This is now probably the only journal article that has this parameter set to "No"... Soon this will be moot anyway, because OA is gaining ground continuously and many (or even most) journals are nowadays at least Hybrid. --Randykitty (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Randykitty, to clarify, do you mean that the implied default of this parameter is "NOT ( Yes OR Delayed OR Hybrid )"? If so, how do you suggest to express this? One option is to automatically show "No open-access content" or something like that when the parameter is not specified.

By the way, a more robust information to show is probably the license of the journal itself, which is less open to interpretation. It could easily be fetched from Wikidata for the open-access journals, and all the others would be proprietary. Nemo 08:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow answer... Nowadays, most subscription-based journals have OA options, so most journals are at least hybrid OA, many also delayed OA. This means that if we'd make "no" the default, this would be incorrect in most cases. This also goes for Advances in Mathematics (see above), which also has OA options (see https://www.elsevier.com/journals/advances-in-mathematics/0001-8708/open-access-options). In my experience, "no" is only correct for some minor journals (and those mostly in the humanities, where there are still journals around that are not even available online (e.g., Theological Review). As for the license, that is not always clear either. Especially hybrid journals may operate under different licenses and it is sometimes a pain to find out what is correct. For the moment, we only display "license" for fully OA journals that operate under a CC license. --Randykitty (talk) 10:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Pinging Nemo bis and A3nm. No response needed, just making sure you saw this as this was archived before I responded. --Randykitty (talk) 06:44, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Randykitty. I agree that in many cases the status will be delayed and/or hybrid. I don't think there should be a default value, but I think manually indicating "no" (or "delayed" or "hybrid" or "delayed/hybrid", or "yes" for bona-fide OA titles) can still be interesting to readers. (I often use Wikipedia to check whether a journal is OA and I'm sure other people do, so indicating "delayed/hybrid" is more helpful than not indicating anything.) Would you agree? Best --a3nm (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that many people go too fast (as, frankly, was the case here too) and fill in "no" if a journal is not completely OA. As I said above, "no" is exceedingly rare and will get rarer soon. Instead of a likely incorrect "no" I prefer nothing, so people will look at a journal's website and discover for themselves whether it's hybrid, delayed, or perhaps indeed not OA at all. --Randykitty (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I agree I should have filled in "Hybrid" rather than "No", thanks for investigating and fixing it. I have gone over previous edits of mine to fix other such mistakes. I'll indicate "Hybrid" rather than "no" henceforth, unless there's really no OA publishing option, which I agree is becoming quite rare. That said, I do think it's better to have this information on journal infoboxes, rather than leaving readers to figure this out for themselves. Best, --a3nm (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Since you killed this article, Commissioner Service (Boy Scouts of America), how about redirecting the space to Boy Scouts of America? 173.79.61.73 (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's not really a likely search term, so I don't really see what use this would be. Commissioner Service is more likely and is already a redirect. --Randykitty (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Please restore the content and redirect it to Boy_Scouts_of_America#Organization. --evrik ^(talk) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Could you also please restore these:

• BSA International Commissioner
• Council Commissioner
• District Commissioner (Scouting)
• Francis H. Olmstead, Jr.
• National Commissioner of the Boy Scouts of America
• Peter Bomus
• Peter S. Bomus

and point them to the same place? --evrik ^(talk) 20:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• You can simply create these redirects yourself, except the third one that is a very unlikely search term. --Randykitty (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Just contacting you as closing admin for the last deletion discussion on this. It has been renominated for deletion by the same user, is this normal and ok? Boynamedsue (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• This is definitely not normal and not OK. I have closed this latest AfD. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Randykitty (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to you, all the best. Boynamedsue (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, You’re the closing administrator for Qazi Shibli AfD, and before i put it up for deletion review i wanted to consult you.
First, Since the article is a BLP it should be clearly supported by multiple secondary sources. I’ve done a proper WP:BEFORE and didn’t find enough SIGCOV sources.
Second, Multiple sources in the article are from his own media organisation i-e The Kashmiriyat.
Third, TIME being an RS there isn’t SIGCOV, it has no real byline.
Fourth, I’ve made no personal attacks, i raised it to AfD because it didn’t meet WP:GNG or any other policy.

I’d be really happy if you can share the Sources on which this article deserves to be in the mainspace? Moreover, All the sources I’ve been through just cover shibli’s Arrest. Isn’t this a BLP1E? Check Arrest of Kamran Yusuf, If Shibli gets an standalone article I’d definitely love to work on Kamran Yusuf’s article because it does have good references unlike shibli’s article. Please don’t think this is personal or something like that, I’ve just stated facts above in accordance to wikipedia’s policies. If i am wrong, do correct me.-- Jammumylove Talk to me or ^{CHECK MY RECENT WORK} 00:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• It is not up to the closer to evaluate sources brought up in the debate: otherwise the close would become a supervote. I just searched around for this AfD (next time please provide a link) and had another look, but I come to the same conclusion as before. You are, of course, free to take this to DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I did not remove the tag, it was another user DDG. Presumably they are allowed to remove it, as I think they also commenting on their rationale for this decision. Tannim101 (talk) 09:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right, I missed that (just looked at "all changes since last visit"). My bad, I've reverted myself,, apologies. However, you should have a look at WP:JWG to see how to create a neutral article on an academic journal. DGG thinks it can be allowed in draft space, but it most certainly would not survive in this form in main space. In addition, the journal appears to miss WP:NJournals (despite the reference bombing). If moved to main space, I'll take it to AFD. --Randykitty (talk) 09:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• There are now two independent quotations praising the journal and stating its of high relevance to prehospital care, as you say, without adding even more citations its hard to demonstrate more relevance. It is the journal the majority of the profession's PhDs publish in, and its articles scatter their theses, and there are citations for researchers specifically including it in their systematic review methodology. I'm not sure how much more evidence we can expect to add to meet Criteria 1 - "to be influential in its subject area", it seems theres enough there to demonstrate it is "influential"? Tannim101 (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Until all the crap is cut away (like links to ResearchGate that prove nothing), it will be very difficult to see what is real and what is fluff. You have declared a COI with this journal and that clearly hampers your objectivity. "Seeding" other articles with references to this journal is frowned upon, too. Looking through the history of this article and your involvement with it, I see that (under multiple names -lower case variants) this article has been created by you multiple times and each time was deleted after AfD or CSD G4 and G11... --Randykitty (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could offer constructive input on what further evidence would be "sufficient" for this article to meet the criteria for being a page? Tannim101 (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• It's actually quite simple. You either need 2 or 3 reliable sources that are independent of the subject (so not by its publisher, the journal itself, or any of the persons involved with it) and discuss the journal in depth (meaning that it would meet WP:GNG) or showing that it is indexed in one or more selective databases so that it meets WP:NJournals. So far, I see nothing of the kind. The huge number of "sources" (see WP:REFBOMB) don't really help to see what is substantial and what is not. Many of those "sources" at best are passing mentions and don't add anything to notability. As you will see, even DGG who removed the G11 tag tells you that things would have been different if this were moved into article space. At this point, the best advice I can give you is to abandon this for the moment (move it to your user space, for example) and wait until a major database decides to list it (probably Scopus, as it's the least selective major database that's still accepted under NJournals). --Randykitty (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Don't know if it matters, but the keep !votes aren't citing WP:NFOOTY, but WP:FOOTYN. The former has to do with players, the latter with the broader topics including clubs and leagues.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oops, I meant the other one, of course. I'll correct this, thanks for letting me know. --Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of TechEngage. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 39.46.90.207 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• Despite your statement above, given that you didn't care to discuss with me before filing a DRV, as is customary, I don' t intend to participate in that discussion. Good luck. --Randykitty (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• • @RandyKitty, I feel the article was a subject of Systematic bias. As per your profile, if some subject comes from an area that is supposed to be the victim of systematic bias, then all considerations of notability can safely be thrown out of the window and proof that the subject exists (such as it having a website and/or some in-passing mentions that would never be sufficient for any other subject) is enough to have the article kept at AfD.

• • • I am sorry, If I miss some protocols to start the discussion first, as I am not a pro in Wikipedia. Kindly forgo it as an unintentional mistake.

At the top of your talk page you tell everybody that is here regarding an article that you did to first go to a place that (as only a more experienced wiki person would know) is irrelevant except for speedy deletions. Based on that it's quite a stretch to complain that a new editor didn't discuss it here with you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• You're right, REFUND only applies to speedy deletions, I have changed that notice. Nevertheless, I note that the instructions on how to open a DRV are quite clear about the need to discuss this with the closing admin first. BTW, I don't see any evidence that anybody in this case was misled by the notice at the top of this page, TechEngage is not mentioned anywhere on REFUND. --Randykitty (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the work that you do. North8000 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just contacting you as an uninvolved admin re an RfC at Romani people in Hungary. It has been open for over a month, and has had no new comments since 1st April. It originated from a DRN case between myself and another user who has since been banned. The survey has only obtained 6 votes (IIRC) and the only vote for the banned user's version was his own. Is it ok to close it now, and if so, do I have to go through a particular procedure?

All the best, BNS Boynamedsue (talk) 06:31, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Wishing Randykitty a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! History DMZ (HQ) † (wire) 14:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks Capt'n! --Randykitty (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I've been under the impression that NSPORT is subordinate to GNG, but this conversation is making me wonder if I'm missing something?? I'd especially appreciate any guidance on particular RfCs upholding my interpretation. Thanks! JoelleJay (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

So without knowing exactly what argument(s) you found compelling it's perhaps hard to give you an exact answer. The actual AfD is of course sparse on actual arguments, and even the DRV is fairly "assert-y" rather than "argument-y", if that makes sense (e.g., it's people asserting the article did this or that, rather than demonstrating it). The one thing I did have to chew on a lot is that there were some assertions about what policy says about self-published sources, but if you read WP:RSSELF and WP:GNG they don't support that argument, so it's not possible to "up-weight" that argument - upweighting arguments generally requires some strong policy backing that reflects a wider consensus. Otherwise, the quantity and depth of sources needed to meet WP:N has a lot of grey area where !vote, but headcount still weighs a lot because the line is (deliberately) vague as to number and depth of sources. WilyD 11:04, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• WileyD, thanks for explaining your thinking. I obviously disagree. While the SNG may have been met, there was largely consensus that the available sourcing did not meet SIGCOV and that therefore GNG was not met. Oh well. In any case, I expect there soon to be an RFC on SNG/GNG issues. --Randykitty (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

• Well, a no consensus close can reasonably be renominated after a couple months. The original AfD was pretty .... terse ... so a more detailed argument might well carry the discussion. WilyD 15:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Dear Randykitty, Article- Deepak Rawat. This-- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Deepak_Rawat

Let just take some examples, one by one--- Link 1-- 👇

https://www.aajtak.in/education/photo/ias-officer-deepak-rawat-ex-dm-haridwar-profile-how-clear-upsc-interview-tedu-1027326-2020-02-18

Question No.1-- Is there just trivial mention in this👆 news about Deepak Rawat or the entire news article is about Deepak Rawat IAS?

After (answer) this I'll give more.

Thanks. Regards. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm afraid that you misunderstand the role of the closing admin. It is not my job to evaluate sources, that would make my close what we call a "supervote". Instead, I have to evaluate the arguments presented in the discussion and whether they are policy-based. In this case, I came down on the "delete" side as having the better arguments that convinced other editors. Hope this explains. --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Randykitty:, There is well sigcov about the person Deepak Rawat. There is lot of notability about the person. One of them(one of editor) who voted for delete(in Afd discussion) also who insisting so much for delete has been caught in sock puppetry. How can you(one) believe in such editors. You should review again article. Well, I have many news references where there are not just trivial mention about the article but the entire article is all about Deepak Rawat. But other editors don't want to respond. My references were also in accordance to wiki policy, may be 1 or 2 of them are not so good, but that doesn't mean article should be deleted, we should remove those references(hardly 1 or 2 references), we shouldn't delete the whole article for that. What can I do. What should I do now! Plz guide me. Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• If you feel that I didn't judge consensus correctly, you can go to WP:DRV and present your case there. Note that DRV is not for re-litigating the AfD but solely for judging the close of the AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Randykitty:,

I am not trying to point out that you are wrong as you have said you haven't evaluate the sources. My problem is with the editors who haven't evaluate the given references in the article Deepak Rawat. Well, I am not very much aware about WP:DRV. I don't know too much about it.

Point is-+-This article Deepak Rawat consists of good references and good notability. Not just trivial mentions. The whole news is all about Deepak Rawat. As sock puppetry editors are giving votes.

Should I recreate the article?, this time I will only include the references where the whole news is all about Deepak Rawat(not just mentions). Should I recreate or is there any other way to get it back? Aj Ajay Mehta 007 (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• No, you should not re-create an article that was deleted after a community debate. If you have evidence that was not presented during the discussion (note that this is not the same as a different interpretation of said evidence), that, too, can be a reason to go to DRV. Further discussion here seems futile. --Randykitty (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:2014 CJON cover.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) 17:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

---

Hello, Randykitty. Just in case if you missed the ping, I requested your attention at Talk:International Quarterly for Asian Studies#Does this helps?. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Since the journal has been known as Internationales Asienforum for nearly all of its publication-time, and when I searched online, I found more results for Internationales Asienforum than International Quarterly for Asian Studies, so I have a question — Can we create a redirect Internationales Asienforum to International Quarterly for Asian Studies? Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Per current and improved version of article, I have removed the tag. I hope that's OK. Also, an editor has created the redirect [1]. Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Haven't gotten back to you yet, but will soon as I am slowly catching up with other stuff. --Randykitty (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for tagging the images Lute Currie uploaded to Commons which are potentially copyrighted. I also noted that this article Eduard Ritter von Josch is a word by word copy and paste job from [2]. But is that a potential copyvio problem? The author was Lute Currie. I don't understand the policies on this. It seems he uploaded that article online a while back but only a few days ago ported it onto Wikipedia. As he is the author of the article I don't see how it can be copyrighted but it has been copy and pasted. I don't know what the policy is on this and thought I would ask. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I deleted it. We have no way of knowing whether the "Lute Currie" who rote the Academia.com PDF is the same person as the editor here. Even if they are identical, the academia piece lists two authors and they can't both be "our" Lute Currie. --Randykitty (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Good afternoon. This question comes into discussion of actor Steven Olsen--how come you deleted the wiki page of this person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:183:C800:9CE0:78A7:D070:BBA7:FFDC (talk • contribs)

• Hi, I've searched, but I don't find any page about a "Steven Olsen" that I (or anybody else) would have deleted. Can you give me a link to the page you're talking about? --Randykitty (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

	Hello! Brunch for you!
	Thank you for the improvements made by you to the journal articles started by me. I will try to learn the most from them. You must get a good brunch for your kindness Thanks, Мастер Шторм (talk) 15:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I recently discovered that the page on me - Carl Haber (American filmmaker and professor of film) - was recently deleted and that you were involved in this decision in some way. I would ask you - respectfully - to return the page to Wikipedia if possible. I am indeed the filmmaker/educator in question. The film credits listed (which are in fact only partial) are all valid and can be seen on the IMDB as well. My history as described is a rather superficial summary, but it is correct. I was not aware of the need for additional citations (I did not start the page - and the individual who did I believe is no longer available to act on this). Additional citations can certainly be furnished - by me if needed - including but not limited to videos and testimonials of our students, the film school website which I founded and direct, and films made by students which I have supervised over the years can be seen on the RIFS Vimeo page and the RIFS website. Additionally the BFI (British Film Institute) has information about me on their site and a film I made years ago is still shown on their site (since it won a BAFTA Award long ago). They reference me on that page and the fact that I run the film school in Rome. I have written and directed new material as recently as 2018 that was produced and screened in festivals, and have several things in development currently in both Europe and the US. It would have been nice to have known that this deletion was being discussed before the decision was made, but I understand that the process does not allow for that; so I ask you please, what can be done to reinstate the page? What if anything can I provide to shore up the solidity in the moderators' view, that confirms the accuracy of the information on that page? It is all accurate and true. Thank you for your help, I appreciate your attention to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.32.220.203 (talk • contribs)

• Hi, your bio was deleted after a community discussion (with unfortunately low participation). As closing admin, it is not my job to give my personal opinion on an article, but only to gauge community consensus. So I don't usually look in detail at the article itself, but evaluate the comments made. To respond to your query, I had a look at the deleted article. As one of the participants in the debate (which was properly announced by a banner placed on top of the article) remarked, it is unacceptably promotional and not encyclopedic at all. I don't see much use in restoring it, even if reliable sources independent of the subject (you) exist. It is better to start from scratch. Given that you do not appear very familiar with how WP works, it would be best if you didn't do this yourself. If you meet our inclusion criteria (see WP:NFILMMAKER, WP:PROF, WP:GNG, and WP:ANYBIO - only one of these needs to be met) somebody will sooner or later create an article on you. Hope this helps. --Randykitty (talk) 06:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hallo RK: Deleting that article left Carl Haber (physicist), who should have been linked from the now-deleted primary topic article, so I've moved it to base name as now PT. PamD 05:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I missed that. Perhaps the closing script should be modified to emit a warning in cases like this. Anyway, thanks for fixing this! --Randykitty (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless

Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus was reached to deprecate Wikipedia:Editor assistance.
• Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news

• Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

• After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

---

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Commissioner Service (Boy Scouts of America). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --evrik ^(talk) 17:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
• An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

• IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

• The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

---

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Showing Up (film). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. BRVAFL (talk) 16:28, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Hi Randykitty,

The 2020 impact factors have been announced for Clarivate's Web of Science Journal Impact Factor. The Journal of Neuroimmune Pharmacology (JNIP)'s current impact factor for 2020 is 4.147. This impact factor was not updated last year in 2019. The outdated 2018 JIF appears in two place on the wiki page (under the heading "Abstracting and indexing" and in the sidebar box on the right hand side of the screen).

May I make this edit on JNIP's wiki page? or must another Wikipedia editor make this edit since I am affiliated with JNIP?

Thanks for your help and advice!

Wikipedia page of concern: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Neuroimmune_Pharmacology

Sources for new/current impact factor: JNIP website: https://www.springer.com/journal/11481 Clarivate Journal Citation Report: https://jcr.clarivate.com/jcr-jp/journal-profile?journal=J%20NEUROIMMUNE%20PHARM&year=2020&fromPage=%2Fjcr%2Fhome&SID=H3-eG3aUKXqHbx2FAse0fh3vc436MxxyXYgCC3-18x2dzQ17UkgnYokeA24DqhpckAx3Dx3Dx2FLopfcV5zbJuEJHM5f7KIwx3Dx3D-WwpRYkX4Gz8e7T4uNl5SUQx3Dx3D-wBEj1mx2B0mykql8H4kstFLwx3Dx3D

JNIP HEG (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

• Hi, I finished the update (it was already partially done). Minor neutral edits like this you can do yourself, but note that the JCR link that you gave should not be used as a reference as it will only work for yourself (if it hasn't even expired yet). I've updated the appropriate reference. --Randykitty (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Randykitty You had made a relisting in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naseer Sankranthi. There are enough keep votes and also there are strong points that support keeping of that article. So I request you to keep the article and close the AFD. Its been 2 weeks since the discussion has been held.... Sonal Mathew (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there is an AN discussion regarding something you were involved with at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Delete without AFD (courtesy notice). 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:44, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello please i am contacting you in regard of two things, first my userpage Tommygogd that was brought down and my first draft article Draft:Engr Babalola Olatunji this article was done neutrally , and i have been told to do declare a conflict of interest on my user page which i did, i do not understand why the article was brought down and also my page, this is my first article ever and i am doing this on a neutral point , is it possible for a person who does not have any contribution or whatsover to be paid for creating article, please i am pleading kindly restore the page so i can add more citation or for other contributor to be able to contribute to it , i am already getting discouraged because this is my first contribution and i have put so much effort in it than to be deleted, even if i am not given the priviledge to edit it , at least other contributor can for the sake of my effort.Tommygogd (talk).

• I'm very sorry, but two different admins judged your draft as being too promotional. You're free to give it another try, using neutral language. Some advicce though: creating new articles is one of the hardest things to do on WP. I strongly recommend that you first do a lot of small edits in other articles to get a feel for how things are being done here. --Randykitty (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Randykitty: * No problem but still it has not been restored both my userpage and the article, i will follow your advice now and wont submit until when any admin tell me its good to go, because i really have so much interest in becoming a contributor on wikipedia , i had loved creating content for years and i am going to do better to become a good contributor to wikipedia.

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

• Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

• Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

---