User talk:Kurykh/Archive 17

< Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  11 -  12 -  13 -  14 -  15 -  16 -  17 -  18 -  19 -  20 -  21 -  ... (up to 100)

Disambiguation link notification for July 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

California's 36th State Assembly district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rosamond

California's 4th State Senate district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Live Oak, California

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

California's 53rd State Assembly district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to East Los Angeles

California's 71st State Assembly district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Spring Valley, California

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of members of the National Assembly (South Korea), 2012–, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Goseong (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited David Chiu (politician), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Attorney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:02, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

PPACA Image Changes

Hey. First, I'd like to say that I like the new Senate vote image (striped instead of purple). However, for the other,= 2, I wondered what you'd think of the idea that having the Medicaid and Exchange images use partisan coloring is a worthwhile thing because it imparts more information: it reflects the near-perfect divide in government control i.e. almost uniformly, Republican-controlled state governments rejected both and vice versa. I'm not so attached that I have changed them but thought it worse raising the idea that such coloring is usefully accurate? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 06:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that information is useful only to those immersed in American politics, not to the average reader. With the impending opening of the exchanges, I would imagine people are reading the article to learn more about the bill and what it does, not so much about the partisan tussle surrounding it. The article is extremely long and the issue is confusing enough as it is; it would be prudent to make the maps as simple as possible.

From a logistical standpoint, using partisan coloring can also confuse people; people will be left wondering why Idaho is blue in the insurance exchange map despite full Republican control, and there's nothing in the article that explains that. Ditto with Arizona, Michigan, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania in the Medicaid map. Nevada and New Jersey took opposite approaches on exchanges despite both having Republican governors and Democratic legislatures, while Missouri and Arkansas took opposite approaches on Medicaid despite having Democratic governors and Republican legislatures. Partisan control also changes over time, rendering this sort of color-coding confusing and ultimately ineffective at conveying the type of information you mentioned. It's best to divorce the maps from such a problematic usage and just stick to the core information. --Kurykh (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

PPACA

Hey, look, sorry. The reason I've reverted is not that I disagree with all your changes per se - I did retain some and could be convinced for more, but since the majority I'm having a problem given how soon I just went through it with LT90001, I thought it'd be easier to revert and then restore select edits so the remaining contentious ones can be hashed out. Sb101 (talk|contribs) 10:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding notations, I was using them because, I thought, it made the article shorter to read (even though, true, the wikitext was longer, but that's not the relevant factor that the criteria I'm aware of judge by - it's the readable prose that matters). For example, I think 'John Chafee of Rhode Island' is longer to read than John Chafee (R-RI)? Sb101 (talk|contribs) 10:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

But is there a need to say "Republican senators Mike Enzi (R-WY), Chuck Grassley (R-IA)," etc.? First, it merely repeats that they're Republicans and second, what state they're from is immaterial. Frankly, I would also take out the "Rhode Island" part and just leave it at "John Chafee." Again, as I mentioned about the maps: stick to the necessary information. --Kurykh (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think two changes that I hope can be resolved relatively easily are the aforementioned notation vs alternative structure + the notability of Snowe's retirement. As I said on the former, putting aside the idea of notifying membership period, I wasn't convinced that non-notation form was shorter? [But one thing I do think should be retained, in some way shape or form, is the sentence 'An individual mandate coupled with subsidies for private insurance as a means for universal healthcare was considered the best way to win the support of the Senate because it had been included in prior bipartisan reform proposals.' Just saying it was included in past reforms doesn't link that to motivation for the adoption of reform of this kind?] Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:12, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, tangentially, if you reply shortly, I may not get back to you immediately. I'm just baking cookies and I need to rush back to keep my eye on them. If only we were in person, I'd offer you some to show you I'm not trying to be antagonistic or WP:OWN =) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

1) Notation: See above.

2) Snowe's retirement was a multitude of factors beyond ACA; including it here is more of an unneeded aside.

3) The individual mandate sentence was uncited and seemed more like opinion and WP:OR. It was therefore liable to instantaneous removal.

4) It was 3 in the morning at my end and therefore slightly irritable. Sorry about that. --Kurykh (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

1)  Fixed I replied on the talk page. (I think it helped to hear your reasoning and for my brain to process stuff - it was pretty late here too =) )

2)  Fixed Yea... I've always thought it was quite connected; but at the same time, having my attention drawn to it did make me reconsider the necessity of inclusion, even if true.

3) I would certainly defend it; I thought it was too uncontroversially true to need to source. As it is, on hand, I can think of: these two sources. Off the top of my head, another source that has the contrast of the lack of votes for single-payer proposals from Barney Frank. It's certainly clear, I would say, from examples like that justify the inclusion of that sentence.

4) You deserve a:

=) Sb101 (talk|contribs) 11:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

List of hotels in Singapore

I have been reviewing articles from Special:NewPagesFeed and see that List of hotels in Singapore was previously deleted by you. Does the article still meet the criteria by which it was deleted - or is it good to go?

Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Chris Seeman

Hi Kurykh,

I have a good source for Chris Seeman, which you deleted after closing the AFD. Do you have any objections to userfication so that I can do some work on it? BOZ (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If I can work on this one, I can immediately add a similar amount of content as I did here and here. BOZ (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Different District for S2 in California?

Hello - You recently reverted an edit of mine. I had removed what I saw as a duplicate infobox. Are you sure about your position on this? It seems to that there is, at any one time, only one Senate-2 district. The characteristics of it change, but I suggest it is the same district. See Ship of Theseus. Let me know if you agree so that I can re-do the edits. thanx. RayKiddy (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we have to wax existential on this issue. The basic problem is that the old pre-2011 district is still in use, while all current demographic and voter registration data is based on the new post-2011 district. In a way, we need to have some method of presenting both districts at the same time, especially since the new district will be used in an election that is coming up in less than three months. There is also the issue of being consistent with other state senate articles, especially those that will change dramatically. Having two infoboxes was the best (though by no means perfect) solution I could think of in this situation. --Kurykh (talk) 06:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Medicaid expansion map update

New Hampshire needs to be updated on this map that you made. I would do it myself, but I don't know how. Some of the "still debating states" probably should be changed too, as the debate seems to be over for now in most of them.[1] Rreagan007 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

have you tried using inkscape to edit avgs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.118.207 (talk) 01:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at AN/I that involves you. What it is about...I have no clue.--Maleko Mela (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Undelete ActiveQuant software

nevermind they are going closed source. Mrdthree (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Chris Seeman

Hi there, Kurykh. You closed the AFD on Chris Seeman, and last year I put the article into draft space at Draft:Chris Seeman and did some work on it. Would you approve moving it back into article space, or would it be better for me to try WP:DRV instead? BOZ (talk) 12:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Blue Dog Democrats in the 113th Congress

Hi Kurykh, and thank you for your upload of map illustrating current Blue Dog Coalition-representatives! The map seems to be outdated though and I was wondering if you could update it?Certain districts represented by Blue Dogs are lacking, such as Illinois's 3rd congressional district (represented by Congressman Dan Lipinski) and Illinois's 17th congressional district (represented by Congresswoman Cheri Bustos). Please see the list of Blue Dogs in the 113th Congress. Niceley (talk) 07:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Cosmic evolution

Hi noticed you closed the AfD discussion in 2011 regarding this article here turning it into a redirect page to Physical cosmology. My sense is this a fairly apt redirect, but somewhat inaccurate, since the term (in my view) has three different senses, with Physical cosmology -- meaning its history -- being the predominant sense, that is, the term generally means 'physical history of the cosmos (including all galaxies) from the Big Bang to the present', in popular and academic parlance, so the redirect is usually right, except there are two slightly different meanings. I have contributed to related subjects, notably Big History and Cosmic Evolution (book), and I have done some googling of the term 'Cosmic evolution' in the popular science press such as here and I am wondering whether the redirect page could be turned into a disambiguation page with three lines, specifically:--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Cosmic evolution may refer to....

• Physical cosmology, the material history of the multiverse from the Big Bang to today
• Big History, including non-living and living development
• Cosmic Evolution, a book by astrophysicist Eric Chaisson

My sense is this would be more accurate, but I bet most people use it in the first sense, meaning the history of physical cosmology, but increasingly there are those who see it as a term equivalent to Big History, and there are perhaps a small percentage of readers interested in the Chaisson book. This is speculation I realize but my sense it would be more accurate. I am seeking your view on this matter.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited California State Legislature, 2015–16 session, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Gallagher. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 15:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox California State Legislature

Template:Infobox California State Legislature has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

===Question about the un-deletion of Orange Technology

Dear Kurykh, Thank you very much for reading this msg.

I was writing journal paper several days before. I didn't know the article is deleted and some new messages are left in the discussion until today. I would like to make some comments to the discussion. I am wondering if it is convenient for you to un-delete the page Orange Technology. At least, allow my voice can be heard by other people.

If more information is required, please feel free to inform me.

Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcic2011 (talk • contribs)

I cannot allow you to respond without allowing others to reply to you, which would mean the discussion will never end. Since the AfD has been open for over two weeks and the consensus to delete is clear, I will not reopen the discussion. --Kurykh (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Districts After the U.S. Census of 2010

Hi Kurykh,

Do you think that on Richard Pan since the Assembly districts are different from redistricting that we should remove Darrell Steinberg as the predecessor, since the 6th Senate District that Steinberg was elected to was different than the one that Pan was elected to?

Sincerely,

Toyz1988 (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Toyz1988, I will quote from Template:Infobox Officeholder:

Where a politician was redistricted into a new district, you can use |prior_term= to indicate which district(s) he was in before. This saves space in the infobox by not generating a completely new office each time redistricting happens. If you do this, it is recommended that you list the person preceded when the subject first took office and the person succeeded when the subject last left office. Where the use of "same district number" is used for determining "predecessor" and "successor" in any office, but where the area is so altered as to make such a "predecessor" or "successor" of little or no biographical value, the word "redistricted" should be used rather than using names of officeholders whose connection is accidental by virtue of district number, but unrelated to any election contests between officeholders.

Steinberg's district, while altered somewhat, is substantially the same as before. Pan's old district, on the other hand, was shredded into three parts, leading him to move across town and establish a new residence in a completely new district with no obvious predecessor. The former 5th district and current 9th district don't even overlap at all. For another example, see Roger Dickinson. His 7th district had a clear predecessor, the old 9th, so that's why the article infobox shows it combined. --Kurykh (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I like it the other way, but personal preference is no reason to change established procedures. I have seen it the other way on many House of Representative members and other elected officials. The Roger Dickinson infobox is not helpful to me it does not present the information clearly in my opinion. I would make the two offices (7th & 9th) separate parts. Again that is my opinion and if there are established procedures in place then, by all means, use those. I will just be in the minority. Thanks for taking the time.

Sincerely,

Toyz1988 (talk) 23:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox California State Legislature

Template:Infobox California State Legislature has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Alakzi (talk) 23:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, thanks for your work on the California State Legislature articles. Alakzi (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Bay Area Rapid Transit

Hi, Kurykh! I'm writing you because I am concerned about a couple of recent edits (namely this and this) to Bay Area Rapid Transit, and wanted another opinion. Basically, the issue here is the figures as they appear in the sources are being changed (rounded) – in the case of the annual ridership figure, they've been massively rounded to a figure which appears nowhere in the source, or on any other article on Wikipedia (the others all use the figure with the larger number of significant figures). In addition, the IP says something about the "Talk page" in their edit summary, but I don't see anything at the Talk page about this. In another case, a sourced figure (the "maximum speed" value) was removed and replaced with an unsourced figure. I'm wondering if you think I should just let this go, or if not what the next step should be. Thanks in advance! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@IJBall: The IP is wrong. The IP did explain on the talk page here but misinterpreted the MOS guideline (the MOS is not policy!). Rounding is appropriate if the context is similar to "BART carries X.Y million passengers a day, making it the Zth largest transit system in the United States" as often used in the lead or in introductory prose. However, in the infobox and in many other cases, using numbers straight from the source is strongly encouraged if not required by WP:V (which is policy) and its corollary WP:NOR. Yearly (or even quarterly) figures are considered stable as they are published and unchanging for the year or quarter mentioned. I have no comment on the IP's changes to the article's wording; a quick glance finds them mostly appropriate. --Kurykh (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Kurykh, thanks for the response. And, yes, I agree that most of the textual changes are fine (though it looks to me like a couple of sourced statements were removed in with those edits; but I'm less concerned about those right now). I think my next step will be to leave a message on the IP's Talk page, and see what comes of that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:42, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Kurykh. I'm just posting to let you know that List of cities and towns in California – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for November 16. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 18:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

List of fictional serial killers

Hello. I just saw this AfD. I'm thinking it may be viable after all. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Amy-Leigh Hickman Unblock Editing.

Request that Amy-Leigh Hickman is unblocked from editing as the actress is more notable.

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of members of the National Assembly (South Korea), 2016–, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hwaseong and Ongjin County. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited California State Assembly, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Frazier. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

California State Senate election, 2016

added a link pointing to Nancy Skinner

United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2016

added a link pointing to Raul Ruiz

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

F Market & Wharves and E Embarcadero Merger Proposal

Your input is requested: Talk:F Market & Wharves#F Market & Wharves and E Embarcadero Merger Proposal. Jackdude101 (Talk) 20:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

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

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

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

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

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

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

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Kurykh.

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

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

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

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

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

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

Administrator changes

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

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Obituaries

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

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Dagar

Hi! Regarding your recent close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagar (2nd nomination)‎, I'm wondering what persuaded you to have the article deleted rather than reverted to the version that was a disambiguation page? – Uanfala (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

I found no consensus for changing it to a disambiguation page, but I determined there was one for deletion. --Kurykh (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, obviously. But I guess I should restate my question: given that both views were equally represented, I was wondering which arguments on the delete side you were convinced by. I'm finding your close a bit surprising as there was an issue raised against deletion that wasn't addressed by any of the delete !votes. – Uanfala (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

But the two sides were not "equally represented." People wanted deletion based on what the article is as nominated and based on their evaluations of notability of the subject. People were given the choice of reversion to a dab page (which the nominator seemingly wanted and is therefore a fundamental misuse of the AfD process), but they did not take that option. To get at what seems to be an assumption behind your question, deletion is not a last-resort mechanism; it is merely one way to deal with an article. --Kurykh (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Kurykh, the proposed alternative to deletion – disambiguation – wasn't against the deletion of the clan article, which was discussed at the AfD. And there was no valid opposition against conversion to dab page. In fact, the nom also wanted to convert Dagar to dab page. Their suggested way was to move Dagar (disambiguation) to Dagar. But it was explained to them that their method would create attribution issues, as Dagar (disambiguation) was created by copy-pasting a revision of Dagar. And Template:Copied clearly implies that Dagar shouldn't have been deleted unless we deleted Dagar (disambiguation) first. Thanks - NitinMlk (talk)

I completely understood what was going on in the AfD. What I'm saying is that people definitely did not want the article, but there's no consensus for a dab page either, using whatever process it takes to get there. People were given that option and gave no indication of taking it. Again, there's no obligation to save a page at all costs before resorting to deletion. --Kurykh (talk) 23:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Those participants didn't want the clan article, as it was a copy of the recently deleted article. In fact, that revision was done by the nom & was against the closing comments of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dagar. But two participants wanted to convert it to dab page. And they explained their reason clearly, against which there was no opposition. So, why did you neglect their !votes? BTW, as I explained at the AfD, there's no primary topic here. So, Dagar is dab by default. - NitinMlk (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Please see my reply below. --Kurykh (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Those who !voted for deletion didn't give out any signs there were aware of the disambiguation option. I brought this up mainly because I couldn't help noticing two things: you closed this AfD only a minute after your prevoius edit (and the discussion wasn't a particularly brief one), and after deleting you didn't move Dagar (disambiguation) over Dagar (which was the action entailed by deleting Dagar). This suggests that you might not have taken the time to properly read the discussion, in which case you deserve a trout for going too fast. That's all I'm goint to say and I'm leaving the matter to rest. – Uanfala (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I actually read this discussion several times without doing anything before arriving at my decision. I advise that you reread WP:AGF before engaging further.

On further consideration, I will change my decision to restoring the dab page. However, I strongly urge parties to read WP:AFD fully to understand what the process is supposed to be about. If the goal was reversion and not deletion, then this was a flagrant misuse of the process by both sides. The discussion would have belonged on a talk page, not AfD. If an admin was needed, then one can be summoned on the appropriate noticeboards. --Kurykh (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Kurykh, you are amazing. Thanks! - NitinMlk (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Bianca Schenker

Snuck up on me. Please restore Bianca Schenker to my sandbox. Trackinfo (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Userfied to User:Trackinfo/Bianca Schenker. --Kurykh (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Bhaktivedanta Vidyapitha

Hi Kurykh

The bhaktivedanta Vidyapitha page has been deleted. Please guide me regarding the shortcomings. Also, how can i restore the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bvvp.gev (talk • contribs) 12:45, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The article was deleted per this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhaktivedanta Vidyapitha. The reasons for deletion are included in that discussion. --Kurykh (talk) 23:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Randall Hicks

Hi, I'm writing to you as I see you extended the discussion time on one of the articles I wrote: Randall Hicks. I'm hoping that if you extend an article, it means you have some kind of higher ranking than the people "editing" the article. I am really quite fed up. I recently added three articles, Randall Hicks, Brian Wiprud and Laurence Shames. Am I allowed to just delete all three? I no longer want my "fingerprints" on Wikipedia. I thought it would be a fun experience now that I'm retired to be more involved. Instead I find myself getting upset by what seems to me to be editors who are either outright ignorant of subjects, or act in a "bullying" fashion, improperly deleting things or making unfair accusations. I don't want to break Wikipedia rules, but can I just go to the three articles and remove all content and then save? Will that eliminate them? I don't want to do that if it's not allowed, but maybe it is since I created them. All three were initialled suggested for deletion although I see one is still going through that process. Here are my frustrations with that article:

• I gave lots of references, but one editor keeps deleting them. At first I didn't care, but then others thereafter voted "delete" saying there were not enough references. I can't win. Another editor added one back but I'm not going to add them a third time. And these were major publications. One was a Rocky Mountain News book review, and one was a San Diego Union Tribune Book Review (not the existing SDUT article but another one.
• I was told the awards won or for which he was short-listed were not noteworthy or "scam" awards. Whoever said that is truly ignorant. All the awards cited not only have their own Wikipedia article pages, but I replied with a list of top ten New York Times bestselling authors, whose article pages mentioned having won, or being nominated for these exact same awards! And those were just major authors off the top of my head. When I replied to this editor, he or she said they mean they wanted references Hicks actually was a finalist. Fine, but why were those references gone? Because another editor had removed them all! So added them again, and the editor who said they were fake awards then found another excuse to fault the article.
• Even though I Googled and found book reviews or articles by the biggest newspapers, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Rocky Moutain News, San Diego Union Tribune, Orange County Register, one editor belittled them as "minor references." I think all either gave a full book review, or quoted the author and cited one of his books. The Zaslow column - check out your own Wikipedia page on him, was one of the biggest columnests in America. And major book review sources like Publishers Weekly, Library Journal and Booklist are belittled as "trade" journals. Anyone who knows books knows those entities don't review books unless they are anticipated to have a large readership.
• And when a couple editors go back to "not notable" despite eight or nine books over fifteen or twenty years, winning or short-listed for major awards and a lot of press, when I point out inbd (and I think an article or two mentioned it) shows appearances on 5 or 6 national network talk or news shows (CBS This Morning, etc.) no one responds. It is ridiculous to take all that and say does not meet notability. That's more exposure than the majority of author articles on Wikipedia I've read. Most have not been on national TV even once.
• When I asked why it was said I had a relationship with the subject, I was told it was because in past years Hicks'sbooks were included in some of the articles I added info and references for, so I hear it is promo for him. Common sense seems to say me adding a footnote in an article is not going to benefit the author of the book in any way at all. As if someone is scouring one footnote among 50 or more and saying "I'm going to buy that book!" I have cited to many books over the years, and Hicks just happens to have a couple of the best and most respected books, so it was natural to include them. The only connection I have to him is I'm retired social worker in the adoption field (the subject of some of his books) so I know of his books, and I attended a conference where he spoke and got a book signed (as I have for dozens of authors as I'm a big mystery reader).

Anyway, I didn't mean to write so much here - sorry - but I felt the need to vent. The bottom line is I'm fed up with Wikipedia. Some of the people editing are really nice and helpful but it is not enough to overcome the many who remind me of high school bullies. So please tell me how to delete all three articles and I won't ever bother (or use) Wikipedia again. Thanks, Gelo962 (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Gelo962

If you disagree with the editors of your page, you must discuss your concerns on the talk page (and in this case, the AfD discussion) per WP:DR. You may not delete or wipe out the articles, as Wikipedia has rights to that content now (see the Terms of Use disclaimer on any edit page).

To get at the heart of the problem, in a big community like Wikipedia, there will be disagreements between editors on whether X or Y content is valid or should be included or whether A or B is notable. Wikipedia policies are deliberately flexible and vague, and human interaction is inevitably coarse at times (and I won't excuse it). My advice would be to take a step back, peruse our policies such as WP:N, WP:OWN, and others in their entirety, and maybe if this ends up deleted (it may or may not happen), try another area. It's a big encyclopedia, and there's a whole lot of stuff that also needs work and can use your expertise. --Kurykh (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Userfy request

Recently you deleted the article on David A. R. White after AfD. I didn't notice the AfD was happening. He easily passes NACTOR, it's just a quesiton of putting in the sources. Could you userfy the article for me so I can work on it in my space time? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Userfied at User:Niteshift36/David A. R. White. --Kurykh (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Smile!

Hello Kurykh, Me-123567-Me has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Articles for deletion/Association of Top Achiever Scouts

Hello, Kurykh. I wanted to question your "no consensus" close of this AfD. There was only one Keep !vote, but I feel that it was not an in-process opinion and therefore should have been discarded. Doing so would have left only the nomination and my Delete !vote, which seems to be more correctly a soft delete.

The reasons for discarding the "Keep" are that it was clearly the article creator's (Kintetsubuffalo) complaint about "harassment" and not any process-derived expression about the article itself. As you can see at this ANI complaint, Kintetsubuffalo apparently thought the AfD nomination was some sort of campaign against him but really did not produce any evidence of such or get any admin notice or support for his requests that either the AfD would be ignored or that there should be a contact ban. His later comment explicitly favoring "keep" attempts to add two sources, but neither are actually about the organization in question. Bduke expressed an opinion that "...perhaps a merge there would be appropriate" (emphasis added) which Kintetsubuffalo then edited to bold the "Merge" into a !vote, which seems very inappropriate.

In the end, the article fails basic policies such as WP:V and WP:N. There is no actual lack of consensus on this point because the apparent dispute from consensus was the expression of an editor WP:GAMEing the discussion. I look forward to your reply. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:34, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Even if I threw out Kintetsubuffalo's comments, the choice is still between deleting and merging (bolded or not). WP:AFD also advises that discussions not be relisted more than twice. Given the inability to both delete and merge at the same time, a no-consensus closure is appropriate in this case. Perhaps you can follow Bduke's advice on merging the contents, then redirecting or renominating for deletion as superfluous. --Kurykh (talk) 00:31, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe that is a false dichotomy. Bduke's !vote did not express a clear opinion, only a possibility. There is no choice between deleting and redirecting, only between keeping and not keeping. I agree that relisting would not likely cause any further clarity but closers are supposed to independently assess the arguments, not merely accept them as-is. Your comments here appear to be taking a highly-involved editor's apparent manipulation as good-faith comments. WP:PACT seems to apply. Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Even if it was unbolded, it is still a worthwhile contribution of opinion and something that I should factor into my decision, no? You're asking me to take the merge comment into account for the purposes of knocking out the keep !vote but also treat it as a throwaway for the purposes of determining deletion. That's not an intellectually consistent line of argument.

Also, you seem to have a, well, interesting view of WP:AFD. First of all, the choice is not between keeping and not keeping at AfD; it is between deleting and not deleting. This is a very crucial difference. WP:AFD starts with "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted," not whether an article should be kept. This is why no consensus defaults to keep per WP:NOCON. This is why we have merge and redirect and all that pizzazz. Second, you're asking an admin to "independently assess" people's comments. While WP:AFD is not a vote, we can't just "independently assess" comments like an actual participant in the conversation, because that's effectively what you're asking me to do here. WP:DGFA advises to both "use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants." I can't just dismiss the merge comment out of hand, especially since no one bothered to address it. It's two delete comments to one merge, assuming we throw out the keep; there is no rough consensus there to close as delete. --Kurykh (talk) 01:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You make some good points, and I will accept your closure as is. Your explanation of the close shows good judgment, and I was probably letting my annoyance of one participant's comments color my perceptions. Thanks for the update. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Han Chunyu

Hello Kurykh. Can I ask you about your no consensus close of the above AfD? Five of the eight !votes supported redirecting. The ones that didn't were two for delete (including Nlu as nom.), who presumably would not object to the article being "soft deleted" even if they didn't explicitly recommend redirecting; and a single keep, which with all respect to them was from a very inexperienced editor whose rationale was that the subject was "respected", not policy-based. In light of that I'm a little surprise it wasn't closed as redirect: what was your thinking? If I WP:BOLDly redirected the article to Ngo now would I be going against consensus or process? Thanks. – Joe (talk) 08:39, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

After a second look, you seem to be right about redirect being a better course of action. I will change the discussion outcome to redirect. However, I will strongly caution against assuming people who want the article deleted to want anything else unless they explicitly say so. This applies especially to your analysis of David Eppstein's !vote, who saw all the redirects and wanted to delete anyway. It's just not a good idea to put words into people's mouths. --Kurykh (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion

Can you delete User:KAVEBEAR/Icons for me? I didn't want to use the template since it shows on my user page. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Kurykh (talk) 06:24, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Deletion "Mian Muhammad Hanafi Saifi Mubarak"

Hello, Kurykh, the page was under review and I removed the maximum of the conflicting links, replaced with the links of offline printed books and magazine articles about the personality. However, the page has been deleted. I want to re-create the page with same content and more authentic resources which are mostly offline printed books and magazines. Please identify the clear reasons of deletion in o to have further directions while creating the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profile12345 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The article was deleted per this discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mian Muhammad Hanafi Saifi Mubarak. --Kurykh (talk) 06:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Notification of deletion review discussion

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Lilah Parsons. 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. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 11:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Weightlifting deletion

Regarding the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weightlifting at the 2013 National Games of China, would you consider undeletion of Weightlifting at the 2013 National Games of China? Both myself and @Wlift84: made specific comments in justification of the weightlifting articles and also appear to be the only commenters with knowledge of either the sport or the national games. Even looking on the basis of the deletion reason (does not meet WP:SPORTSEVENT) the articles clearly fall within the description of a "final series determining the champion of a top league". By normal AFD standards, the arguments for deletion look very weak to me. Thanks. SFB 20:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Your argument asserts that it "clearly fall[s]" within the description when it's not "clearly" in your favor at all. When you look at the examples given in WP:SPORTSEVENT, they seem to describe the finals of team sports leagues, not the individual events that you mention and are the subject of this AfD. That was a perfectly legitimate argument given the letter and spirit of the guideline, and it was the argument that ultimately carried the day. Asserting your knowledge about the subject matter isn't too persuasive either: you made this very argument in the discussion, and it seemed to be that people understood it perfectly and still disagreed with you. For these reasons, I stand by my decision. --Kurykh (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Kurykh: Given that interpretation, WP:SPORTSEVENT says absolutely nothing about non-Olympic championships for individual sports (i.e. the vast majority of Olympic sports). I will raise this at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). Thanks. SFB 14:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Icelandic New Zealanders AfD

Hi,

As you were the closing admin on the Icelandic New Zealanders AfD, I was wondering if you could close the rest of the "<nationality> New Zealanders" articles created by the same user? They're all at AfD and seem to have generated pretty much the same level of consensus.

Thanks! DrStrauss talk 17:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

I would let those AfDs run their due course. --Kurykh (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Relisting of an AFD

Can you please specify why you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Development Foundation (2nd nomination) when 3 people clearly had supported it's deletion, while the lone-opposer was reasonably the aticle-creator.Winged Blades ^Godric 10:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Martin K

Please reply swiftly to the discussion regarding deletion on the Martin K - page. Cheezus K (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2017 (UTC)