[[User:Sagecandor|Sagecandor]] ([[User talk:Sagecandor|talk]]) 23:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
[[User:Sagecandor|Sagecandor]] ([[User talk:Sagecandor|talk]]) 23:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
== [[Red (Taylor Swift album)]] ==
Can you semi-protect the page that who ignored against [[Template:Infobox_album#Genre]]. [[Special:Contributions/123.136.112.56|123.136.112.56]] ([[User talk:123.136.112.56|talk]]) 10:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
A recent RfC has redefined how articles on schools are evaluated at AfD. Specifically, secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist.
Cookie blocks should be deployed to the English Wikipedia soon. This will extend the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user after they switch accounts under a new IP.
A bot will now automatically place a protection template on protected pages when admins forget to do so.
Thank you for accepting the page protection request, but Please revert to the previous version of the page, AFAIA it contains no explicit WP:BLPCRIME violations and it was the the long standing version of the page before the mass removal sans discussion of well sourced contents(esp the Reaction section) by user: MardeKayle. you can check the history of the page it was created by me and I contributed a lot of content on it.Redhat101 (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello CambridgeBayWeather, I'm not entirely sure why this was protected like this, as the issue is with one editor who is reverting changes that are being made in accordance with WP:BLP. I think it would be better to take this issue up with Redhat101, rather that edit protect the entire article. It should also be noted, that reverts made to remove contentious information about a BLP, in accordance with BLP policy are not subject to 3RR and other revert policies, as I am sure you are already well aware. Thanks. {MordeKyle} ☢00:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I requested you to remove only the Infringing content but instead you removed the entire well sourced part of 'Reaction' section of the Page, which doesn't contain any BLP information, also one victim is deceased and his name was widely reported in media so guidelines for BLP will not apply to him and pages for comparable incident like Quebec City mosque shooting are similar in structure/content.Redhat101 (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
--Dinghanliang (talk) 07:17, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I am quite confuse to who I should reply to now.
Also, I do want to enquire on my page. Is that the end of my page? I can't even edit anything related to this anymore?
Thank you, hope to see your reply.[reply]
--Dinghanliang (talk) 08:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Can I still modify or edit the article to make it more notable rather than more of an advertisment?
Thank you for your efficient reply![reply]
--Dinghanliang (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Hi, I've already edited my article again and tried uploading it to my own sandbox. But it stated that "A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted." What should I do. Thank you![reply]
Greetings. An attempt of adding controversial content to this article seems to have started an edit war there. I believe your help is needed to protect the page and stop the conflict, as the users don't seem to have reached a consensus. Dolchstoß (talk) 10:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did plenty of investigation on the cheating scandal. UALR does have lots of corruptions. Biris' cheating scandal is one of them. Biris was hired with the lowest credential in the candidate pool because of political reason. That is the reason the university is not among top 100 national universities. Keeping the "cheating scandal" at least will give the administrators a warming. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpasar (talk • contribs) 15:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a new diff by the editor who is starting to switch anon IP's at will on the Nadal-Federer article. He guarantees more troubles. Gotta be a sockpuppet of someone... maybe User:RabidMelon but probably User:Liquid foundation? FYI I did find another English translation of the quote he was concerned about and inserted it. I can deal with the snide remarks but I wish he would work as a team member. Not sure that will ever happen. By the way, thanks for your efforts to fix this... nothing I have done to compromise seems to be enough, and I'm being yelled at by the Federer fans as well. I'm ready to throw my hands up on this one and let the article go to all the wolves on both sides. On a less prominent article I would have done so long ago. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.
Technical news
After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.
User JacksonGreene is engaging in edit war on Money.Net page regarding Founded and founder. It has been extensively discussed and opined by third party Inlinetext. I am leaving this message as you left a edit warning on my talk page back in March 2017. Fintech2k (talk) 14:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
On SP page, a autoconfirmed user absolutely (who has been adverstising for SP for a long time, and working for them) wants to put as first sentence that SP is widely considered to be one of the most prestigious in France." (even though the sources are not saying that, and anyway it shouldn’t be in the first sentence), and is constantly reverting my edits and deleting not positive things in the lead with accusations of POV pushing even though there is a discussion going on on talk page but I am the only one participating in that.
--Launebee (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I want to update to "Sangdong mine" in South Korea. Established "sangdong mine" wikipedia article. it is too much simple and just link to well-known by news channal. I hope to introduce of "Sangdong mine" the largest tungsten mine in the world. If I can not edit myself. I want to update active participate in sangdong mine article.
Younghyun.ju (talk) 01:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did I overstep myself? Haven't had morning coffee.
Restored Draft:Sudhir Kumar Mishra after deleting mainspace article-- now protected against recreation. Creator/subject requested undelete from me. The thoughts hadn't finished seeping through my brain before I restored the draft. I should have sent him to you first. The draft version is in better shape than the deleted article. If I erred, let me know and I'll redelete the thing or go ahead and revert me. Thanks, Dlohcierekim12:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You supposedly protected the page but the vandalism is still taking place. Here[1], here[2], and here[3]. That's two IP editors with 1 or 2 edits ever and a registered account with one edit ever but I see another admin. blocked that account. The page protection needs to be changed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof?10:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, An user who has stated that I wrote racist and antisemitic statements, who has been asked by MrNurdule to strike its claim of "homophobic slurs" against me otherwise he would be sanctionned but has never done so, who is doing long personal attacks against me in Science Po and Panthéon-Assas pages (sometimes by putting the same off-topic attacks on both pages [4][5], is continuing to do disruptive editing on Panthéon-Assas page by removing sourced content and claiming just names are advertisement (when I put positive ranking of Sciences Po, he says nothing, but when I remove "SP is widely considered to be one of the most prestigious in France" without any source, he thinks he must removed the sourced information of PA page for "equality" and put templates of advertisement even though everything is cited.). --Launebee (talk) 14:09, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.
There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.
Hi. You recently protected WP:Naming conventions (films) in response to blatant mischaracterizations of my actions posted to WP:AN/EW (permalink). I’d like to ask you to please review the edit history and talkpage, and reconsider. If you still believe I was editing disruptively, please explain why, because I was trying to abide by WP:BRD and would very much like to avoid being unintentionally disruptive. Whatever your conclusion, I won’t argue with it because you are cute and know everything. Thank you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CambridgeBayWeather. Since you seem to have been recently active at WP:RPP, I wonder if I can ask for your advice about Dave Halili. An IP (maybe someone with a COI) keeps readding a non-free album cover image to the article's infobox. I've tried to explain to them the problems with doing this on their user talk page, but they has been no response other than to re-added the file. I have left a {{uw-3rr}} on the IP's user talk as well, so not sure how they will respond to that. Anyway, an option to taking the IP to AN3 might be to request temporarily protection for the article to some degree to prevent any further disruption. This way the IP doesn't get blocked and the file will not keep having to be removed from the article. Do you think this is a viable option or does there have to be more disruption for the artice to be protected? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]
Thank you for the pp. As for the file and critcal commentary, I agree that is possible which is why I was trying to encourgage the IP to engage in discussion to see if they could provide that commentary. The cover art should not be used in the main infobox for identification of Halili, but it could possibly be added to the body of the article if it is used to support relevant critical commentary (preferably supported by reliable sources) of the album cover. I will post something along those lines on the article's talk page a bit later on. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Korea was a tributary state of China until the late Qing dynasty in 1895, while Goguryeo was a tributary Kingdom and NOT an empire
Goguryeo is being exaggerated as a so-called "empire" by racist Korean Nationalists who are trying to make it look like it was more "powerful" than it historically was in reality. Also, the undeniable fact is that Korea was indisputably a tributary state of China until the late Qing dynasty in 1895 following China's defeat in the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895, please read these sources:
1.) Korea Herald. (2004) Korea now, p. 31; excerpt, "The Chinese also insist that even though Goguryeo was part of Chinese domain, Silla and Baekje were states subjected to China's tributary system."
2.) Kwak, p. 99., p. 99, at Google Books; excerpt, "Korea's tributary relations with China began as early as the fifth century, were regularized during the Goryeo dynasty (918-1392), and became fully institutionalized during the Yi dynasty (1392-1910)."
3.) Seth, Michael J. (2006). A concise history of Korea, p. 64, p. 64, at Google Books; excerpt, "China found instead that its policy of using trade and cultural exchanges and offering legitimacy and prestige to the Silla monarchy was effective in keeping Silla safely in the tributary system. Indeed, the relationship that was worked out in the late seventh and early eighth centuries can be considered the beginning of the mature tributary relationship that would characterize Sino-Korean interchange most of the time until the late nineteenth century;"
4.) According to the Book of Later Han vol. 85, Records of Three Kingdoms vol. 30 and Book of Jin, vol. 97, 2 tribute missions in 1st century, 4 tribute missions in 3rd century, 10 tribute missions in 5th century was sent to Imperial China.
5.) Kang, David C. (2010). East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute. Columbia University Press. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-231-15318-8. "thus, between 1637 and 1881, Korea sent 435 special embassies to the Qing court, or an average of almost 1.5 embassies per year."
6.) Gundry, R. S. "China and her Tributaries," National Review (United Kingdom), No. 17, July 1884, pp. 605-619., p. 605, at Google Books
7.) Kang, David C. (2010). East Asia Before the West: Five Centuries of Trade and Tribute, p. 59., p. 59, at Google Books
8.) Shambaugh, David L. et al. (2008). International Relations of Asia, p. 54 n15., p. 54, at Google Books citing the 1818 Collected Statutes of the Qing Dynasty (DaQing hui-tien)
9.) Fogel, p. 27., p. 27, at Google Books; Goodrich, Luther Carrington et al. (1976). Dictionary of Ming biography, 1368-1644, p. 1316., p. 1316, at Google Books; note: the economic benefit of the Sinocentric tribute system was profitable trade. The tally trade (kangō bōeki or kanhe maoyi in Chinese) was a system devised and monitored by the Chinese -- see Nussbaum, Louis Frédéric et al. (2005). Japan Encyclopedia, p. 471.
10.) Yoda, p. 40., p. 40, at Google Books; excerpt, "Japanese missions to the ... Tang Dynasties were recognized by the Chinese as bearers of imperial tribute; however, in the middle of the ninth century -- the early Heian Period -- Japan rescinded he sending of missions to the Tang Empire. Subsequently Japan conducted a flourishing trade with China and for the next five hundred years also imported much of Chinese culture, while nevertheless remaining outside the tribute system."
11.) Imperial envoys made perilous passages on kentoshi-sen ships to Tang China "The cross-cultural exchanges began with 5 missions between 600 and 614, initially to Sui China (on kenzuishi-sen), and at least 18 or 19 missions were sent to T’ang China from 630 to 894 although not all of them were designated kentoshi."
12.) Kwak, Tae-Hwan et al. (2003). The Korean peace process and the four powers, p. 100., p. 100, at Google Books; excerpt, "The tributary relations between China and Korea came to an end when China was defeated in the Sino-Japanese war of 1894-1895."
13.) Chisholm, Hugh. (1911). The Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. 15, p. 224, p. 224, at Google Books
14.) Pratt, Keith L. (1999). Korea: a historical and cultural dictionary. p. 482.
I see you've protected these two articles. My request is to revert or modify this and this edition, since the vandal of this is the IP user that suggested the protection in the RFP.
He has been accustomed to add disruptively to the <!-- --> and delete information in any article without explaining why. Other users have also reverted it but he ignores, it and it should be mentioned that it also carries a large arbitrariness list, in the eswiki. Thanks. --200.89.248.75 (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also add that:
In the article Arcángel the birth name is «Austin Agustin Santos», here is a link and replace for a valid reference since the one that exists this "death link".
Add the parameter |mf=y since it is necessary in this type of templates.
In the article Boy Wonder in the section | associated_acts = of this template, It's unnecessary to hide it as this section is to show related artists.
And it should be noted that the wikilink [[Maluma]] is a disambiguation. The correct one is [[Maluma (singer)]].
I can respond to this, the full name of the article Arcángel it is incorrect for example: «Austin Alejandro Santos Pascual» is the son of the same and I also hide the list of collaborations and the date of birth of Boy Wonder because it does not have references and you consider me like vandalism having now that the only thing that you do was to open and discard my editions. 148.0.109.17 (talk) 21:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Might I ask why you protected Callista Gingrich? The edit history seems to show a clear consensus with multiple users and IPs (of which I am one) attempting to include sourced information, and a single user reverting. My point here is limited to the implied consensus - there is no material content dispute if a single user is resisting changes that multiple people are attempting to make, and that are also not problematic on any other grounds. 2601:645:8280:76D0:174:988C:6FAE:4738 (talk) 07:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've protected a page subject to current events on an inaccurate version because a single contributor favors it, despite at least six separate other contributors favoring the opposing version, which, for the record, is an observation citable to Politico, Reuters, The Hill, CBS, the Washington Post, dozens of other reliable sources, and the White House itself. Whether or not it's discussed on the talk page, multiple edit summaries state that the disputed language is sourced and should not be removed, and a *single editor* is removing it. Please lift the protection; if it's that important to you, I'll include a relevant section on the talk page on my next edit. I do have to say that your protecting the page strikes me as a needlessly hasty and careless move in this particular context. Ordinarily I'm accustomed to single editors resisting a consensus being labeled disruptive or tendentious, vs. having their versions locked by admins during current events dealing with the article subject. 2601:645:8280:76D0:174:988C:6FAE:4738 (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Having had the opportunity to review it further I have decided to unprotect it. That doesn't mean people should be reverting back and forth. There needs to be a discussion on the talk page as to why one version is better than another. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq05:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Genghis Khan
In the BBC documentary source listed in the article it is clearly explained that Genghis Khan means "Universal Ruler." It DOES NOT mean "emperor." It is important to have factual, accurate, and correct information for an encyclopedia. Usual white nationalists are the ones who try to downplay historical facts about Genghis Khan because he is non-western but I am interested in posting historically accurate facts, not randomly made up information posted on Wikipedia such as claiming Genghis Khan means "emperor."Julymath321 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Julymath321. I'm not sure who you are insinuating is a white nationalist but don't. I have no idea which translation of his title is correct but there was an edit war and it needed to stop. There should have been discussion on the talk page several edits ago. From an uninvolved editors point of view the edit war over a disambiguation page looks rather silly. Why not go with something simpler such as , "Genghis Khan (c. 1162 – 1227) was the founder of the Mongol Empire"? The actual meaning can be left for other pages where this more space to explain it. Pin Bkonrad. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq05:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You recently deleted an article of mine: Elandas (company).
I've relatively new to Wikipedia. I've made a few edits and authored a total of two articles. I have no problem with the article being removed but hope to get some background information to make sure I don't make the same mistake again. I did check the delete log and got the following information:
06:52, 10 May 2017 CambridgeBayWeather (talk | contribs) deleted page Elandas (company) (Expired PROD, concern was: Clearly an advertised business profile which has been subject to a largely obvious attempt to bypass user reviewing and this is because they copy and pasted from a user sandbox to an existing article and then rena...)
Your comment was partly cut off, so I wasn't able to get all the feedback. But the two major objections seem to be that the article is (a) an advertised business profile and (b) involved an attempt to bypass reviewers. I would agree with you that this is an article on a business I work for. I would disagree that I intentionally tried to bypass the user reviews.
I would like to try and publish the article again. Articles about businesses are allowed in Wikipedia - what feedback can you give that would help me write an article on a business that would meet Wikipedia's standards? Of course, getting it reviewed would be helpful and I will try to figure out how I was able to publish the article without it being reviewed in the first place. But if this is never going to pass, that would be useful to understand as well.
Dear Sir/Madam,
A while back you had extended short term protection against vandalism to the page "Ritam Chowdhury". Since this was limited time protection, it was removed subsequently.
I noticed recently that there have been further acts of vandalism by
2601:141:0:3410:940b:3f7e:bebb:7785
2601:141:0:3410:b0c4:975:a38b:e961
These were detected and reversed. Once they were warned, the same user used a different id to make identical changes. Comparing versions between these users confirms that they are the same person/s who is changing their handle/ip address to make malicious changes targeting this living biography.
Please can you consider blocking these users and/or extending further protection to this page?
Thank you.
As is well known, I think Trump's an idiot and his policies an affront to decency and common sense, but how in the world do you come up with delete (or, indeed, anything else) as the outcome to WP:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Broter/Ban_on_Muslim_immigration? While we're not supposed to call other editors assholes, if they want to advertise themselves as assholes, I really don't see why we should be stopping them. EEng14:39, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't angry at you; when I'm angry at you you'll know it. I was, however, annoyed at what I consider (and, as you saw in the ensuing discussion, just about everyone else considers) your overanxious interpretation of BLP. Anyway, all of that happened after I left my OP here.
You say "policy allowed for deletion"; that's just another way of saying "I decided it should be deleted" without really explaining anything. Since when do we delete userboxes that express run-of-the-mill political beliefs, even ones we (as individual editors) might consider foolish or even offensive? We certainly don't delete userboxes that express things like "I believe in protecting the rights of immigrants" or something like that. I really want to know how policy calls for one to be deleted and the other left to remain. Certainly nothing explaining that was offered in the deletion debate, which brings me back to the question of how you could have arrived at the close you made. Seems to me that at best it's no consensus. EEng16:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in having any of your userboxes deleted, not that I've looked at them. You are applying the same overbroad interpretation that earned you such criticism in the other matter on which our paths recently crossed (see User_talk:EEng#BLP_violation_at_WP:ANI). User pages, and userboxes in particular, have always been allowed more latitude in the expression of social and political views than would be acceptable elsewhere in the project, and by applying this interpretation you're simply going to alienate a succession of editors for no good reason. Pinging a couple of level heads who may be able to explain this to you better than I've been able to: Tryptofish, David Eppstein, Mandruss. EEng18:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of bad stuff does not justify the retention of other bad stuff, and we can't fix everything at the same time; that's part of the idea behind WP:OSE. Had I known of the MfD discussion I would have !voted Delete per Wikipedia:Userboxes#Content restrictions bullet 3: "Userboxes must not be inflammatory or divisive." (emphasis theirs). If I became aware of an MfD for a userbox on the other side of the same inflammatory and divisive issue, I would likewise !vote Delete there. What's inflammatory and divisive is necessarily a judgment call, but this case seems clear enough; you don't get much more inflammatory and divisive than this issue. The close doesn't seem improper to me. It merely demonstrated that consensus is about strength of arguments, not numbers. So much for my "level head"! ―Mandruss☎18:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have said blockhead?[FBDB] But your opinion is valued anyway. Now, what about the userbox here: "In support of the Karen National Union and their ongoing struggle against genocide." Is that OK because fighting genocide is a "good thing", while a Muslim ban is a "bad thing" (and you know how I actually feel about that fool Trump and his policies). Pinging Blade of the Northern Lights, since I'm dragging his userbox in, it being the most saintly one I could think of. EEng19:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC) And no, calling Trump a fool in this discussion is not a BLP violation.)[reply]
If I became aware of an MfD for that one, I would probably !vote Keep because it is not sufficiently inflammatory or divisive to be deleted. Karen National Union is not a frequent topic on the home page of The New York Times, and I would include it on the long list of things that I'm too busy to care about. But I don't care to get any deeper into hypotheticals. ―Mandruss☎19:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm going to push the point just a bit more. Certainly this is in the headlines:
I'm responding to the ping. It's difficult for me to give a clear opinion, because I cannot see the now-deleted userbox for myself. I've always found CambridgeBayWeather to be a reasonable and clueful colleague. I've read the MfD, and I would probably have relisted it for further discussion instead of making a decision one way or the other, but that's me. I think that the example about Palestine that EEng put here is perfectly fine, and I would feel very negatively about any proposal to delete it. Speaking in general (and of course the devil is in the details), I tend to believe that editors should be given wide berth on what userboxes they have on their own userpages, except that this should not go so far as to permit anything that is intended to insult or defame other users or non-public eye non-editors. Expressions of political opinion, if volunteered freely, should be permitted. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish: Thanks for taking the trouble, and I think you see my concern. The userbox being discussed in the MfD linked in my OP here said (from memory): "This editor supports a ban on Muslim immigration". EEng23:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Oh, bleep. My gut reaction is a very strong WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so I'm having to check my gut reaction. It steps right up to the line of what I described as insulting others. But no, we should not censor that. I think a useful test is what we would do if it said, instead, this editor opposes such a ban. Of course, that's technically a violation of the rule that boxes should support instead of oppose things, but I would make an exception given the context. I doubt anyone would have brought that one to MfD, and we should not try to have it both ways. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CambridgeBayWeather, I noticed that Tekmill was create protected by you on 1st December 2016. I'm requesting you to kindly remove the protection as I want to create a page for him. He is a notable artist and since December 2016, has received several coverage articles in Turkish media. Some of the publishers covering him are Olay newspaper, Londra newspaper and Avrupa newspaper. I can provide you the hard copies upon request. Thank you, Tekmillion (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
Before you put protection on the article entitled Vivid Entertainment for alleged edit warring, did you read the talk section concerning the portion of the article that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz keeps removing? He cites a different reason each time he vandalizes the segment regarding historical Vivid Girls, and refuses to engage in constructive discussion, actually ANY discussion. First he cited the segment as unsourced, but the segment was clearly well sourced. Then he claimed it was publicity. Then he claimed it was merely a laundry list. Wikipedia has so many instances of lists of historical persons. He has NEVER claimed the information re "Vivid Girls" was inaccurate or irrelevant. He is just personally opposed to having the information in the article. Furthermore, I have NEVER seen any editor have so many complaints against him, all of which he and you administrators IGNORE. He is one of the reasons I would never contribute any money to Wikipedia. Anonymous editors without any formal knowledge of the subject and editing ruin so many good articles. I thought you would at least review and contact the parties, but instead you just protected the article without good cause. Under what authority did YOU protect the article? 2601:989:4200:BAA2:5912:EBF7:708A:C30A (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Pizza Pockets box.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).
Administrator changes
Amortias • Deckiller • BU Rob13
Ronnotel • Islander • Chamal N • Isomorphic • Keeper76 • Lord Voldemort • Shereth • Bdesham • Pjacobi
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Miscellaneous
![[6]](https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Silk_route_copy.jpg){kind=link}
Administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Miscellaneous
