Jump to content

User talk:Tone/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Tone

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shantsai (talk | contribs) at 17:58, 19 March 2019 (→Deleting Horsley: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comment

Welcome to my discussion page. I prefer having all the conversations on the same place, so I mostly answer here. If you decide to send me a mail, please remind me here to check my mailbox, just in case. -- Tone.
Click here to leave me a new message

Archive
Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22

AfD - please leave discussions open for the full 7 days

AfDs should run for 7 days unless one of the criteria for an early close is met. Some of your closes today were up to 15 hours early, and also with barely any input to some of the discussions, so I struggle to see how you determined that there was a consensus. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough, I'll refrain from the AfD pages in the mornings. --Tone 08:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion David S. Cassetti

Hello Tone, I object to the deletion of David S. Cassetti as all but one of the Delete votes came before I improved the article. I feel that the page should be restored as in the final form it had meets the requirements of wp:gng. Thank you and I look forward to your reply. Markvs88 (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see your point. Let's take it to deletion review to get some input. There still was a comment after the updates were done so I don't feel comfortable overturning the deletion straight away. --Tone 14:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair, thank you. Markvs88 (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for David S. Cassetti

An editor has asked for a deletion review of David S. Cassetti. 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. Thanks again, Markvs88 (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lego Interactive

Hey Tone! You recently closed my AfD for the page Lego Interactive, and my intent was that the unsourced original research I inserted years ago would be gone for good, however, it has started popping up on The Lego Group instead. Do you think you'd be able to extract the old content of the original page, just prior to the deletion (which I rewrote with proper sources), and merge it into The Lego Group? Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 06:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History restored, feel free to merge further. The redirect stays, I suppose? --Tone 14:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Content merged, thanks. You may delete the old revisions again (to prevent that IP user to keep re-establishing the page). Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 14:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Best, --Tone 14:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Salvatore J. Salamone

Hello Tone, I would like submit a new version of the deleted Salvatore J. Salamone article. The article was deleted without time for me to submit the revised article, which I believe will make it less promotional and show notability. Would you be able to reconsider the article? Or can I submit the revised article to you? Thank you. --JBuckley93 (talk) 18:01, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think the best idea is to edit it as a draft and then request a move to the mainspace. Let me know if you need any help with that. --Tone 14:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Katarrama

Why you delete Katarrama?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.133.253 (talk) 14:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Katarrama. Best, --Tone 14:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, they maybe aren't like Metallica but they deserve a place in Wikipedia. You can find them on Spotify, Grooveskark, iTunes, Youtube, Amazon Music.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.133.253 (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just closed the deletion discussion. There are always options to bring the article back. Maybe discuss it with the editor who nominated the article for deletion? --Tone 16:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tone. I'm new on this. I'll try. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.133.253 (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for a deletion review of Katarrama. 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. 83.59.133.253 (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikirank.net

Dear Tone, would you please tell me how did you close this a keep. and what is your rational behind it? Mardetanha (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I did not see a consensus to delete this article, the arguments to keep were rather convincing. If there is no consensus to delete, it is a default keep. Best, --Tone 13:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with you, several ip addresses which are clearly associated with the website voted for keep, on the other hand, me and other community members put some time and checked and voted but I feel you have neglected them, would you please tell me what arguments did you find convincing (part my of wiki work on different Wikipedias is to fight with cross-wiki spamming and using to wikipedia to promote unremarkable things)? Mardetanha (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The last argument was the most convincing for me. But I understand you, I am in principle against unremarkable things as well. --Tone 20:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page Marc Lesser

Hi,

I understand that you try to clean up stuff but it is unclear why you deleted the Marc Lesser page, especially as several people still discussed it and added material to it. The initial request for deletion came at a phase when there were not enough references, which had been amended in the meantime but nobody reviewed and removed the deletion request.

Please reinstate the page or at least make the material available on in a sandbox area so the people working on this can complete the page and resubmit it. The person for whom this is the page is relevant equal and above many others in his domain who are referred on Wikipedia. The language is unbiased and objective. There is relevant third party material at least to the extent available for many others and it is work in progress like everything on Wikipedia.

Please respond with the required steps to augment this page so that you feel it has the necessary elements for WIkipedia.

Regards Florian Brody (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi. To me, it seemed a rather strong consensus to delete the article, some editors commented after the changes were done. That other people have WP articles is not a convincing argument, perhaps other articles should be deleted as well. What I can do, however, is move the article to the draft space, then you can request move to the mainspace when the article meets all the requirements. Shall I proceed? --Tone 10:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cincinnati Time Store (2nd nomination)

If you could take a second look at this, I believe the discussion's consensus is to merge. If you feel strongly otherwise, perhaps you could explain how the "keep" rationales outweigh the "merge" rationales. czar 11:58, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just closed it as non-delete, I do not have strong preferences whether it is more of a keep or a merge. A merge can always be carried out outside the AfD process, feel free to go ahead with it. --Tone 13:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In general I'd agree but a merge discussion in the case of this unfrequented article would just consist of pinging the AfD participants to repeat what they already said in the AfD, so I'd like to avoid bureaucracy for its own sake and just get back to editing. Do you disagree that the consensus is closer to "merge" than "keep"? And if not, could you re-close it as such? czar 14:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Could you take care of closing as merge and notifying the editors involved? Thanks :) --Tone 14:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tone, I was a participant in the discussion so would be better if you updated the AfD closure, though I can take care of everything afterwards czar 11:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tone, checking back czar 01:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about this :/ AfD updated, is this ok now? --Tone 08:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! But per the new comment, apparently not. Might be better to relist and re-close after another week. I think a third AfD is overkill—AfD in the first place was overkill. czar 16:53, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see. As I said at the beginning, the merge can be carried out outside the AfD process, unless some editors strongly object the merge? --Tone 18:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has nominated the article for deletion twice despite not having a deletion argument. And now we'll open a third discussion? It's just abuse of process. No one has put forth any sources other than the singular one listed and the topic already has a sufficient section within its merge target because it hasn't been covered independently from its creator. Retracting the close and relisting the AfD would give another week to confirm consensus, though it's a shame that that's even necessary. czar 20:11, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar:, @Andy Dingley:, I think you two should discuss what do do here. The consensus was clearly not to delete, you can solve the merge outside AfD. If I were you, I'd just go WP:BOLD. --Tone 21:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Czar, every year you come back and blank this article. But you don't get to decide on your own, we have AfD. Twice now, AfD has decided not to delete or blank the article as you have wanted and you're going to have to live with that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you're making this personal. The article cites one source and fits within the scope of an existing article. No one has argued for outright deletion so AfD was the wrong venue twice over. Do you object to merger? Because that appears to be the consensus of the last AfD. czar 21:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, please take further discussion to the article talkpage for easier follow-up ;) I think my work here as admin is done. --Tone 21:28, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Andy disagrees with redirection/merger, then I'd request that you relist the existing AfD rather than require another to be opened. Sorry to bother you on your talk page but this could have been avoided had the AfD been closed more precisely. czar 21:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not relisting. It's been closed for several weeks, relisting makes little sense. --Tone 08:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting is standard procedure when the consensus was interpreted incorrectly. You've already said that "merge" was the proper outcome (not "keep"). If you're now unwilling to relist/close it yourself, would you prefer that the closure go through review? Because I don't trust a talk page discussion in a vacuum to be productive at this point. czar 18:48, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got too involved here. I'd prefer an uninvolved admin sort this out. A DRV sounds fine. --Tone 19:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Deletion review#Cincinnati Time Store – (no longer watching, please {{ping}} if needed) czar 19:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Werd_(SOS)

Tone,

Why was the page Werd (SOS) removed? If it could have been cleaned up? I tend to sometimes update, and have just been asked for a discography and bio for Edinburgh Press for an upcoming charity rap battle event. Can you please send me the pages information it had before, or restore the artist page? I think it's unfair you have deleted this. I hope it's not a personal attack as Drew / Werd does much for the music scene and genre here in Scotland.

Please let me know. I needed this for press release today and don’t have a copy.

Hi! The page was deleted following a discussion. First, check the arguments made there. If you can address them, I can make the old article a draft so you can improve it. Best, --Tone 13:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) --Tone 17:08, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Football League lore (2nd nomination)

Hi Tone, just wanted to notify you that though you closed this AfD as delete, the article was not deleted. Was there a reason for this? Natg 19 (talk) 22:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Must have been an error in the script-assisted deletion. Thanks for checking! --Tone 08:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion

Hi Tone. YOu deleted many long years of hard work for my personal page Justin Boller. All of my references provided are correct. Please help resolve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdmproducer (talk • contribs) 21:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the deletion was the result of the discussion, I just closed it. There are ways to get the article back but please check the discussion first. Best, --Tone 21:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April Carrión

I personally would like to see it relisted, I didn't see it at the time, and if possible, I'd like some of User:Ratherbe2000's updates to be considered. I thought I'd reach out to you before considering other options. If nothing else, I'd like to see it considered without the original author's enthusiasm for keeping it regardless of anything else.Naraht (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I propose you move it to draft space and then submit it to be moved to mainspace. I think this is the easiest way that also gives you a chance to improve the article. Let me know if you need any help with the process. --Tone 21:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hi! Seems you have not deleted La-La Land Records despite closing it per AfD. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for the notice ;) --Tone 21:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tone: I am really sorry if I am annoying you, but seems like List of Walt Disney and Buena Vista video releases had the same script error of not being deleted. No problem, always there to help in AfD!
Not bothering at all. Things like this happen. For the second one, it seems I cannot delete it since it has over 5000 revisions (wow!) and one needs steward's tools to do that. Would you mind asking a steward or shall I? Best, --Tone 21:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tone: I am not sure I know how to do that. By the way, there is a third one undeleted as well at John Evans (supercentenarian). Bad luck with scripting I guess, I noticed the script failed lots of admins recently too. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your deletion

13:13, 14 November 2018 Tone (talk | contribs) deleted page Pyorrhoea (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyorrhoea (2nd nomination

You may also want to delete empty Category:Pyorrhoea albums

Paradox (theorem prover) talk page

Sorry to trouble you but most grateful if you are able to restore and do the necessary templating for Talk:Paradox (theorem prover), thanks. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Thanks, it seems that the revert and re-close did not fix it automatically. --Tone 17:19, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Tone. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bai Antoniou

Hi,

Just getting in touch re an article you deleted in 2016: Bai Antoniou. Bai made his debut for Alki Oroklini in the Cypriot First Divison yesterday and so now passes WP:NFOOTY. He has also attracted more coverage through his move to Cyprus (e.g. here) so I believe the page should now be restored. Cheers, Macosal (talk) 02:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, restoring. Please take care that the article is updated. --Tone 09:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misao Okawa (2nd nomination)

Can you restore the history of that page, there is currently a massive wave of attempts of deletion of supercentenarians, with further discussion it appears consensus is now moving toward keeping. I was hoping to work on the article in my space but I need the history to see what expansion can be made and what sources can be added. This person is the 9th oldest person ever lived. Valoem talk contrib 17:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History restored. Wow, over 1000 revisions? --Tone 22:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are we overturning consensus, a consensus that matches a bunch of other recent AfDs? Legacypac (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I restored history due to a request to have a look at the content, I did not restore the article, which should still be a redirect. I see no problem here. --Tone 11:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Shafiqul Islam Masud (2nd nomination)

Hi, Is it usual to close an AfD with only two votes after just one week? Obviously, I should have voted earlier, even last night (Australian time) when it was still open, but it was late, and I thought with so few votes it would likely be relisted. I still have the page open on my browser, to consider it today, so I am able to see all the content and references in it. I do not think that the assessment of notability was done on the right criteria. This man's claim to notability is not in being an unelected politican, but in being a party leader imprisoned under the country's Special Power Act for 3 years. He was arrested with others, but as the source headlines indicate, as party leader he was the only one named. The sources given in the previous AfD, including the Wall Street Journal [1], and The Guardian [2] and the arguments there (including WP:POLOUTCOMES 'Political figures not elected to public office': "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success") resulted in a Keep, and the sources had not been included in the article. The nom for this 2nd AfD claimed that he was non-notable as an "unelected candidate", but in fact he has not stood for election until this year, in an election to be held on 30 December 2018. (He was also arrested again this year [3], which is not in the article.) I believe that there are arguments and evidence not considered in this AfD, and I am rather suspicious of the nom's motives when the election is so close. (As a matter of interest, I am in Australia and have no connection to or specialist knowledge of or interest in Bangladeshi politics; I just like to consider all evidence at AfDs). RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from the procedural point of view, closing after a week with three participants (nom + 2) is uncontroversial. But you make a strong point with new arguments that were not presented in the discussion. I suggest you list the article at WP:DRV where I will support speedy relisting in order to generate further discussion. --Tone 11:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm fairly new to taking part in AfDs, so I wasn't sure. I will definitely keep that in mind for future AfDs! I have listed the article at DRV, as you suggested - it tells me to put this on your page - Thanks for your help and advice! RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Shafiqul Islam Masud

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Shafiqul Islam Masud. 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. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Committee room

Could you consider relisting this? I don't really see how this gets us a consensus to keep. The one editor who provided sources said that they were mostly not reliable. Sandstein 20:14, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can do that. Let's see. --Tone 08:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of World Heritage sites in Austria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heiligenkreuz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Year in Review

 The WikiChevrons 
For your work on List of World Heritage sites in Serbia (which included Smederevo Fortress and Limes) and List of World Heritage sites in Montenegro (which includes Venetian Works of Defence between the 16th and 17th centuries: Stato da Terra – western Stato da Mar) you are hereby awarded these WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! How nice :) --Tone 20:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Media deletion

Hi, I've no objections to the deletion of this page (in fact I was going to add my Delete !vote to it) but I notice you have not allowed the AfD to run for the full 168 hours. HighKing++ 17:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, about an hour short, now that I checked. My bad. I will keep that in mind if the closure is challenged. Thanks for the note ;) --Tone 17:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You also closed all these early: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Daria_Komarkova, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirin Mazaheri, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amisha Basnet, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binita Baral, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoppelsberg (Sinn valley), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey Muruthi (2nd nomination). --Michig (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they all fall in the same case as above. --Tone 19:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey Muruthi (2nd nomination) please? I have found the following sources: Straits Times: "Stacey Muruthi, who made his debut for the national team at the age of 16 and went on to play for the country for 32 years until 2001", "He's one of Singapore cricket's favourite sons. But in a few years' time, national cricketer Stacey Muruthi could be given another tag as one of the founding fathers of the future national senior team", Singapore Star: "Singapore’s captain Stacey Muruthi shared the limelight with Malaysia’s captain Suresh Menon to lift the Grimberg trophy.". The article didn't make it clear, and it doesn't appear to have been discussed in the AfD, but it appears that not only did this man play cricket for a long time, he played for the Singapore national team for 32 years, including captaining it. Apparent failure of WP:BEFORE. --Michig (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. I relisted the AfD in order to give it more time. Good work with finding the sources! --Tone 19:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Michig (talk) 20:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daria Lopatetska

Back the page of Daria Lopatetska, please. She had won two more titles in ITF, TOP-350 of WTA ranking, but you deleted her page without any reason.

Hi! The article was deleted following a discussion. The argument was that the notability was not quite there yet but that the article can be brought back at some later point. Give it a year. --Tone 20:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of 'Mainak Misra' article today

Dear Tone,

Today you have deleted 'Mainak Misra' article. You mentioned that there was no source of reference for this article. I beg to differ that. The first reference under 'References' section (reference number: 1) is about an esteemed 'Spotlight' newspaper report about Mainak Misra on Deccan Chronicle which is the most popular newspaper in South India. Most of the early life and back ground you can find in this newspaper report. Mainak Misra is an international award winning film director which you can find out from Filmfreeway website (Reference Number-6) wherein all the festival selections have been mentioned. Without film festival selections, official selections cannot be claimed on Filmfreeway. Please bring back the article and let me know if you need any clarification. Wish you a very happy new year !! Manishachatterjee96 (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I suggest the following: rewrite the article in the draft space, then ask for reassessment. That should work best. In the process, you can address all issues that other editors may have. Good luck! --Tone 07:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Tone,

Thank you for your suggestions. As per your suggestions, I have rewritten the article on my 'sandbox'. Could you please review it and let me know the next steps Manishachatterjee96 (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I suggest you move the article to the draft space, it is easier to find it than in the sandbox. After a quick look, it needs more inline citations. Then, go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation and follow the instructions there. They will be able to help you out. Let me know if you need any help with that ;) --Tone 22:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tone,

Thank you for your guidance. As per your suggestions, I have added inline citations, moved the article to draft space (Draft:Mainak Misra) from sandbox, and requested for review. Could you please review it. Thank you once again. Manishachatterjee96 (talk) 08:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see the cinematic style section has no references, and there is an orange tag with some issues that you have to address. Otherwise, you are following the procedure well, sooner or later someone will have a look and assess it. It won't be me, since I closed the AfD, so I'd prefer someone neutral. Tone 07:14, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Tone,

Thank you very much for your guidance. My article got rejected by an editor. Even if I consider the scope of improvement in 'Cinematic Style' section, how can somebody bluntly reject an article when all the notable references have already been mentioned. Please help me with the next step. Thanks much for your continuous guidance. Manishachatterjee96 (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I believe other editors have issues with notability. Check WP:CREATIVE. Perhaps a better approach is to wait some time until the director has produced more works, therefore being easier to establish notability. --Tone 22:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tone,

Thanks much. I will follow the same as per your suggestions. Have a nice day !! Manishachatterjee96 (talk) 21:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


About creating the page of "O'Darien Bassett"

Dear Tone,

Hi!

If I really want to create the page of "O'Darien Bassett" with reliable references this time.

Is that still possible?

Please check the draft version below:

Thank you, looking forward to your reply.

Regards, Tszyeung1988

Hi! I moved the draft to the draftspace, Draft:O'Darien Bassett. You can ask for a review there but first you have to make sure that the notability requirements are met - which was an issue in the deletion discussion. Good luck! --Tone 07:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Tone,

Thanks for your sincere reply.

However, where could I find the button to ask for reviewing of the draft page.

Thank you.

Regards, Tszyeung1988 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tszyeung1988 (talk • contribs) 09:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation and mention that the article was previously deleted. They will guide you from there ;) --Tone 16:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reconsider deleting List of HD DVD devices

Hi Tone,

Would you please reconsider your deletion of all the work on HD DVD Devices?

People in the social media forums just this week are talking about how they can't get access to the information they were wanting there.

The list is just a "list of devices" but demonstrates the short lived, yet energetic production of competing hardware. To delete this history well obscures what went on in this era. I can see a simple list being perceived at a glance as being not so useful but actually showing prices from 2007, which was somehow criticized as be archaic, actually helps people understand the relative high prices of this technology at the time. There is a ton of context that a list like this creates.

Anyway, it was a very useful reference article as in helping quickly understand what was commercially available, now just a dead link from the main article. Very sad that this is the normal way the site seems to be run. Over and over articles removed because a single editor thinks of the content as irrelevant or "not notable"... very arbitrary system. I doubt I will be updating any more pages as the whole site seems corrupt and arbitrary. But please! Prove me wrong! Something that doesn't require I quit my job and study Wikipedia legal code to save some content a group finds interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcsutherland (talk • contribs) 08:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! After looking at the nomination, there was indeed only a limited discussion. I will relist it so that more input can be obtained. Present the arguments there, that should help. Good luck! --Tone 17:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wirex Entry Deletion Review

Hi Tone, I'd like to request that the Wirex deletion is reviewed. The redone page had nothing promotional and had reputable secondary sources. What is the process here? Vance Carver (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I believe the best approach is to recreate the article in draft space and then ask for it to be moved to main space. I can provide you content if you need it. Best, --Tone 14:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tone, if you could help me provide content for a new entry, that would be great. Vance Carver (talk) 09:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, where to? --Tone 07:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tone, could you send to my email angrysalad486 at gmail.com? Thanks for your help. Vance Carver (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITN Shivakumara Swami

Thanks a lot for posting the Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted)_RD:_Shivakumara_Swami, Can you please also give the credits. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Skeem

Hi Tone. You closed the deletion discussion for this but forgot to remove the AfD template from the article. I'm reluctant to do this myself because I'm not sure if there are any more housekeeping steps that need to be done in the article or its talk page, so could you do the honours when you get a moment? Phil Bridger (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for noticing. Must be because there was a redirect done at some point. Did it manually now. --Tone 18:56, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

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

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Root analogue dental implant

Hi Tone, You have decided that the article should be kept. It may have been overlooked that this is a) an article of a SPA, b) it is an advertisement for a procedure, which is no established knowledge c) the procedure does not have any scientific references, d) it is the content of a website from Vienna, which says explicitly ""Please support the BioImplant™ crowdfunding campaign! After 12 years of successful use in our clinic, BioImplant™ is still custom made and only available in Vienna. So the next step is to make this implant solution generally available." See http://www.bioimplant.at/crowdfund/ and http://www.bioimplant.at Best regards --Partynia (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the rationale I stated that the consensus was not to delete, which is why I kept the article. You can perform a merge or redirect yourself if you think it is appropriate. I don't have a particular opinion here ;) --Tone 15:57, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tone, no merge, no redirect. The content is bullshit, made by one single Austrian dentist. --Partynia (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot straightforward delete the article once the AfD had the outcome it had. You could either renominate it as AfD, which will have an uncertain outcome, or make a redirect, which fixes the problem in my opinion. Since this is outside my expert knowledge, I trust you know it better. --Tone 21:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, now it´s a redirect :-) But it´s not an established procedure. A Review from August 2018 says (https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.34147): "Recent technological advances have focused on novel strategies for modification of zirconia‐based surfaces to accelerate osseointegration. However, only a few studies revealed mechanical and biological benefits of custom‐made root‐analogue zirconia implants and therefore further studies should investigate the influence of different design and surface modification on the performance of such implants." --Partynia (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

your revert

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Slovenia&oldid=prev&diff=882327139 "too technical"?? Public holidays as part of a country's culture are "too technical"?? Given your role as an administrator, I would suggest you either refine your arguments or your actions, or both.-- Kku (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough room to explain everything in the edit summary ;) The article Slovenia intends to cover all main aspects of Slovenia but since it's a country, there are tons of things that should be included. Public holidays are one of hundreds of relevant topics. This is why the Outline of Slovenia is linked in See also - that is the place to go for those links. --Tone 09:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TFL notification

Hi, Tone. I'm just posting to let you know that List of World Heritage sites in Croatia – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for March 18. 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) 23:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

deleted article still in draftspace

Hello. I noticed that somehow Howza ilmeya jamia jaffria still exists in the form of Draft:Howza ilmeya jamia jaffria. The article's creator, Sharief123 is close to a SPA - over 1/4 of their 284 edits are to Syed Jawad Naqvi, the president of the supposed Howza ilmeya jamia jaffria college - and I suspect it will rise out of its draft-y grave given the least chance. Would you please delete it? Thanks, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 11:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I see correctly, the draft has been deleted already? --Tone 17:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It has now, yes. Legacypac tagged it as a G4 (CSD's one of my weaker areas & it didn't occur to me), and someone took care of it. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Articles for deletion/Irexit Freedom

Hi Tone, you deleted this last year. May I ask, who was the original article creator? Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 16:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was User:Anticitizen 98, back in September 2018. --Tone 18:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

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

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intellitech

Hi. I hereby request that Intellitech be moved to draft space. I believe deletion discussion was closed on vote majority, not on consensus. As the company develops software and hardware for IC testing, it is hard to expect such company could have "mainstream" media coverage. Its coverage is mainly IEEE website and their announcements. They have set many IEEE standards which are now used in equipment testing. Thank you in advance. --Plaxie (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Will do! --Tone 12:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article: Jason Horsley

Hi, I’m new to this process so excuse me, but I believe you’re the administrator to contact regarding the deletion of this page. It appears the page was deleted for “extensive self-publishing”, but all but two of Horsley’s works have been with mainstream, and sometimes major, publishers. How do we open a dialogue around maybe getting the page reinstated?

Thanks,

Chris Inequals (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting Horsley

Jason Horsley is not self published. All of his books are published by real publishing companies that he does not own. I don't understand why anyone would think he is self-published. A quick look at Amazon would clear that up. He is very notable; his work is recognized by prominent intellectuals such as James Howard Kunstler and Jonathan Lethem, and he writes frequently for various publications.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tone/Archive_23&oldid=888519067"