If I have nominated your article for deletion, removed your content or reverted your change and you would like to know why,
please review the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, among others that may be mentioned in a message I left on your Talk page:

WP:N (General Notability) WP:BIO (Person Notability) WP:ORG (Company or Group Notability) WP:WEB (Web Content Notability) WP:BLP (Biographies of living persons policies)

WP:MUSIC (Musician or Band Notability) WP:V (Verifiability) WP:RS (Reliable Sources) WP:COPY (Copyright)

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2017).

Administrator changes

Joe Roe

JzG

Ericorbit • Perceval • Thingg • Tristanb • Violetriga

Guideline and policy news

• Following a request for comment, a new section has been added to the username policy which disallows usernames containing emoji, emoticons or otherwise "decorative" usernames, and usernames that use any non-language symbols. Administrators should discuss issues related to these types of usernames before blocking.

Technical news

• Wikimedians are now invited to vote on the proposals in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey on Meta Wiki until 10 December 2017. In particular, there is a section of the survey regarding new tools for administrators and for anti-harassment.
• A new function is available to edit filter managers which can be used to store matches from regular expressions.

Arbitration

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open until Sunday 23:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC). There are 12 candidates running for 8 vacant seats.

Miscellaneous

• Over the last few months, several users have reported backlogs that require administrator attention at WP:ANI, with the most common backlogs showing up on WP:SPI, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. It is requested that all administrators take some time during this month to help clear backlogs wherever possible. It should be noted that AIV reports are not always valid; however, they still need to be cleared, which may include needing to remind users on what qualifies as vandalism.
• The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative is conducting a survey for English Wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works (i.e. which problems it deals with well and which problems it struggles with). If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be emailed to you via Special:EmailUser.

Hello, General Ization. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, General Ization. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When I fixed grammar in wikiHow article (changed one sentence from past perfect to present perfect) I was indicted for vandalism by General Ization, which is not considerable as reasonable for me. Even if I did a mistake in that sentence by misunderstanding, it shouldn't be considered as vandalism at least.

Do I not understand something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamro2000 (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC) ‎Hamro2000 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamro2000: Yes, apparently you do not understand English grammar. Whether or not you find it "considerable as reasonable", please stop making grammar "corrections" to articles here which in fact introduce grammatical and other errors, as well as edits that deviate from our Wikipedia Manual of Style. Your continuing to do so after already being warned represents vandalism. General Ization ^Talk 18:44, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I made this weird edit. It obviously didn't fit my edit summary. You were right. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: Perhaps it's late where you are (as it is here). No worries. General Ization ^Talk 05:36, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2017 News Hello copy editors! Welcome to the December 2017 GOCE newsletter, which contains nine months(!) of updates. The Guild has been busy and successful; your diligent efforts in 2017 has brought the backlog of articles requiring copy edit to below 1,000 articles for the first time. Thanks to all editors who have contributed their time and energy to help make this happen. >>> Sign up for the January Drive! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator Elections! <<< Our copy-editing drives (month-long backlog-reduction drives held in odd-numbered months) and blitzes (week-long themed editing in even-numbered months) have been very successful this year. March drive: We set out to remove April, May, and June 2016 from our backlog and all February 2017 Requests (a total of 304 articles). By the end of the month, all but 22 of these articles were cleared. Officially, of the 28 who signed up, 22 editors recorded 257 copy edits (439,952 words). (These numbers do not always make sense when you compare them to the overall reduction in the backlog, because not all editors record every copy edit on the drive page.) April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 16 through 22 April; the theme was Requests. Of the 15 who signed up, 9 editors completed 43 articles (81,822 words). May drive: The goals were to remove July, August, and September 2016 from the backlog and to complete all March 2017 Requests (a total of 300 articles). By the end of the month, we had reduced our overall backlog to an all-time low of 1,388 articles. Of the 28 who signed up, 17 editors completed 187 articles (321,810 words). June blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 18 through 24 June; the theme was Requests. Of the 16 who signed up, 9 editors completed 28 copy edits (117,089 words). 2017 Coordinator elections: In June, coordinators for the second half of 2017 were elected. Jonesey95 moved back into the lead coordinator position, with Miniapolis stepping down to remain as coordinator; Tdslk and Corinne returned as coordinators, and Keira1996 rejoined after an extended absence. Thanks to all who participated! July drive: We set out to remove August, September, October, and November 2016 from the backlog and to complete all May and June 2017 Requests (a total of 242 articles). The drive was an enormous success, and the target was nearly achieved within three weeks, so that December 2016 was added to the "old articles" list used as a goal for the drive. By the end of the month, only three articles from 2016 remained, and for the second drive in a row, the backlog was reduced to a new all-time low, this time to 1,363 articles. Of the 33 who signed up, 21 editors completed 337 articles (556,482 words). August blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 20 through 26 August; the theme was biographical articles tagged for copy editing for more than six months (47 articles). Of the 13 who signed up, 11 editors completed 38 copy edits (42,589 words). September drive: The goals were to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all August 2017 Requests (a total of 338 articles). Of the 19 who signed up, 14 editors completed 121 copy edits (267,227 words). October blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 22 through 28 October; the theme was Requests. Of the 14 who signed up, 8 editors completed 20 articles (55,642 words). November drive: We set out again to remove January, February, and March 2017 from the backlog and to complete all October 2017 Requests (a total of 207 articles). By the end of the month, these goals were reached and the backlog shrank to its lowest total ever, 997 articles, the first time it had fallen under one thousand (click on the graph above to see this amazing feat in graphical form). It was also the first time that the oldest copy-edit tag was less than eight months old. Of the 25 who signed up, 16 editors completed 159 articles (285,929 words). 2018 Coordinator elections: Voting is open for the election of coordinators for the first half of 2018. Please visit the election page to vote between now and December 31 at 23:59 (UTC). Thanks for participating! Housekeeping note: We do not send a newsletter before (or after) every drive or blitz. To have a better chance of knowing when the next event will start, add the GOCE's message box to your watchlist. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Corinne, Tdslk, and Keira1996. >>> Sign up for the January Drive! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator Elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 02:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2.6.38.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please block this user immediately. I'll start cleaning up. Thanks nagualdesign 14:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...Oh, looks like you did all the tidying already. nagualdesign 14:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:69.126.139.22. Thank you. FormalDude talk 22:54, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Think I have that one covered. Review the IP's edit and its timing v/v other edits and the immediately preceding block pertaining to that same article. Also note that adding a "citation needed" template (even if improperly applied) as any IP's very first edit is suspect (especially when removing a perfectly reliable citation in the same edit). General Ization ^Talk 22:58, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I do see those edits by the blocked user. But it looks like that citation that User:69.126.139.22 removed was actually a citation to a dead link, and therefore good faith. I just deleted it myself. So that may not have been the same user on a different IP, and therefore doesn't warrant an immediate level 5 warning. FormalDude talk 03:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FormalDude, we don't remove deadlinks. They are the evidence needed for someone to track down a source that might be live or archived. Please restore it, and please ping me here. Maybe I can find it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:53, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: I already replaced it with a link to archive.org. General Ization ^Talk 04:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: I did not know. Thank you and sorry for the trouble. —FormalDude talk 07:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I can understand the Wikipedia policies, and how far can go the admin's power. However, did I delete or edited a legitimate talk page comment? I only asked why he undone all my work, bringing back the page to a poorer condition. Then the conversation is disappeared and I sent a new message? Did I do something bad? Maybe the conversation has been deleted by me? If it's so, then I must have done it by mistake. All what I wanted was to improve the article about the Boves massacre, then I wanted know why my work has been deleted. We had a conversation, then it's vanished (maybe by my fault, I don't know) so I reposted it. My meaning was to help Wikipedia, not to make a damage, but if you think what I do is bad for the project then I can also quit, for the Wikipedia's sake. Do you wanna see the vanished conversation, so you can have a better idea on what's happened? Best regards, Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlie Foxtrot66: Hohum made a conscious decision to remove your comments from their Talk page here. Your restoring the comments, as here, and by doing so overriding the editor's decision, constitutes harassment. If you think that Hohum has acted improperly, you can take up the issue at the Administrator's Noticeboard, but don't repeatedly restore your comments at that editor's Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 18:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlie Foxtrot66: Also, you might actually read the replies you had already received to your questions, which appear to me to be legitimate answers to them, whether or not you like them. General Ization ^Talk 18:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it's fine. I am sorry for my bad behaviour, I only wanted to give a help. Maybe is better if I stop working on Wikipedia and I let you do it that you can do better? I am sure that you can edit the Boves massacre and many other articles much better than how I do, even if I don't understand why you didn't do it yet. You know, it's a work, and I am not getting payed, I cannot take the risk of seeing everything deleted in this way, maybe is better if you edit the articles and I spend my time in some other way. Have a nice evening Charlie Foxtrot66 (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlie Foxtrot66: We agree then that it will be better for you to stop editing Wikipedia if you are not prepared to work collaboratively with other editors, for them to revert your edits when they are found to be less than constructive, and to listen when they give you good advice. General Ization ^Talk 16:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So ask it by your self, you igniorant . Tell the truth . Do you know what arberesh are ? When you dont know a thing take a step back . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.129.245 (talk) 19:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what the Arbëreshë people are. Do you know that when they immigrate to the United States, they are still Italian Americans? Do not attack other editors here unless you would like to be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 20:16, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits at the Mauro Milhomem entry on List of rampage killers, you may also want edit the Mauro Milhomem page on Amok Wiki. Can you give me more information about the case?