User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
8		Joint Publishing (talk)	Add sources
101		Rhett and Link's Buddy System (talk)	Add sources
9		Louis Trauth Dairy (talk)	Add sources
23		Day of Prayer (talk)	Add sources
2,029		Casualties of the September 11 attacks (talk)	Add sources
4		KMB Football Team (talk)	Add sources
188		Licinius (talk)	Cleanup
51		Epitaxial wafer (talk)	Cleanup
205		Campfire (talk)	Cleanup
16		World Student Christian Federation (talk)	Expand
1,853		MGM Resorts International (talk)	Expand
31		Dreams Sports Club (talk)	Expand
22		Hong Kong bus route numbering (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
68		Low-flush toilet (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
5		Evangelistic Association Of The East (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
12		Malankara Metropolitan (talk)	Merge
786		Double Ninth Festival (talk)	Merge
12		Privatization of public toilets (talk)	Merge
142		Soul in the Bible (talk)	Wikify
2		Community Sant Egidio (talk)	Wikify
4		Church of Christ in Japan (talk)	Wikify
4		Darwin Rise (talk)	Orphan
6		Carolyn Gillette (talk)	Orphan
5		Hillsong Conference 2006 (talk)	Orphan
10		Easter hotspot (talk)	Stub
8		Cobb hotspot (talk)	Stub
9		Tasmantid hotspot (talk)	Stub
24		Macdonald hotspot (talk)	Stub
8		Pitcairn hotspot (talk)	Stub
6		Marquesas hotspot (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Dale Mitchell (ice hockey)

Hey, Why is Dale Mitchell (ice hockey) deleted. It's a huge article I've been working on. Now it's gone... JonasJepsen (talk) 13:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, @JonasJepsen: According to this discussion there are not enough independent reliable sources that talk about Mr. Mitchell to justify an article on him. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you could send me the article, so I can work on it and get more reliable sources, instead of just deleting the page? JonasJepsen (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

You can ask on WP:REFUND. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Name of the Catholic Church

Would you consider amending your close here to be delete and redirect. I disagree with your reading of ATD-R in this case: there was not a strong argument put forth as to why the history should be preserved, and there were arguments put forth for why the content shouldn't exist. I don't think the redirect is particularly useful either, but I could see an argument for it, and I agree with you RfD is better suited for that at AfD. I just don't see an argument in policy or that discussion for keeping the history. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I was using ATD-R solely to decide/explain whether the page should be blank or a redirect, not whether the page history needed to stay (the result of the "redirect" outcome) or go (which is what "delete and redirect" means). As for whether the history should be deleted or not, I don't think that a page containing falsehoods is usually a reason to erase the history as well, especially on an indef protected page. Is there a specific concern with keeping the history? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Its definitely not a reason for revision deletion, but WP:DEL7 and WP:DEL5 give good reasons for why the page should be deleted rather than redirected: some of the content that was not already in other articles could not possibly be attributed to reliable sourcing and if reused elsewhere would only serve to further one end of the naming dispute conflict. Getting rid of the history would make sure that if a spinout happened in the future, it would be a consensus article developed from articles that have significantly more eyes on them rather than repurposing of a content fork. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Meh, did the desired amendment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Much appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-44

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• You can now block users from emailing you through the Wikimedia wikis. [1]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 31 October. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 1 November. It will be on all wikis from 2 November (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 31 October at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 1 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

00:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Submitting new draft for review for deleted page of 10,000ft

Hello Jo-Jo Eumerus, based on suggestions by other editors, I have created a new draft for an article on 10,000ft in my user space. Can you please help review it at your convenience and make suggestions for improvements before we can move it into article space? You can find the draft at User:Shyamh/10,000ft. Thank you. shyam-habarakada (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, @Shyamh:. I'll respond on your talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

thank you @Jo-Jo Eumerus: shyam-habarakada (talk) 21:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for redirecting the article on The Sad But True Story of Ray Mingus to the article Sex & Violins - I was not too bothered about whether this article got redirected to Sex & Violins or the Rednex. Vorbee (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

About the article Mofia Tonjo Akobo

Hi Jo-Jo,

• article initially created 13 July 2016
• nominated for deletion 11 August 2016
• deleted 26 August 2016
• re-created 3 November 2017
• nominated for WP:G4 speedy deletion by me the same date

Now here's the problem:

• It would appear that the subject of article meets WP:Politician - Akobo is twice described as Nigeria's "Oil Minister" in The New York Times here and here.
• OK, so I thought to myself, just edit the article, decline the WP:G4... but the re-created article is in the words of WP:G4 "substantially identical to the deleted version", and against the Wikipedia:Consensus outcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mofia Tonjo Akobo.

What do you think about this? Maybe Draft:Mofia Tonjo Akobo might be a solution? Should such a draft include the revision history of the current and deleted articles?
Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, @Shirt58: As the speedy deletion policy notes that G4 does not apply when the previous deletion reason no longer applies, and if they (Akobo) are now oil minister then they'd now meet NPOL and the previous deletion reason would be no longer valid. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

CommonsTicker

Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus. It's definitely doable from a technical perspective. How would you like to see this implemented? Did you have a specific notification format/scheme in mind? Regards, FASTILY 23:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, @Fastily:. Not being an actual programmer I can only comment on how it might look like from the user interface, not on how it would work technically or on whether it's actually technically possible/feasible:

• A bot could post {{ffdc}} or a similar on pages (including userspace, in case the file is part of a draft) that have a certain file when it is nominated for deletion on Commons. That would work for people who watchlist their articles, may work for people who use the file in userspace drafts (if the bot is allowed to edit in userspace) and might not work for people who upload a file but don't use it immediately (such as @Giano:, who however uploads only locally).
  • Alternatively, the bot could post a notice on the talkpages of the pages used.
• Edits made to Commons file may display on the enwiki watchlist if you have the local filepage watchlist. That's the same item as phab:T91192, but it'd require changes in the MediaWiki software and as @Legoktm: noted we've had issues lately with recentchanges functions that could impact this.
• A bot could notify uploaders of Commons files on enwiki when their files are nominated for deletion on Commons. Principal issue I see is that not everyone who has uploaded on Commons might want to be notified on enwiki, so the bot would need a list of interested/not interested people.

That's just for deletions. Personally I'd prefer #1 in my list but it's solely a personal preference and other people might disagree. Another complaint I've seen (by @Iridescent:) are reuploads on Commons files that degrade their quality but I suspect that needs a different task, although some concepts here might help on that as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Note to self

As time permits, create the following:

• Ngatemato seamounts
• Tarava seamounts, also known as the Savannah seamounts
• Taukina seamounts

More arguably, considering the sheer amount of material:

• Foundation seamounts
• Macdonald hotspot
• Macdonald seamount

To add to the lakes list:

• Lake Cancosa

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

In addition, add inline citations to the paragraph of neopluvial, see if anything on de:Diskussion:Ausbruch des Samalas 1257 can be used on 1257 Samalas eruption and whether Lascar (volcano) would make a good DYK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Done and done, but it looks like the 2800m height that @Sextant: flagged as implausible on the Samalas article is in the source - perhaps the source itself made a typo (800->2800m)? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Also try to fix Bowie Seamount and Mount Tambora. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 12:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Cleaned up the Bowie page and sent Tambora to FA review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:15, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Made the seamount chain pages, now only Macdonald seamount and Lake Cancosa left. Seems like it is better to have a combined "Macdonald seamount + Macdonald hotspot" page and only then split material over to the hotspot page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Got this all done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-45

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• You will no longer see the patrol log on Special:Log unless you specifically select it. [2]

Changes later this week

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey begins on 6 November. You can post proposals from 19:00 UTC and until November 19.
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 November. It will be on all wikis from 9 November (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 8 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• URLs that link to sections on Wikimedia wikis with non-Latin scripts have looked like this: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия#.D0.98.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BE.D1.80.D0.B8.D1.8F instead of https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия#История. This will soon be fixed. Old links will still work. [3][4]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Selena Zhao

Main page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selena Zhao

Moved this to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 November 7#Selena Zhao for wider input. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Jo-Jo Eumerus, Please do not delete @Selena Zhao's page, or have more discussion. I believe Selena Zhao's page deserves to be maintained--she is a respected figure skater who barely missed qualifying for the Junior World's long program by 2 spots (or 1 point), and earned 3rd (medal position) in the long program at a senior international with a strong field, defeating two olympians (representing Japan and Australia). Although she only won the junior national title, this is in Canada, a very large and prominent country with a strong ladies field, as opposed to many other countries with weaker ladies fields. If you compare her personal best scores to many senior national champions in other nations, her scores are well above theirs. She is also a notable athlete-scholar, as she is attending Harvard University (graduating 2020) and likely has future accomplishments and articles that will continue to be published to substantiate the page. I understand that Wikipedia is attempting to streamline the site for extraneous pages but I truly would appreciate keeping this page, and really appreciate your consideration for a very borderline case. 65.112.8.193 (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Well, according to WP:NSKATE only senior winners are considered to be notable by default. We cannot rely on potential future accomplishments as they might not happen (WP:CRYSTALBALL). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC) @Jo-Jo Emerus Skaters can also be considered notable for medaling at a Senior B, for which Zhao earned 3rd in the free program amidst a highly competitive field, unlike many other Senior Bs (which can be substantiated by comparing scores across competitions). She was also 1 point away from qualifying for the free skate at World Juniors. As this is a highly borderline case, greater consideration would truly be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.193 (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Let's see if the people in the AfD would agree: @Academicoffee71, Hergilei, and 18abruce: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC) @Jo-Jo Emerus thank you for the consideration! At 2015 Junior Worlds, Zhao's short score was 44.22, whereas the long-qualifying score was 45.24. Her personal best in the short is 51.11, which is well above that score, and she was competing with the flu at the event. Her free skate score of 106.26 ranked third in the long at the Salt Lake City Senior B, a particularly competitive field including World silver medalist Satoko Miyahara. This long program score ranked above current US olympic hopefuls Karen Chen and Mariah Bell. Medaling at a senior international also varies greatly on the difficulty of the event; for example, at the Reykjavik Int'l Games this year, the same score (157.03) would have won the senior event. There are also SkateCanada, Icenetwork, and Golden Skate articles featuring Zhao, which are the most prominent news sources in skating. Lastly, Zhao is a notable scholar-athlete currently attending Harvard University and still performing in fundraising shows such as Evening with Champions, which continues to receive news coverage annually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.193 (talk) 21:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Medals are awarded for overall placement. She finished third in the sp, but finished fifth overall. So no I do not think this article should be restored. Also the IP address traces back to Harvard University [5], so I wonder if this is in fact Ms. Zhao and therefore there would be a WP:COI. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2017 (UTC) I would say first that she came 5th in her only entry in a 'Senior B' competition according to her official ISU results page, she did not medal. Coming close in a world juniors when she could (or had) perfomed better does not move me. Still a clear NSKATE fail. If in fact there is a case of a GNG pass, then present the sources to be evaluated and an undelete would be appropriate. I do not think that skate canada would qualify as being independent, I found one good golden skate article, maybe there is more. I wish you well in your endeavours, I have no issue with being wrong if that turns out to be the case.18abruce (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC) Unfortunately this is not "Ms. Zhao," although this is indeed coming from Harvard University. What sources would be relevant for a GNG pass, could you elaborate? Icenetwork (http://web.icenetwork.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120916&content_id=38517104&vkey=ice_news) and a Canadian news site (http://www.thewhig.com/2015/01/21/zhao-doesnt-disappoint) are also available online other than the Golden Skate article. What is the argument for maintaining arguably arbitrary and binary screening standards in the case of potential exceptions? The encyclopedia can surely support a few extra pages, and the benefits to be gained by restoring the page can surely outweigh any costs. Can the page be restored temporarily to retrieve the information within it before redeletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.193 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2017 (UTC) @Jo-Jo Eumerus can a temporarily undeletion be requested to retrieve the information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.193 (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Lots comments while I was busy. I am not terribly familiar with skating sources so I can't judge the merits of these sources. There is a cost to restoring a page, namely that someone needs to police it so that it stays compliant with WP:BLP. In addition articles which fail WP:GNG tend to become unsighly stubs, non-neutral, non-reliably sourced or otherwise problematic. I could certainly put it into a draft, but retrieve the information within it before redeletion implies to me that you don't actually want to restore the article (anymore); do you want to use the text for something else? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC) @Jo-Jo Eumerus Skate Canada is a fairly neutral and independent news source, and the article is written without attempts of "endorsement" (https://skatecanada.ca/2014/10/trading-places-us-born-selena-zhao-proudly-represents-canada/). In addition, there are several Icenetwork articles (http://web.icenetwork.com/news/2016/09/12/200902400/the-inside-edge-chen-edmunds-headline-ewc, http://web.icenetwork.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20120916&content_id=38517104&vkey=ice_news, as well as the Golden Skate article (https://goldenskate.com/2015/07/selena-zhao/) and Harvard news sources. Was the article previously an "unsighly stub, non-neutral, non-reliably sourced, or otherwise problematic?" Would it be a significant cost for you to police the article to ensure it doesn't become so if, at the moment, it is actually satisfactory? It seemed to be fairly substantive with plenty of sources and neutral information from credible sites. Of course the goal is still to restore the article, but would just like to understand the alternatives if not. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.203 (talk) 13:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC) I think I'll punt this to WP:Deletion review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lake Cahuilla

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lake Cahuilla you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Codyorb -- Codyorb (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Another note to self (regarding Flow)

Making a note here in case there is a discussion on installing Flow in the future: The suggestions I'd submit are discussion should be had on removing infinite scroll, allowing it to use the same markup as regular wikiediting and offering assistance for people who e.g run archivebots and would need to modify their bots. as said on meta:2017 Community Wishlist Survey/Editing/Release VE on Talk pages. Plus discussing ways to remove posts that does not require admin action. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:41, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Glenn Mena

I, Ruth NK, request the undeletion of this Article. Please restore the page as I intend to work on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruth NK (talk • contribs) 18:02, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, @Ruth NK:, however can you address the concerns raised in the deletion discussion? Notability in the Wikipedia sense means that people have written about someone, not merely being famous. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Glenn Mena is a known artist in Nigeria, we are not related and am not promoting his music or him. I know the primary guidelines and policies of wikipedia. His nominations are notable, even the few references i got. I have gotten more references about his events and more. And I request to work more on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruth NK (talk • contribs) 15:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ruth NK: Can you show a few of these references? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

These are the references.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruth NK (talk • contribs)

Ruth NK, please don't make a new header for every post. As for your sources, it seems like many of them are duplicates to each other and some of them look fairly thin and self-published to me. I'll summon the !voters @Oluwa2Chainz, JamesBWatson, Mr. MacTidy, MustaphaNG, Versace1608, Celestina007, and Johnpacklambert: to see if they'd be convinced. If no, making a request at WP:Deletion review would be the only way to go. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:02, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• The 13 apparent references turn out to be 3 references, each of which has been copied several times. Several of the pages are blogs, and most of the others appear to be either blogs that don't say they are blogs, or other similar sites. Many of the pages link to downloads of his work, most of them invite us to "Get Connected to GLENNMENA on Social Media". None of the three references appears to be a reliable source in Wikipedia's terms, and most if not all of them are promoting or publicising his work. None of them is the kind of coverage that Wikipedia's notability guidelines require. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• The subject doesn't meet the requirements to have an article. All references fall short of passing WP:SIGCOV and WP:RS basically. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 22:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Jacob Barnett

I have to question why you salted, without explanation, the Jacob Barnett article. It was a negative article and I supported deletion (or change). I am dumbfounded that articles like Luis Balbino Arroyo are uncontested, while the JB with upwards of 24 supporting references are contested. You proposed someone draft a NPOV article, but there is no incentive to do that if salted. Subuey (talk) 15:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@Subuey: I did explain why the article was salted in the protection rationale - the topic of the article is potentially sensitive and thus any attempt at recreation ought to be vetted by posting it into draft namespace (Draft:Jacob Barnett) first. That other articles weren't deleted either means that they have much better (rather than just more sources; as the living people articles' policy notes, we need good sources for living people's articles) or that they should be deleted too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

If a draft is accepted, I think it should have protection put on it. The user who proposed the latest afd was actually trying to modify the article by both contributing to the talk and the main page, but user Slawomir Bialy irreversibly reverted the edits, regardless of consensus on the talk page, triggering the afd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs) 16:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That would be something to discuss for when the draft is actually proposed. Also, I don't get the impression from the AfD that the outcome would have been different if the reversions wouldn't have happened, as people judged on the basis of sources not on the article content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the Afd, a theme from the comments was a concern for the subject of the article. The article survived three previous afds. The problem was not that the article's sources had changed, because they hadn't. But that it's content had changed. Subuey (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Consensus can change. So I generally do not factor in previous AfDs, and I don't see much indication in the AfD #4 that its different outcome was because of different article content. Also, summoning Sławomir Biały here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Contrary to what has been said here, the article in question did not "survive three previous afds". Indeed, the article was deleted after the first AfD, in what was described at the time as a "cut-and-dried case". It should not have been recreated without community input. Now it has been deleted a second time, in accord with our policies. Something needs to change about the subject for a new article to be written (e.g., he actually does something notable), and it has been salted to prevent the article being created again against community consensus. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't deflect the criticism that, leading up to the AfD, Slawomir smothered attempts at compromise in the article. (edit) yes, I lost track of the many noms for AfDs slawomir brought up! Subuey (talk) 14:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

The nominator at the last AfD wrote: "A collection of lies about a 12 year old in the media does not make a person notable, and there is no other claim to notability." That was the editor I believe you felt should be compromised with. Perhaps you should take the matter up with her. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Copy edits for Lascar (volcano)

I have completed a copy edit of Lascar (volcano). I left behind a couple of {{clarify}} templates, but other than that, it looks good. Nice work. Definitely proofread it to catch any technical/science mistakes that I may have made. Let me know if you have any questions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I think I got them. I'll see to make a thorough read-over tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lake Cahuilla

The article Lake Cahuilla you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lake Cahuilla for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Codyorb -- Codyorb (talk) 16:41, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, but just out of curiosity @Codyorb: did you spot-check some citations? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for notifying me about your concern. I took a look through the references. Harvard footnotes are correctly formatted and used where necessary; book and journal citations are complete. Templates are correctly used.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Codyorb (talk • contribs)

Sorry for being unclear, Codyorb - I was wondering if you did check any claim against the sources. I am sure at least some of them are accessible. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! It'll take me a little while to check the facts against the sources. Codyorb (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'm finished. I wasn't able to check all of the sources, as I don't some of the books available. However, I'm confident that all of the sources are reliable and anything used from them is credible. Codyorb (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Codyorb: Thanks. Doing these kinds of checks and a close reading of the article for unclear or confusing bits is generally a good idea when reviewing a GAN. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

DYLN

DYLN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am requesting the undeletion of this Article. Please put it back to Drafts namespace until I can edit tone and find further sources/references. It was also never discussed whether Stef Lang should be merged into DYLN instead of vice versa. I don't check Wiki very often and would love the opportunity to work with everyone instead of 'merging' pages! Cheers.

CoCoL 08:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Courtneyleed (talk • contribs)

@Courtneyleed: The article isn't deleted; you can still find its content in the page history. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I kept getting the re-direct to Stef Lang, which doesn't have the DYLN content in the history page. Thanks! Courtneyleed (talk, contributions) 08:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a note, but you don't need to ping me on my talk page. There is a "history" link here (DYLN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)) that should point you to the right place. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:46, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-46

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

• The diff you see when you compare two different versions of a page has changed on MediaWiki.org and the test wiki. This is to make it easier to find a text change in a moved paragraph. It will hopefully soon come to more wikis. You can report bugs in Phabricator. [6]
• A new user group on Commons will be able to upload MP3 files. The plan is to have this user group from 17 November. [7]
• Wikis using Flagged Revisions will get the New filters for Edit Review by default on the recent changes pages. It will be possible to opt-out in user preferences. [8]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 November. It will be on all wikis from 16 November (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 15 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Support for uploading and viewing 3D models is coming soon to Wikimedia Commons. The feature will support the .STL file format. You can see an example on the test wiki. [9]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Elif Ulaş

The article "Elif Ulaş" created by me in the past was deleted by you. I see now that it is listed as red link in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by nationality/Turkey. Is there a chance to re-craete it with the text archived? CeeGee 16:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the discussion was unanimous in deleting the article and said on that list page Of course, all new articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, so keep in mind that redlinks on this list may or may not qualify so being on that list does not mean that the article can simply be recreated. Not sure why they are linking to NPROF though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Rabiul Alam Biplob

	Rabiul_Alam_Biplob
	This article delete. I have find 3 or more RS is cited. Please review this article and restore again http://www.ittefaq.com.bd/print-edition/bogra-edition/2017/09/09/221271.html http://eajkalerkhobor.com/share.php?q=2017%252F11%252F13%252F5%252Fdetails%252F5_r5_c2.jpg&d=2017%252F11%252F13%252F http://www.1kcloud.com/edlv_kXQpI/#11 Rabiul Biplob (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Rabiul Piplob: It is a really bad idea to write an article about yourself, in most cases. For the record, I can't read the sources in the non-Latin alphabet (is it Devanagari?) and the Latin scripted text does not mention the article topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Dale Mitchell (ice hockey)

Hi. Is it possible to restore the article Dale Mitchell (ice hockey) so I can work on it?
Regards JonasJepsen (talk), 18:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, @JonasJepsen: Typically I like to see the issues that led to the article's deletion addressed before actually undeleting something, so: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dale Mitchell (ice hockey) (3rd nomination) had a consensus to remove due to the general notability guideline and the ice hockey player notability guideline not being met. Has this changed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

As soon as I get the article back, I will edit the article in Word so it follows the guideline. For sure.
JonasJepsen (talk), 18:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Um, that is not how it works. Notability is not contingent on the content of the article; even if I recreate the article that does not mean that it suddenly becomes notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:29, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please check the German and English translations of the 1257 Volcanic Eruption for Consistency and Juxtaposition.

Please check the German and English translations of the 1257 Volcanic Eruption for Consistency and Juxtaposition.172.76.124.97 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Not sure that I can bring up the interest to check the German translation as well. Maybe tomorrow... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of BuildZoom

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I'd like to better understand your rationale for the deletion of the BuildZoom page, which complied with the editorial guidelines. Every piece of information, cited a legitimate third-party reference and the article was completely void of any subjective evaluation of whether the service is actually good or not; it simply stated how the system allegedly works. I think there really needs to be a higher standard when it comes to deletion of articles like this that numerous people have contributed to. This is supposed to be an egalitarian system, but it honestly feels autocratic in nature when an individual can just delete something with impunity that many people have contributed to. I'd ask that you cite specific examples of how the article violated the editorial framework instead of just making a blanket evaluation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Driftreality (talk • contribs) 22:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Driftreality: I think you are misunderstanding how deletion processes work here; with the exception of "speedy deletion" deletions only happen when a discussion has established the need for doing so, as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BuildZoom did for BuildZoom. The article was apparently poorly written and the sources not of adequate quality so the inclusion criteria were not met. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:10, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I appreciate your response but when you make statements like 'apparently poorly written,' and state that references, which included publications like MarketWatch are 'not of adequate quality,' it doesn't instill a great deal of confidence in the methodology associated with the deletion process. I'd submit the article should be reinstated and modified; not just deleted outright. I can't quantify it but it feels as though the community is becoming increasingly trigger happy; I understand that vigilance is needed to avoid excessive advertising, promotion, etc. but I honestly couldn't find one subjective evaluation in the article itself. Driftreality (talk 17:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Should have responded here earlier, I think: There is an increasing tendency for people to use Wikipedia for promotion and that probably makes users increasingly trigger happy at removing anything that looks like spam. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)