User talk:Metropolitan90/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

the 'unusual' nature of the NH simulcast

Hello again, I think the 'unusual' aspect is worth noting. You removed the language here,[1] because (I presume) there was no inline cite at the time. It did exist once, my original mainspace-draft[2] provided a mid-sentence cite to here,[3] which is a semi-about-self-source since they are an event co-sponsor, but the "unusual" nature of the collaboration was backed up by a quotation from some professor. “Cooperation by multiple media partners to host the upcoming Union Leader forum is very significant and unprecedented,” said Wayne Lesperance, professor of political science at New England College in Henniker. “Typically, media competes to host separate events like this forum. In this case, that they are cooperating is something new.” Anyways, if you can see a good way to work that in without calling it "unusual" that is fine by me, or if you think we should just state the facts of the simulcast (which I didn't realize is "a real word" nowadays :-) then I can probably also be convinced of that pathway. Thanks for your work, as always. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• See WP:EDITORIAL. I don't think that Wikipedia normally wants editors to comment on how "unusual" an event may be. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree we should not be using our own commentary. But I'm just condensing the "very significant" and the "unprecedented" and the "something new" quotations from the professor, into a summarized form of 'quite unusually'. We can quote them directly if you would rather, or use some other forumulation besides 'quite unusual' if you have a better phrasing-suggestion, but I do think it's an important part of explaining who&why of the forum, and the Lesperance guy agrees with me. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I still don't think it's that interesting. It's not like Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC (media companies in direct competition with each other) cosponsored the forum; the sponsors were largely from different states and different types of media. Are any of the co-sponsors rivals of each other? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• Heh heh... are you really saying WP:NOTINTERESTING can go up against the professor-quote?  :-)     But yes, I catch your drift, and from what I can tell, there was indeed overlap in terms of the simulcast-partners (which is different from the "official co-sponsor" list I note) being rivals for the same media-markets. The main collaborators were CSPAN, NBC, and ABC, plus a few CBS folks; they formed an alliance (temporarily -- whether it becomes permanent remains to be seen), to keep FOX and CNN from being given the lion's share of presidential-debate-coverage/revenues/marketshare/mindshare/cashflow. It was also a warning-shot to the RNC-party-senate, from the early-state-activists, that they don't want polling-firms and national-teevee-networks to winnow the field of candidates, they want the early states to retain that function (via caucuses and primaries and early-state-media-events).

some WP:OR concerning the specifics: 4-way NH, 3-way IA, 3-way SC, and 2-way collaborative-competition in a couple dozen other media-markets

I count four teevee rivals in the NH market (WBIN/WMUR/NECN/CSPAN), three in IA market (KCRG/WYFF/CSPAN), and three in SC market (WLTX/KCCI/CSPAN). There were also multiple radio rivals in those same markets (again NH was most-collaboratively-competitive with three or four radio-rivals by my WP:OR counts), if that makes a difference to you, and of course, internet-live-streams from Hearst and C-SPAN and iHeart and a few other simulcast-partners are also visible in NH and the other states. Besides those three states, there was also competition between Hearst and C-SPAN in another two dozen cities, allegedly (I believe 27 of the 31 Hearst stations broadcast in competitive-collaboration with C-SPAN). Although I don't know the exact stations, we can do a little WP:SYNTH here on usertalk and draw some conclusions: of the two dozen other Hearst stations, 12 were ABC affiliates, and 9 were NBC affiliates, and the vast majority of those were simulcast partners (since 27 out of 31 leaves little wiggle room). The most "interesting" WP:OR factoid is that zero FOX affialiates were involved, and no CNN/TNT either; using the fresh-off-the-presses-in-2012 change known as rule#12, the RNC "party-senate" has not merely cut the debate-schedule from 27 free-for-all events to 12 sanctioned-with-teeth events (and only half of those prior to super tuesday), the RNC has *also* given FOX and CNN primacy of place, and thereby shafted (relatively speaking) ABC and NBC and CBS and CSPAN. The forum in NH, which I note was originally scheduled for August 6th to directly compete with the FOX debate, and only later moved to August 3rd so it could be the zeroth debate-which-is-technically-not-a-debate, was nigh-entirely backed by competitors to FOX/CNN, and in particular, by CSPAN in an 'unusual' collaboration with ABC and NBC and a few CBS folks. Of the financial-backers, AfP and LFoDA are definitely more tea-party-leaning groups, as opposed to estab-leaning-groups. I don't know about the Eversource Energy and the Eastern Bank folks, one way or the other, whether they are tea-and-grassroots-leaning, or more estab-types that still want to see more debates&forums rather than fewer (or perhaps just want to see more focus on early-caucus-n-primary states rather than on national-polling-data). I further note, before leaving WP:OR behind, that the forum-questions were very softball in my interpretation, and for the most part, gave the candidates time to talk about exactly what they wanted to be talking about, with scrupulously-equal amounts of time (technical troubles related to satellites notwithstanding). The FOX debate is extremely unlikely to allocate airtime evenly amongst the candidates (even in the primetime debate-tier), and furthermore unlikely to have any softball-questions (except perhaps for candidates the FOX moderators prefer). Thus, one might conjecture, the equal-time softball-question forum-format could be an attempt on the part of cspan/nbc/abc/cbs/newspapers/etc to entice the presidential candidates to consider engaging in further participation, should potential future "forums" be scheduled, which are technically not debates and only quasi-sanctioned by the RNC, but will give the candidates free nationwide airtime to spread their message, and get their names known, with relatively little risk to their campaigns. The FOX/CNN debates are going to be high-threshold high-risk high-reward environment; the CSPAN/NBC/ABC/CBS forum was a low-to-no-threshold low-to-no-risk pretty-decent-reward environment.

• Anyways, I don't care if we call the NH forum simulcast-roster 'quite unusual[ref#55]' as I originally summarized the prof, or if we quote per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and say that "according to professor Wayne Lesperance the "cooperation by multiple media partners... is very significant and unprecedented"[ref#55] or whatever exact phrasing of the factoid we end up with, but I do think the factoid itself needs mentioning. Besides nominal media-competitors working together (nbc+abc+cbs+cspan&&grassroots banding together in an alliance of convenience versus fox+cnn&&rnc), the media-entities-from-multiple-states collaboration aspect was also 'unusual' to say the least; Iowa local-teevee-stations have never simulcast NH events before, that I am aware. There are deeper undercurrents here, that the reader should be clued in about, if they care to perform some of their own WP:OR about this topic, by reading the sources we link unto, for themselves. I'm pretty indifferent about how exactly we point the readership towards the sources which explain the 'unusual'-ness, but we do need to point it out as WP:NOTEWORTHY, per the prof-quote, or per a pointer to some other source which discusses the media-collab, if you prefer. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:59, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

table logistics

To slim down the width, you removed the non-primary sponsors from the debate-table.[4] I agree we need to keep the table-width svelte. Potentially, going forward, <humour> we could slim down the table width even further... perhaps we could winnow the candidate-fields by selecting five recent polls of our choice and retaining only the top ten candidates in wikipedia? Alternatively, we could use the averages of all major live-interview polls since July, and pick the top ten (or the top eight in fewer than 15 make our cut), relegating the lesser candidates to a secondary article? Perhaps we should invite all the candidates to the main article, but remove their columns if they decline to be listed on wikipedia? </humour>

  More seriously, though, I was planning on adding a footnote-scheme, where for instance with the list of co-sponsors for the C-SPAN event, it would say "C-SPAN, et al^[33]" and when the reader mouse-hovered over #33 it would display the full listing of co-sponsors. Does that sound reasonable? In particular, many of the simulcast partners at the C-SPAN thing were not officially co-sponsors, so I think the list of co-sponsors and the list of re-broadcasters is distinct. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• I admit, I don't know exactly who counts as a co-sponsor and who counts as a re-broadcaster, but I do know (a) that non-broadcasters (universities, magazines, foundations, etc.) are not broadcasters, and (b) that there is plenty of room to list any sponsors and all broadcasters in the prose descriptions of the debates, and trying to fit them into the table is very awkward. Even adding footnotes to the table should be avoided because of the space they take up. So, no, I do not think it sounds reasonable to put the sponsors in a footnote in the table. Please put that information in the prose section instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, we agree they belong in the prose, not spelled out in the table. That said, I don't think adding a hover-over-me-footnote-superscript to the sponsor-column will severely impact the table-width, though I do agree that space is tight and we need to cut where we can. On a somewhat-related formatting issue, I think that we should not be worried about having one or two immediately-attached footnotes for the absentee-reasons, because those footnote-superscripts do NOT change the table-width... the "Gilmore" in the table-header is the determiner of the column-width, and the "O[29]" in the first row is always going to require fewer pixels, unless we really go overboard and have "O[29][30][31][32][33][34][35]". But the debate-sponsor-footnotes arguably *will* increase the total table-width, if only relatively slightly. We could always have some embedded (br/) tags, to try and keep the sponsor-column-width reasonable. Are you able to test the table-width in some actual small-screen devices, smartphones and tablets and such? Most of the screens I have readily available are, umm, not very small. Is the table as it is now, already scrolling on 7" tablet screens? Or on ~4" smartphone screens? Or are you just being extra-careful because you know -- and I would agree with you -- that we are almost certainly pushing the screen-real-estate-limits of such devices? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I tried viewing the article on a smartphone, but the results were inconclusive. The table cut off after the Jeb Bush column on the smartphone screen and left the right half of the screen blank. (Democratic Party presidential debates, 2016 worked differently; the table there did scroll on the smartphone.) I don't really know what to say about this, except that we need to conserve as much space as we can. The prose sections are there for a reason; anything that needs citation should have its citations in the prose sections, not the table, because there is no room in the table. We're pushing the screen real estate limits on desktop computers. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
    • I later tried it again on a smartphone, and this time the whole table displayed, although it took up about two and a half screen widths; that is, only about 40% of the table could be displayed without scrolling. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I also tried to slim the width down, but was reverted.[5] I will put back in the letter-key-linebreak, and see if that bit is permitted to stand. I also suggest we change from 4em to 3em, since although the columns will be differing widths rather than uniform widths, it will still cut the table-width by ~20% or thereabouts. Here is a direct-link to 4em.[6] Here is a direct-link to 3em with 100%tablesize.[7] Here is overly-wide-explanatory-key-cellspan at 4em.[8] I suggest that we probably want 90%tablesize and 3em col-widths, rather than 90%tablesize with 4em col-widths, since on my desktop-screen that makes the table-width 10.5" instead of 12.0" wide aka 270mm versus 305mm. Huckabee and Santorum have the longest lastnames, so they will have extra-wide columns at 3em, but short of hyphenating their names that cannot be helped.

    More drastically, I would also suggest that we eliminate the "place" and the "host" columns entirely, since they seem to be a constant source of good-faith-corrections, and replace them with a "state" column that merely says NH/OH/CA/CO/WI/NV/etc, and then hyperlinks to the appropriate prose-subsection so that people can read about the "St.Anselm&Goffstown & CSPAN&Hearst&manyMore / QuickenLoans&Cleveland & FOX&Facebook&manymore / etc" type of details. That change would cut the width to 9.0" aka 225mm on my big screen, which is a 15% width-savings versus 10.5" and a 25% width-savings versus 12.0" that we have now. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

(p.s. I looked at the dem-table, I could see no HTML-related technical-reason it would scroll and the repub table would not. Do you see the same no-scrolling-behavior, with all the permalinked variants above? If so we should call for tech-help, at the village pump or similar. In related matters, I also could see that KCCI and WMUR were listed as dem-debate-co-sponsors... those were two of the repub-forum-simulcasters ... and that FOX was not listed as a dem-debate-sponsor anywheres although CNN was... per our conversation above, there are deeper currents here, not just one prof's take on the media-collaboration-thing.) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I see no problem with the way this is right now. Maybe the boxes could be slimmed slightly for candidates inclusion, but other than that the table is well organized, and I don't have problems on my iPhone 6. If you beging removed entire categories, like host or location, the table loses purpose. Spartan7W § 13:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

underscores

Thanks for fixing up my stuff, it is much appreciated.[9] However, you can leave out the underscore-fixing-portion of the effort, if you wish to, because there is a bot which does that specific fix, Yobot-via-AWB.[10] If you take requests, can you reword the tortured sentence that starts like this: "Historically, there is a correlation..." I had trouble making it plain, yet properly explaining what it meant. No problem if you don't want to mess with that, o'course. Talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment

As a significant contributor to the article United States presidential election, 2016, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated. Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Marianna Zorba AFD (2nd nomination)

Thanks for fixing the nom. I knew it was malformatted but could not figure out how to fix it. Yours, Quis separabit? 11:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

(Sir) Syed Sani Syed Ali Shah Bukhari

there's a standard procedure for dealing with requested page moves and name disputes-- see Wikipedia:Requested moves. I've deleted the duplicated article--that's not how we do it. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Down and Dirty Duck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Lampoon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walking Down Canal Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Angela Walker

Hi there, I just started Angela Walker. I noticed that you started the article on her running mate, Mimi Soltysik, and thought that you may be interested in expanding her article as well. I am too busy at the moment to give the article too much time. Happy editing!--TM 01:30, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks. I don't have any plans to work on the Angela Walker article, though. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

List of real and fictional people with the surname White ‎

Hello,

You deleted List of real and fictional people with the surname White and I will concede that the primary article White (surname) may have handled the long list of names. Would you be so kind to allow me access to the List of real and fictional names so they can be added to the article along with the info box and organization that was also deleted? Jrcrin001 (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Rocky De La Fuente for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rocky De La Fuente is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocky De La Fuente until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Presidential Candidate Scott Copeland

I've noticed that you have created a couple of articles on minor candidates in the 2016 US Presidential election, and I've been hoping to potentially add others, specifically those that are Republican, Democratic, or running within the major Third Parties. Now I've tried my hand at creating articles before but I don't consider my skills up to snuff; I'm one of those users who is good at transcribing, editing in facts, creating tables, that sort of thing. If you have the time, I'm wondering if you could write an article in my stead, provided there is enough information to merit an article. The candidate in question, Scott Copeland, has a number of hits on local news networks, blogs and elsewhere. Not as many as Rocky De La Fuente, but maybe enough to clear a minimum. The links to those pages are below:

• The Town Talk - Constitution Party meets possible presidential nominee
• MagicValley.com | Blog | Constitution Party Prez Candidate Swings Through Idaho
• KALB | Video Included | Cenla receives campaign visit from presidential candidate
• Lewiston Tribune | Third-party candidate brings message to Lewiston | Unfortunately Behind Paywall (Other than Abstract)
• CDAPress.com | Fearmongering, a tactic long-seen in U.S. politics

Thanks. --Ariostos (talk) 08:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Metropolitan90!

Happy New Year!

Metropolitan90,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

AFD

As you previously participated in a related discussion, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024. Reywas92^Talk 23:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baden-Württemberg state election, 2016, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Free Democratic Party, Die Linke and Christian Democratic Union. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of state leaders in 2016#RfC: Inclusion of Palestine as a sub state of Israel. Could you please give your opinion on whether or not Palestine should be considered a separate sovereign entity from Israel? Many thanks Spirit Ethanol (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Mojoflo deleted page

Hello,

You recently deleted the page for the band Mojoflo. The argument was made that they failed to meet WP:Band.

I believe they do meet #7: Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city. They've been named Best Local Band by two separate publications: 614 Magazine and Columbus Monthly

Would you mind reviewing this deletion at your convenience.

COI full disclosure - I'm their manager.

Thanks,

Lostasil (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. The reason I deleted Mojoflo is that the article failed the articles for deletion discussion with nobody recommending that it be kept. If you want the article to be brought back, the procedure to go through is Wikipedia:Deletion review. I can get that set up for you, but once it is set up, you will have to be the one to provide the explanation for why the band is notable and the article should be brought back. Let me know if you want me to do that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

• That would be great - thanks for your help! I'll look out for the deletion review and respond. Lostasil (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion review for Mojoflo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Mojoflo. 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. Being literal-minded, I'm notifying myself of this DRV. Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

aiv

Wp:aiv is dangerously overfull and I need you to jump on it immediately. 66.87.77.160 (talk) 03:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Really? It doesn't look that bad to me. How many entries is usually considered overfull at WP:AIV? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Either way, many of those vandals are still vandalizing and I need you to stop them I know you dont usualllly block people but I need you this time. 66.87.78.203 (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Metropolitan90. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

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

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

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

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Metropolitan90. You have new messages at Talk:PepperTap.
Message added 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The nominator has questioned your recent close of the AfD discussion on the talk page of this article. It seems fair to notify you of this matter. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:27, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real estate in Puerto Rico (2nd nomination)

Well done. I will change my vote to a keep now. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 01:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

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

Johnnie L. Cochran Jr. Middle School

Thanks for cleaning up the mess of copies. Meters (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Metropolitan90.

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

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

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

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Metropolitan90. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

The Challenge Series

The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.

• Use {{subst:The Challenge series invitation}} to invite others using this template.
• Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello Metropolitan90: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

More info on page deletion

Hi admin, I created an article on Dec4th (article name - Selva RK) for an Indian film editor with all the proofs and references, but it was deleted. May I know the reason for deletion? And what could be done to avoid deletion in future? Please guide me!

Thanks Anitha

AnithaNair90 (talk)Anitha AnithaNair90 (talk) 18:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• I deleted the article Selva RK based on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selva RK. In that discussion, over two weeks, three people supported deleting the article, but nobody supported keeping it. There were references that established that Selva is a film editor, but that is really all they said; there was no indication that he was a particularly acclaimed film editor, nor that he had won or been nominated for editing awards. If Selva becomes more famous and acclaimed in his occupation as a film editor, you or someone else can try again in the future to re-create this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

you are a great editor here. but some times you delete some articles which are good and notable Ynaps (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Could be, see below.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

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

Administrator changes

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

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Obituaries

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

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2017

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

Administrator changes

TheDJ

Xnuala • CJ • Oldelpaso • Berean Hunter • Jimbo Wales • Andrew c • Karanacs • Modemac • Scott

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion on the backlog of unpatrolled files, consensus was found to create a new user right for autopatrolling file uploads. Implementation progress can be tracked on Phabricator.
• The BLPPROD grandfather clause, which stated that unreferenced biographies of living persons were only eligible for proposed deletion if they were created after March 18, 2010, has been removed following an RfC.
• An RfC has closed with consensus to allow proposed deletion of files. The implementation process is ongoing.
• After an unsuccessful proposal to automatically grant IP block exemption, consensus was found to relax the criteria for granting the user right from needing it to wanting it.

Technical news

• After a recent RfC, moved pages will soon be featured in a queue similar to Special:NewPagesFeed and require patrolling. Moves by administrators, page movers, and autopatrolled editors will be automatically marked as patrolled.
• Cookie blocks have been deployed. This extends the current autoblock system by setting a cookie for each block, which will then autoblock the user if they switch accounts, even under a new IP.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk page:Salvus Water

You deleted Talk page:Salvus Water, perhaps without reading it. I objected to the SD deletion, almost at the same time that it was deleted. Is that the end for me, or is there any remedy, or can you provide the article on my sandbox? This is a learning objective request, whatever the merits of the article may be.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

• To be clear, I only deleted Talk:Salvus Water, not the main article about the water at Salvus Water. However, I have restored the article to your userspace at User:Dthomsen8/Salvus Water, and the talk page at User talk:Dthomsen8/Salvus Water, so you will have a chance to work on the article some more. Once it is in good condition to be moved back to the mainspace, you can move it back. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jim Messemer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Major Indoor Soccer League. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Admin review

I've gone ahead and archived your admin review page, and closed down that process. It seems clear that the community has decided to quit supporting it. You'll just have to go by how often you get dragged to ANI as your best gauge of your admin performance. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Roskamp Reaction

Hi, you noted, closing the AfD, that Roskamp Reaction had already been speedily deleted by User:Fastily. However User:True L (re)created the article at 08:08 this morning so it's now there (again, I presume). I ran Earwig's copyvio check but that's fine, so I can't see how to speedy it myself nor why it was deleted, I suppose by a user under a topic ban or something. Anyway it seems to need attention. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• The speedy deletion was actually done at the request of User:True L themself, as the then-creator of the article, pursuant to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G7. I don't know anything about the topic so I can't really assess the article myself. But the earlier deletion should not cause suspicion to fall on the article now; it should be judged on its own merits. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk Page: Coalition

Hi, I'm a first time Wikipedia editor for a school project. The coalition page suggested splitting coalition in mathematics since it doesn't fully pertain to the essence of the term. Was there a specific reason why you deleted my suggestion from the talk page?Mujju2288 (talk) 17:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)mujju2288

• The problem was that your suggestion was on a page titled Talk:Coalition (mathematics), which would normally be expected to correspond to an article titled Coalition (mathematics). At the time, there was no regular article titled Coalition (mathematics), and in fact there never has been an article by that title. As indicated at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G8. Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page, any talk page for an article where the corresponding article doesn't exist is supposed to be speedily deleted. If you want to try creating Coalition (mathematics), you can try to do that. I'm not taking a position yet as to whether such an article would be desirable or undesirable; it would have to be judged on its own merits. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2017

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

Administrator changes

Karanacs • Berean Hunter • GoldenRing • Dlohcierekim

Gdr • Tyrenius • JYolkowski • Longhair • Master Thief Garrett • Aaron Brenneman • Laser brain • JzG • Dragons flight

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has clarified that user categories should be emptied upon deletion, but redlinked user categories should not be removed if re-added by the user.
• Discussions are ongoing regarding proposed changes to the COI policy. Changes so far have included clarification that adding a link on a Wikipedia forum to a job posting is not a violation of the harassment policy.

Technical news

• You can now see a list of all autoblocks at Special:AutoblockList.
• There is a new tool for adding archives to dead links. Administrators are able to restrict other user's ability to use the tool, and have additional permissions when changing URL and domain data.
• Administrators, bureaucrats and stewards can now set an expiry date when granting user rights. (discuss, permalink)

Miscellaneous

• Following an RfC, the editing restrictions page is now split into a list of active restrictions and an archive of those that are old or on inactive accounts. Make sure to check both pages if searching for a restriction.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

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

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleting Peoples Page

Can you mind your own business and leave my pages alone PLEASE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yanlakers (talk • contribs) 20:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

• Please let me know what specific action you are asking me to take, if any. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Recently I made a Wikipedia page about Tyawesome- youtube god, I intentionally made the page empty because I do not know what im doing when making a page so I made it like that and sent it to a friend to edit it but before he got to do anything it was deleted, can you please un delete this page, it will have content on it that fits the standard in a matter of days, thank you. - Mattrix204, Tyawesomes biggest fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattrix204 (talk • contribs) 01:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Sorry, I am going to decline the request to undelete Tyawesome - Youtube god because it was only one sentence long and looked more like a joke than an article. You and/or your friend can try again to re-create the article, but if you do, please make it into a better, more serious looking article. It would take you and your friend less time to re-create the article than it would to appeal my decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Your user name and my user name resemble existing films question

Another editor has contacted me on my Talk page to indicate that the resemblance of a user name with an existing film must be suspected for conflict of interest and paid advocacy. I assured them that this was not the case and that a number of other editors have user names which resemble existing films. That editor then replied with the statement that it is fine for administrators to have user names which resemble existing films but not for other editors. That sounds a little odd to me. My main interest at this time is in improving the biography article for Akira Kurosawa and some of his films. Could you glance at the comments left by that editor on my Talk page. JohnWickTwo (talk) 00:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• I don't see where User:Ahecht said that it was okay for administrators to have usernames that resemble film titles but not other users. Rather, he said that (a) my username, User:TommyBoy's, and User:After Midnight's are not unambiguously film titles, and (b) TommyBoy registered his username before the current policy on promotional usernames was adopted and would have been allowed to keep it anyway if it was promotional (see Wikipedia:Username policy#Exceptions). The latter would hold true for me, too, since I've had this same username since 2005 and the promotional username policy didn't exist then. That said, I will respond further on your talk page to discuss whether you might be allowed to keep your username. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

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

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)