User talk:BethNaught/Archive 3

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

The Signpost: 15 April 2015

The Signpost: 22 April 2015

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

Your common.css page

Hi; I notice that in User:BethNaught/common.css you have the CSS rule 

.ambox-Orphan{display: inherit !important;}

- please note that there is an error in this (almost certainly copied from an old version of Template:Orphan#Visibility) which causes incorrect display in some browsers.

To check this, visit this page and look at the second bullet (the one that precedes the text "This article is an orphan ..."). If this bullet is not in the same alignment as the other four, but displaced to the left, you can fix it by altering inherit to table in the CSS rule mentioned earlier. If that doesn't work either, alter it to block.

Template:Orphan#Visibility has been amended. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

deOrphaning script

Hello everyone! I was just working on responding to a couple bug reports for a script that I worked up as part of a request from this project, and I noticed that only a couple people (who weren't even on this mailing list) are actually using the script. A little history on the script: In March of 2014, Jim Cartar came to my user talk page and said he needed some help in acquiring a script for a backlog drive that he was working on that could keep track of and score deOrphanings for a scored backlog drive. I took that request to the project's talk page (BackLog Drive "DO" (De-Orphaning) script proposal) and there was near unanimous support for this. I thought about the proposal and decided the best way to do it was to build a new script (which is still no where near as comprehensive as Manishearth's OrphanTabs) and build into it a mechanism that will make BLD scoring easy.

What I'm wondering at this point is, since there appears to be only two people using the script, should I continue to develop this script with a goal of using it for scoring BLDs or just debug the existing script and leave it at that. Thanks for any replies or comments.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list or alternatively to opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

The Signpost: 20 May 2015

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

The Signpost: 01 July 2015

The Signpost: 08 July 2015

The Signpost: 15 July 2015

The Signpost: 22 July 2015

DYK for Ethel Bellamy

Gatoclass (talk) 13:07, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 July 2015

The Signpost: 05 August 2015

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Great work! Apollonorthstar (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 August 2015

Re: speedy deletion of Grema Terab page

Hi Beth Naught thank you for visiting the Grema Terab page and for the suggestion. It took me quite a while to figure out how to send this message and Im still not sure if you will receive it. I am the rightful owner of the picture andw riter of the bio posted on his wikipedia page as well as on www.bosema.gov.ng. I am going to try and figure out the instructions you provided in proving ownership of written material. I already have a creative commons licence for the picture. Please dont delete the page. Give me an opportunity to prove ownership. Thank you. Ammeerah (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

@Ammeerah: The best advice you need is at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The article has already been deleted but if you follow the steps given in that page you should be able to recreate it. Note however that you must write with a neutral point of view and provide reliable, independent sources for everything you write. You will need to make significant edits to your text as it stands. For more information see WP:BLP. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Accidental revert

Sorry for reverting your revert on the WTC conspiracy theories, by the time I figured out what was going on you'd got in and done it

Joemalt1832 (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries. BethNaught (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Parameswara (king)

On the Parameswara page, there is a section titled "conversion to Islam" and it cites a source (a weak one though). Nonetheless there is no source citing that he was Hindu at all. So, what is the logic behind changing it back to Hinduism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesunneversets (talk • contribs) 20:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@Thesunneversets: To be honest, that was my mistake. I was a little quick to revert when you changed a contentious field without explaining yourself. Besides, my reading of that section is that he was at first Hindu, and then only maybe changed late in life? Anyway, sorry for the inconvenience. I will make an edit reflecting his convertion. BethNaught (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your attention. Thesunneversets (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI

I think I fixed the problem by deleting the user and user talk pages that had been moved to WP Space. (Let me know if I didn't completely handle this.) Thank you. RJFJR (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 August 2015

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pigsonthewing

Looks pretty weak, but thought you should know that you are being accused of being a sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure a beard like mine would suit you, Beth... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Beeblebrox, for your courtesy. I will respond shortly. BethNaught (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:KeptTalk closure

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9#Template:KeptTalk.

Could I ask you to do one more thing? Amend your closing statement to say it was a WP:Non-admin closure. I wish we had more non-admins doing "obvious closes." By marking yours as a "non-admin close" you will encourage other qualified editors to join in.

By the way, I haven't gone through the drill of a "pre-RFA screening" of your overall contribution history, but if you continue to exercise good judgement in non-admin closures and you do the other usual things that will get you support and not get you opposed if someone nominates you for adminship, don't be surprised if someone asks you to "hold the mop" sometime in the future. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 17:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I have added {{nac}} to that discussion and in future closes I will endeavour to remember to do so. Thank you for your kind words about RfA also. BethNaught (talk) 17:54, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Humor and your username

So, I guess the phrase I am not a number doesn't apply to you? :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Haha! I am a number; I cannot escape Wikipedia! ;) BethNaught (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Who is the new ? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Now, I'd better not name names... BethNaught (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for all your work at TfD as of late. It is appreciated. Alakzi (talk) 20:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, for what what I do is worth. BethNaught (talk) 20:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 August 2015

Doctor Who episode list

I consider this matter over; I unclosed the discussion, which has now been relisted by Opabinia regalis. Discussion of the close is over. Please discuss the arguments at the discussion itself. BethNaught (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi,

Please reconsider your closure of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 26#Template:Doctor Who episode list. Two of the three "keep" !votes were "for the time being. If this template can be merged with another then it can be deleted after the merge but not before", and an endorsement (qualified as "weak keep") of that comment. These are effectively no different to saying to "merge". The only other "keep" argument was "I see no solid reasons for its deletion", which lacks a substantive reason to keep. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Wait... Are you talking to yourself again? (Just kidding; that whole suggestion that you two are the same person was ridiculous! But I digress....) Wouldn't it make sense to add the functionality from the forked version of the template to the original template, making the fork completely redundant? Then then redundant version could be re-nominated, perhaps with less objection the second time. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I closed it as no consensus for a few reasons:
  • It was a deletion and not a merge nomination. I get your argument about "no different to saying merge", but the !voters did !vote keep.
  • A lot of the debate revolved around accessibility but there was clear and unresolved disagreement about whether the output of a screen reader would be appropriate or not.
  • I considered Torritorri's argument to include Djonesuk's argument about accessibility and so reinforce the disagreement in the previous point.
  • Alakzi's !vote did not advocate a merge. Merging to include the grouped episode numbers in the main template would still be against Alakzi's reasons.
For the above reasons, I honestly see no consensus either to delete or to merge. However as a non-admin close I do think it is reasonable to withdraw the close in favour of an uninvolved administrator and I will do so shortly. BethNaught (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, but to be clear, I did not ask you to reopen it; a non-admin close is every bit as valid as a close by an admin. I asked you to reconsider your close (as I would have done, had an admin reached the same conclusion). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
<col>s and <colgroup>s can't be used on Wikipedia, so Djonesuk's argument about accessibility is not any argument at all; and if a table is not linearly navigable by screen readers, it is fair to call it "harmful". There's no question that {{Doctor Who episode list}} impedes accessibility. The question is whether we care; or whether we care more about collapsing a couple of rows to please the eye. Alakzi (talk) 11:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Given that are obliged to care (or, rather, to behave responsibly), by the WMF discrimination policy, it is more a question of whether we are going to do so the easy or the hard way... Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Please can we not relitigate this on my talk page. I reopened the discussion because I guessed there would be further TfDs or perhaps a DRV anyway and any points can better be made in the original discussion. Thanks. BethNaught (talk) 13:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • We're not "relitigating"; we're having a discussion. Alakzi (talk) 18:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
In the wrong venue. This discussion was about the close and not the substantive arguments. Please discuss those at the TfD. Thanks. BethNaught (talk) 18:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

The substantive arguments pertain to your closure. I do not appreciate your dismissive attitude one bit. Alakzi (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If I may be so arrogant as to make a presumption thus: that Opabinia regalis's relisting validates my no consensus judgement, while showing me up for not having the sense to relist – then, knowing that as indicated above, I did consider the accessibility arguments, I shall sleep easy. I am watching the relist and if you make further substantive arguments there, you have my assurances that I will read and consider them. BethNaught (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Showing you up"? I've not even expressed an opinion on your closure. But if I must: I believe your closure to have been sensible, and I'd not have personally protested it. You appear to be under the impression that I've got an axe to grind with you; not at all. Alakzi (talk) 19:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hyperlink

Hyperlink
How do you edit file history like if you need to add hyperlink Keefeky (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to edit a file description, go to the description page and click the edit tab at the top. To add a link to the text use [http://example.com example link text], or to link to a wikipedia page type [[Example]]. While you're at it, please stop uploading copyrighted images without source or licensing information. BethNaught (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2015.

Please Be Kind

This file can be found on Paseka Sekese article. Could you please be so kind to help me then to find reliable copyright. PLEASE!

Ras Benjih/RasTalk 08:44, 31 Jul 06:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Help us with our works rather than speedily delete them.

Ras Benjih/RasTalk 08:44, 31 Jul 06:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

It's Ras

I took this photo by myself using Samsung GT-S 8970 Avila if i'm not mistaken. Can you advise me what to do if i took a pic using my smartfone or tablet.

Ras Benjih/RasTalk 08:44, 31 Jul 09:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Which photo? Neither of your remaining uploads have EXIF data matching that phone. Also, please remember that if you take a picture of someone else's picture the other person still owns copyright in it so you can't upload it to Wikipedia without their permission.
Please make further comments about your previous uploads at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 September 2 where they have been nominated for deletion. BethNaught (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


The Signpost: 02 September 2015

Notice

Hello BethNaught. Your account has been granted the "file mover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want file mover rights anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Swarm ♠ 08:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

WSVA

First off, the image name you changed was not "misleading" in anyway and I take offense at the suggestion that it was. Second, I would like to know who requested the image be renamed. It wasn't me, the original uploader. Third, your work is for not per WP:GALLERY and WP:FU. Those were images I would have removed in a future edit, but did so now. Only the current logo of a radio station is allowed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

  • I apologise for the offence, including criterion #3 was not necessary or properly relevant on this occasion. You can see from the file history that the requester was Sfan00 IMG (diff). As for the non-free use point, yes I see you are correct, but I just renamed it, I didn't upload it or add it inappropriately to any article, and your point did not occur to me at the time, so please don't criticise me for that. BethNaught (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Apology accepted. Please accept one of mine own to you for being a bit cranky. I understand you are only the renamer, so no criticism there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Likewise accepted. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 12:31, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

File:WSVA-AM 2015.PNG listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:WSVA-AM 2015.PNG. Since you had some involvement with the File:WSVA-AM 2015.PNG redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

File:The Big Night poster.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:The Big Night poster.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:The Big Night poster.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Duplicatively named files

The reason the CSD/RFD's were made were so that the names no longer showed up here (which doesn't at present check for redirects.) Wikipedia:Database_reports/Largely_duplicative_file_names13:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Much appreciated if you could also go through that list, disambiging filenames Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 September 2015

Proposed deletion of Raja Adalat Khan

The article is about dead person. I have changed the Category. So I am removing your tag. Thanks Wikibaba1977 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated it for a deletion discussion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raja Adalat Khan. BethNaught (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on my image's copyright!

Email has been sent from my associated email address.

I must also ask, if you have time, could you do a quick look-over of the page I created that the photo is associated with? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dread_Crew_of_Oddwood

I would just like to make sure everything is in correct order for the page so it doesn't get flagged or deleted (which has happened to some of my pages in the past with no explanation)

Thank you BethNaught!

Soldiers of Filth (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons

I was working from here - Category:Wikipedia files that shadow a file on Wikimedia Commons in terms of FNC#9's,

Any chance you could work in parrallel? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sfan00 IMG: I was considering that. But there are frequently issues with those files which make me uncomfortable. First, why not just transfer them to Commons? Second, sometimes the Commons image is dubious, e.g. c:File:IRS Logo.jpg. But in practice it's mainly the first question. I'd be more happy to work in that category if you could explain that to me. BethNaught (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, I was trying to get the name to be unique before transfer. Also I'd been flagging up a few problem images as I awent using TWINKLE. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I see. Is there a particular advantage in that? I mean, why not just move File:Foo.jpg to c:File:Bar.jpg, for example? BethNaught (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Reasonable point, but I don't make a lot of Commons Transfers.Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that even if you don't transfer it, freeing the Commons image is good. Say, have you thought about applying for the file move permission yourself? BethNaught (talk) 16:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I have actually held it, but typically end up resigning it due to inactivtry outside of bursts, besides I usally prefer a 2-step move to a 1 step. Stops "mistakes"Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Useronline

Your close of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 9#Template:Useronline, appears to ignore several of the points I made in the discussion, not least the evidence I gave that the template is misleading. Please reconsider your closure. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:43, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

How did I guess this was coming? I deliberately gave a detailed closing statement in order to avoid this being necessary.
I considered your WP:COLOUR argument. I considered your WMF non-discrimination policy argument. I considered your "misleading" argument, by talking about Pro-deleters argued that the number of users who actually used it properly was small or zero. (In any case, the template was edited in the course of the discussion to admit it might be incorrect.) Your argument that no users of the template !voted is irrelevant as TfDs are determined on the merits of the arguments.
I carefully read the discussion several times before closing it. If, you wish not to make me spell out my close to the last syllable, but instead you actually believe that my closure should be overturned, perhaps because of an argument I may have overlooked, well, I stand by it, and I would respectfully ask you to pursue a review in the appropriate channels. I'm going to bed now. I'll see you in the morning. BethNaught (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
My request was predictable because the closure was flawed, as I shall now outline at DRV. Nothing personal, and I look forward to working with you on other TfD matters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:09, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

For posterity, the DRV can be seen at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 17 and my close was endorsed. BethNaught (talk) 14:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2015

Volodymyr or Vladimir

Hi! Volodymyr is in Ukrainian, Vladimir - in Russian. Where is Kyiv - in Ukraine or in Russia? Do you understand?--Бучач-Львів (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Is this (Arkadii Zhukovsky, Volodymyr the Great in the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine) not in Endlish?

This is a long-standing issue and one which has been discussed extensively. Articles should be titled according to the most common name of that person in the English language. No English person calls him Volodymyr. You shouldn't be mixing Volodymyr into the lead words either because the way you wrote it, it was confusing. As for Kiev (note that English speakers call it Kiev) see Talk:Kiev/naming. Again, Kiev is the common English name so the article is called Kiev.
If you keep trying to change it you are banging your head against a brick wall. There is solid consensus at the moment for Kiev and Vladimir. I recommend that you not waste your time trying to change that. Also, don't reply to me here about this. There's no point trying to persuade me. Even if you did, nobody else would agree with you. Looking at your talk page it seems you have spent a long time trying to persuade people to ignore WP:COMMONNAME for various other things and you have failed. I suggest you stop wasting your time with that as well. BethNaught (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 September 2015

File:SmallLogo.jpg listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect File:SmallLogo.jpg. Since you had some involvement with the File:SmallLogo.jpg redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry if you forget to fix the redirect after moving a file which shadows Commons. I have a database report for finding such redirects, so they will be discovered later. It seems that User:Sfan00 IMG decided to list the latest ones at RfD after I tagged them with {{ShadowsCommons}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

File talk

I shall do my best - apologies for the trouble. You are correct that I am working from a generated list, however it's of very recent vintage, so I should have hoped that something like this wouldn't happen. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 10:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 16:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2015

ThomasCGI

I have listed all that — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keefeky (talk • contribs) 16:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

RE: Unauthorised alterations to article, 11 October 2015

Hi there, just a quick thank you for notifying me of the changes to the Rembrandt article, of which I was unaware of at the time. I am currently using a shared computer at home and it seems a friend thought it would be funny to make these changes whilst I was not present. Although I found the edit somewhat humorous, it does appear to be obvious vandalism (I am not signed in as you can see - my Wiki Username is User: D_Dinneen) and so violates Wikipedia's rules - t.fore I would like to thank you for reverting the article back to its previous state, as I consider such changes as not only harming Wikipedia's reputation for accurate information but also to risk the integrity of my account, which I take great care over, having been a user for over ten years (despite having been somewhat inactive recently). Please accept my apologies for allowing this to happen - Regards, D. Dinneen :) (95.148.57.72 (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC))

The Signpost: 07 October 2015

Finding Unsourced images

Any chance you could help reduce the backlog in this query? https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/5594

Thanks 23:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2015

AWB

I'll take a look and see if it can be mitigated. Here's the thing - the page does exist when the list is generated. And I try to create things as quickly as possible so that it's not a problem...I don't enjoy keeping lists hanging overnight with unfilled redlinks. I'll chew it over some today and see what the best way forward ought to be. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 11:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 October 2015

Template for deletion discussion closure

Hello, BethNaught. I see that you closed the discussion on Template:BannedMeansBanned at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 21. I have three things to say about your closure. Firstly, I don't see that this falls under any of the categories that Wikipedia:Non-admin closure lists as appropriate. It clearly wasn't a "keep outcome ... absent any contentious debate among participants", as there was some contentious debate, and in any case, you didn't close it as "keep", and none of the other categories looks to me even close enough to consider. Secondly, it is not obvious to me that there was "no consensus": I think it could be argued that there was consensus to keep. Not such an obvious consensus that there is no room for disagreement, but enough to make it a questionable close, and non-admin closures should take place only in really unambiguous cases. Thirdly, in the "old tfd template, you gave the date of the discussion as 12 September 2015 instead of 21 September 2015, so I have corrected that. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

@JamesBWatson: I'm going to address your points in reverse order.
3. Thank you for fixing the mistake. I usually click through to check but somehow I must have slipped up.
2. Consensus is not determined numerically, but the count was 5-4 for keeping vs deleting. However, the interplay of arguments was more subtle: deleters urged that the template constitutes gravedancing. This was rebuffed by keepers with the "it's for other editors" and "it's not gravedancing" arguments, which did not appear to influence, for example, Opabinia regalis; DGG expressed sympathy with the gravedancing concern, and Xyl considered it "mealy-mouthed bureaucratese". One keeper's "friendly reminder" comment was strongly contested by Opabinia, who called the template unsalvageable. Policy-wise, gravedancing is a civility violation, so I gave that argument weight; however, many disagreed with that view. It was the case that one deleter suggested a merge, but they did call the template "pointless".
In short, the discussion was messy enough and controversial enough that I would not have been happy with a keep close. Taking it as a whole, I do not believe there was a "sense of the group".
1. When you put it like that, it is the case that my close did not comply with WP:NAC. I would say that that is not a policy but an essay, albeit perhaps one that many refer to. WP:NACD is a guideline and says close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. However, as I wrote in the edit summary here, I would not have closed it if Opabinia, our only regular TfD admin, had been available. I believe my close was reasonable, and its ultimate effect was not to unjustly delete the template. Looking back, I believe this was a subconscious application of WP:IAR: Wikipedia needed maintaining (the TfD had been open a month), a rule prevented me, so I ignored it. Also per WP:WIARM, most of our rules are descriptive, not prescriptive, particularly essays like NACD; TfD has been moving towards more non-admin closures, including an RfC which effectively permitted delete NACs, and moreover there are past examples such as here and here where non-admins close contested discussions as no consensus.
I wonder - and this is not an allegation or attack - whether you would have questioned this close if I were an admin? What is your objective in commenting here? What is it you wish me to do?
BethNaught (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
By your leave, I will ping Opabinia regalis as a respected admin at TfD. Opabinia: no need to comment if you don't want to. BethNaught (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
As a general comment, JamesBWatson, just confirming the above that we have been taking a broad view of NACs at TfD lately, and it has been very effective at improving throughput and reducing the (still sizable) backlog of open discussions with a minimum of fuss. BethNaught is an experienced and very good TfD closer. Not sure that my opinion of this specific close is worth much since I participated in the discussion, but FWIW I think it's quite reasonable. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Oops, that was a slip-up on my part. I had temporarily forgotten you had participated when I pinged you! Thanks anyway, BethNaught (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2015

Thank you for reverting my edit

You reverted my edit on 2015 Rugby World Cup. Thank you for explaining in the summary. --Voltaireuk123 (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)Voltaireuk123

Miholjevine

I deleted this article because it doesn't actually exist. --Joskinfieds (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You didn't delete it. Only administrators can delete pages. Moreover, if it doesn't exist, why is it in the censuses? Just because it is now depopulated (as French Wikipedia will tell us) that does not mean it never existed so as a one-time settlement it qualifies for an article. BethNaught (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
It never did exist. It is a hoax article and a practical joke. Google it. --Joskinfieds (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I see no evidence of that on Google. If you want it deleted go to WP:AFD and explain with evidence why it is a hoax. BethNaught (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

German Diaspora

Hi i'm Ignn, and edited the Latin America section of german Diaspora, because in some countries the information is wrong, first in Colombia in this citation doesn´t say 400,000 to 700,000 descent actually Colombia was not a destiny of German immigration, in Venezuela and Guatemala the citations don't say those numbers, and also 2,000,000 of Germans Mexican are a little less tha a 2% of the total of mexican population and not 3,5% as says in the page, so please if you wan to have a page verifiable please check the info,Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignn (talk • contribs) 10:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It would have helped if you had explained what you were doing in the edit summary. Also, if "Colombia was not a destiny of German immigration", why is there the article German Colombian? BethNaught (talk) 13:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Here says Colombia was not a destiny of German Inmigration both are in spanish, http://www.dw.com/es/alemanes-en-colombia-en-b%C3%BAsqueda-de-oportunidades/a-14995959 , http://www.bdigital.unal.edu.co/1307/, there are other sources in German says the same in Latin america the main destinies of German inmigration were Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Paraguay, well to Colombia emigrated Germans but not those numbers that says in german diaspora, the same in Venezuela, i don´t know where are you from, but in many Latinamerican countries are many racial complex and all want to have the biggest german population.Ignn (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 November 2015

Image upload

Hello I'm Alex, I received your email Re: Jubril Enakele's Image file. I wrote this article on behalf of Mr. Jubril Enakele. I also have an email from him which permits me to use his image freely. What else do I need and how can you help me out, pleaseAlexejesi (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

With regard to the image, it is not the permission of Enakele that you need, buy that of the copyright holder, who will ordinarily be the photographer. If you can provide proof of this, email WP:OTRS with the evidence and they will handle the tagging of the image. BethNaught (talk) 23:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 November 2015

I see a mop in your future

<humor>I do see opposes from editors who insist on at least 7 edits per month for each of the preceding 12 months and from those who take offense at the fact that you don't edit much during the hours of midnight to 8AM (UTC)[1]. <humor>

Other than that, I think this speaks for itself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, BethNaught. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

In case you missed it. Jim Carter 16:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jim Carter: Thank you for your message. I have replied and I apologise for the delay in acknowledging your message. BethNaught (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
You've got another mail. Jim Carter 08:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
@Jim Carter: replied. Gave me food for thought. BethNaught (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Due to some health issues, I was unable to complete the research. I'll let you know as soon as I come to a conclusion. Thank you for your patience. Jim Carter 17:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
No worries, there's still plenty of time. My best wishes for your good health. BethNaught (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 November 2015

Copyright

Hello Beth. I Perry Morris,(Bandrep) and was trying to update information for the "Sorcery band" page, and apparently I missed that section for copyright authorization. When I uploaded that/those pictures, I did check those information boxes. Maybe I misunderstood them...."My Work". I own that picture. (I do all the legal work for this group from contract negotiations, to "Use Rights" for their music).

I've gone ahead and removed that picture. For References...I also have the newspaper and magazines articles about the group, for the "references" requirements, however, I'm not sure the "Wikipedia" people (Editors) will let me use them. Please note; I used Van Halen and Deep Purple pages as a guide to see what can be used. I don't know what else to do, so I'll remove everything, and not try to improve the article any longer. Would like to know if I can get some help on this? I can send over some of these items to someone who is more experienced with the coding process, if that would help to improve the page. Again... JUST trying to get the References, and Citations done. Thanks... I spent a good amount of time on this, and I think I'm done. Perry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandrep (talk • contribs) 00:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

  • When you say "I own the picture": did you take it? Did the photographer transfer the copyright to you? Or is the copyright owned by the company you work for, and in which case, are you sure you have the authority to issue it under a free license, as Wikipedia requires, giving everybody the chance to use it commercially and without permission?
  • Newspaper and magazine articles should be good sources as long as they are considered to be reliable: not tabloids or gossip magazines. For help putting sources in articles, see Help:Citing sources. A good place to ask questions or to get help is the Wikipedia:Teahouse.
  • You've disclosed that you're receving payment, but please be aware of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest policy and write with a neutral point of view. BethNaught (talk) 15:13, 22 November 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) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again

Could you please write a short summary of the ISIRTA story "Professor Prune and the Electric Time Trousers" for I'm Sorry, I'll Read That Again, as well as creating a page for the radio serial (to create the page for the serial, please click on the 'red link'). Thank you.

I can't write a summary of the story, myself, or create a page for it, because I have never heard this story serial. If you could write the summary of the story for the article, I would be very grateful. All the best. Figaro (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Are you sure all these serials and episodes are notable independently of the main article? A quick Google didn't look promising and at present the episode list articles are bare and poorly sourced. BethNaught (talk) 22:01, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 November 2015

The Signpost: 02 December 2015

RfA Nomination

Hi BethNaught - seeing your poll results, I believe some editors may be interested in nominating you for adminship (myself included). Would that be something you would accept late December/early January? samtar {t} 08:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm seriously considering it. If I do decide to go ahead, I guess co-noms are always welcome! BethNaught (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Certainly give me a nudge if you would like me to consider a nomination :) WormTT(talk) 10:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't realized you were considering an RfA but you should definitely go for it! nudgenudgenudge Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Well my co-nom wouldn't count for much, but along with with possible co-nominators WTT and Opabinia regalis and the overwhelming support at your poll, I think you'll do pretty well... ;-) -- samtar whisper 12:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks all for your support, in the face of which I will break radio silence and inform you that I am already in contact with a potential nominator (or two ;) ) off-wiki, just waiting for them to respond with a final decision. BethNaught (talk) 12:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yaay! Hope to see a blue link here soon! -- samtar whisper 12:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the link is now blue, and I can officially reveal myself as the mystery nominator. :) @BethNaught: if you want any co-nominations, then now is the time to ask people. Otherwise, just answer the three standard questions, accept the nomination, and then we will be ready to start. If you like, you can transclude the nomination yourself, or I'd be happy to do it if you prefer. And if you have any questions about the process, don't hesitate to ask. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 18:24, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
*dramatic music* I must say Mr. Stradivarius, that is a truly inspiring nomination -- samtar whisper 18:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: Many thanks indeed for (IMHO) a very well-written nomination. One point of fact: I don't consider myself an AFC member any more. I keep myself on the list in case I need to use the AFCH script but I'm not an active reviewer. I will give time for a hopeful co-nom to write their piece and then begin. Thanks again :) BethNaught (talk) 20:31, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad - I've changed that part of the nom. Let me know when you're ready to start. :) And in case I forget to say it later, good luck! (Although I'm sure you won't need it.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I'm the co-nominator. Didn't realized that Dave and Opabinia regalis were already here... Jim Carter 15:53, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 December 2015

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Just taking a moment to apologise for such a hard question on your RFA. I asked it because I expected it to give some insight into how/you would act/think when faced with a tricky question and your answer was just phenomenal. I have no doubt whatsoever that you will pass and that you will be an outstanding admin. Good luck with the rest of hell week. Spartaz Humbug! 07:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
No hard feelings - I understand where you're coming from. Thanks for your support and the barnstar :) BethNaught (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your user name

Hi, I've seen you around – I've particularly noticed you on meta-talk pages outside of the core English-Wikipedia project, and have generally had a positive impression. But to get straight to my point, I'll admit that I jumped straight-on to the conclusion that you were a woman, and was taken aback to just learn on reading your RfA that that might not be the case. Actually, now that I've seen your explanation, now I'm jumping to a different conclusion – that you're a Jewish man. You should realize the problem here. After you explained your name in this edit, and your nominator also clarified that with this edit, this support !vote shows that not everyone noticed and got the message. This might not be such an issue with me if there was greater gender balance on Wikipedia, and if gender issues here were less complicated and controversial. I'm somewhat inclined to give (special) support to identified women here, as I'd like to see the balance improve and this issue go away.

So, looking at the article on Beth number, I see a section on Beth number § Beth null, but the word "naught" does not appear in that article. Is "beth naught" the same thing as "beth null"?

While "Naught" isn't a common English-language surname, McNaught is, which is leading to editors feeling misled about your user name.

As an aside, I also noted that naught redirects to 0 (number), but that was missing a hatnote to Naught (album), so I added it.

Can you explain why you chose that particular name? Surely you weren't unaware that it could be misleading? Would you consider changing it? A subtle switch to "BethNull" might be sufficient, as "Null" isn't as likely to be mistaken for a surname.

Oh, I see wikt:naught: (Britain, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand) (now rare or archaic in US, Canada) Zero. Now I have you pegged as a Jewish man from one of those countries. I'm struggling about how seriously to take this, which is why I'm posting here and not on your RfA. Frankly, I'm feeling a bit trolled. But maybe I'm overreacting. Hesitating to save my edit, but what, the heck, if I've put this much time into pondering it... Wbm1058 (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Linguistically, the first of the aleph numbers may be called aleph zero, naught or null. Based on this I believe a mathematician would readily understand "beth naught" as a number from the context, even if it is a non-standard usage. And yes, it is the same.
I chose this username because I originally intended to register "AlephNaught". That, or a similar spelling, was taken, so I couldn't use that particular number. I went for BethNaught because it has a nice ring to it and it's actually equal to AlephNaught. This was a comparatively quick choice on realising my original choice was unavailable. Obviously I am now aware it is non-optimal in terms of sounding similar to a real name, but I have made reasonable (and importantly for an RfA, non-badgering) efforts to mitigate the issue; in an ideal world, people wouldn't make these assumptions and gender would pose no issues. I think that it's not right for you to conclude anything from my username, given how you got it wrong once, and I won't comment on any speculation (although I do come from the UK: I disclose this on Commons).
As you might imagine, I have become quite emotionally attached to this username and I have no intention at present to change it. If people make assumptions, that's their fault, as I have explained the situation in an appropriate place. To be honest, I feel disappointed and somewhat affronted that you say you feel trolled as I have never made representations about myself in bad faith. Do you think I'm happy that people misinterpret me and make presumptions? BethNaught (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for that explanation. I understand how you can become attached to a name, and chose a name that's well understood by specialist mathematicians. I studied calculus and differential equations for my engineering degree, so have more math background than most people, but this area of math is foreign to even me. I apologize for writing out loud about my assumptions and briefly felt feelings. Just a thought, maybe, add a subtle link to the article Beth naught as an extra link in your user signature. Good luck with the tools. ← I think that looks like a neat signature! Wbm1058 (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Typo Team, meet Linked Misspellings

Hi again, on a lighter note I noticed a user box on your user-page for WP:Typo Team. I was pleasantly surprised to find that as I've been working on-and-off on the list at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked misspellings, a lonely corner of the project. Seems that database report's a fairly well-kept secret, as the only page at Typo Team linking there is an archive. I'm surprised that list isn't at least linked from the front page of the Typo Team project, but then the Linked Misspellings list doesn't link to the team either. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and as beth number links to cardinal number (cardinals for short), thought I'd share something I worked on recently (yet another meaning for "cardinals") though if you're not American you probably won't find it as amusing as I did.
Talk:Stanford Cardinal#Cardinal, not Cardinals. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. That looks to be a very useful resource. BethNaught (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Part of the issue with the database reports is that not all of them are updated very regularly. Many have not been updated since 2014 so many of the problem articles they list are no longer problems. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
    True, but fortunately Linked Misspellings still receives weekly updates. BethNaught (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Good grief

After seeing just that oppose vote I am even more sure I do not ever wish to be an admin. Thank you for being wise and ignoring it. Why you want to be an admin is a mystery, but good luck with it. I am sure you will do it with care and wisdom

Fiddle Faddle 10:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, heck, Fiddle. Only one of 19 successful candidacies so far this year has sailed through with zero opposition, and that was a former admin applying for reinstatement of their tools. While Naught hasn't had null opposition, they are on track to come in second this year in the oppose metric, and first among first-time candidates. Contrast with Liz who absorbed 72 negative !votes and came out OK. My candidacy seems to have set off a backlash against what was generally viewed as too much frivolous opposition, but we need to set a balance here. RfA should not be such a "friendly space" as to make editors feel intimidated about opposing candidates. Candidates should be able to absorb some negativity without overreacting to it, as successful ones are given a block button, which shouldn't be used as a weapon against someone who annoys them too much.
You should run. While I can't promise you would have naught opposition, based on the guide-writers' reaction to your Arbcom candidacy, I expect you would pass with a higher percentage than I did. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
@Wbm1058: It was that particular opposition that struck me. Your suggestion for my own candidacy is appreciated, but I no plans ever to yield to the temptation. Until my personal circumstances made withdrawal wise I stood for ArbCom without the mop and bucket, and polled remarkably well despite withdrawing. There is a link on my user page about me and adminship. Fiddle Faddle 17:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Such a cute kitty :) But seriously, when one runs for RfA, one has to be prepared for "Andrew D finding ever more ingenious reasons to oppose"; and it is heartening to see others who show trust in me. You would have had my vote for ArbCom and I would most likely support you at RfA, but your reasons are very reasonable and I respect the good work you continue to do at AfC, especially now I have left it. BethNaught (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Good grief, that is the most reasonable thread on that site I've ever seen. For the hell of it, I'll note this. I was kind of proud to have such a staunch AfD opponent support me. (Hey Timtrent! How you doing? You haven't missed anything funny or exciting yet.) Drmies (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
#118 still active (while I didn't know yet what an admin is, or an arb), - getting melancholic (looking further also over 95 and 98) but should turn to laughter, my Christmas present to the world (watch it grow up) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
It's been far too long since I did any choral singing. Thanks for the link to Unser Mund sei voll Lachens, it was a real pleasure to hear. BethNaught (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, my friend, I wonder why some folk have to speak at all, or why they set the fingers in motion without engaging the right part of the brain. But then, by their words do we know them. I love your diff, by the way. I often disagree with them as well, and yet find the disagreements to be handled well. That, I think, is almost more important than anything else. Fiddle Faddle 18:13, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hey, all the best people get one oppose at RFA ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Singular They Award
I applaud your stance, and so does some lousy linguist. That one should call this a 'stance', in 2015, beggars belief, but hey, it is what it is. Good luck with the tool that seems to be coming your way. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I have used singular they for as long as I can remember, so on a personal level I find its rejection bewildering, let alone for any other reason... thank you for your support! BethNaught (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Singular they was good enough for Shakespeare, and that makes it good enough for me! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Some cookies for you

Cookies!

Etamni has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Because RfA is never easy, even when you are running at 99% support.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Enjoy! Etamni | ✉ | ✓  20:20, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

True, true. I love coming home to cookies, thanks indeed :) BethNaught (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Staggeringly early (but accurate)

congratulations on getting the mop! Totally deserved, as the RfA comments reflect. Regards, Simon a.k.a. Irondome (talk) 21:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

It ain't over till the bureaucrat signs. Hopefully I won't get sent over the top before the end of Sunday... BethNaught (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Just wear a private's uniform so the snipers don't pick you out. Deffo do not wear a wikipedia T shirt. Then you'll be perfectly safe ;) Irondome (talk) 22:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Hehe, good advice :) BethNaught (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
The Supports come early while the Opposes usually pop in around Day 3 or Day 4 so I think you are definitely in safe territory. It's great to get that kind of support! Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
If I haven't suddenly lost the ability the count, we're just entering Day 3 :/ BethNaught (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I just saw that there were 4 days left. Well, pay no mind to me. My only advice is to candidates who are not doing as well as you are...many candidates withdraw as soon as Opposes appear because it is very painful to see your fellow editors detail what they believe are your failings and flaws. So they quit. But I think if they had hung in there, there is often a rebound towards the end. At least it happened in my case. It's just that an RfA feels like the longest 7 days of your life, especially if you are in the discretionary zone. So I'm glad to see you are doing so well! Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, it makes more sense when you put it like that – that is an important consideration. Let's hope the winds continue to blow fair, though. BethNaught (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
I fully appreciate RfA is a stressful time even if you run at near 100% support, as you never know what somebody might pull out of the woodwork and cause a pile-on oppose. So I think you're right to keep congratulations premature just for the minute. As I gave you 10/10 in the opinion poll, it's fairly obvious what my view on the whole situation is. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

(Almost) Congrats and questions

Hi , how's it going? Firstly, let me almost congratulate you on your almost mop! Secondly, I have a couple of questions about how you found WP:ORCP, especially in relation to how it could be improved and how much it influenced your decision to run for RfA - if you would like to answer them, please see this page. Thanks! -- samtar whisper 10:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer to wait until the RfA is closed so that I can get all my thoughts in order and reflect on the whole process. But it's on my to-do list. BethNaught (talk) 11:51, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Great idea, no rush whatsoever good luck! -- samtar whisper 11:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I've now replied. BethNaught (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Wonderful, thank you! And congratulations, both personally and on behalf of the ORCP "team" :) now get to work! :P -- samtar whisper 22:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I see you deleted (at my request mind you, pitchforks down everyone) one of my subpages with your new-fangled admin toys tools :3 -- samtar whisper 09:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverting

Hello Naught, On the 18th of November, i left a message here about my draft "Jubril Enakele" However, each time i check this on google(https://www.google.com.ng/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=jubril+enakele+wiki) i see my message to you on the 1st page! This is a little confusing, as I thought drafts are not meant to be indexed. Is there anything that can be done about it? Or is this a normal occurrence? I tried to edit your talk page earlier but i guess that was not the solution. I really would love a feedback as soon as possible. Thank you so much. Alexejesi (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You did message me on the 14th of November about an image you uploaded. At the Google search you link to the link I'm seeing is to File talk:Jubril Enakele. Managing Director and CEO, Zenith Capital Limited.jpg which has since been deleted. Either we're seeing different things, or you're seeing what I'm seeing; if the latter is the case, Google's cache has not updated.
In general file pages, file talk pages, user pages and user talk pages are indexed by search engines (I think) so it's not abnormal for this to happen. That's what happens when we work on a free and open encyclopaedia, I guess. BethNaught (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Naught! Alexejesi (talk) 13:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

RFA

Hey I noticed your RFA. I want to say i think you will be a great admin, based on the responses. I can't vote since im not exactly experienced but thumbs up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterysteppe (talk • contribs) 19:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 December 2015

Congratulations

Congrats for the successful RfA! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations on a fine showing at your request for adminship. Please take a look at our shiny new Wikipedia:Administrators' guide for helpful advice as you step into your new role. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Go forth, and do good unto the wiki. –xenotalk 19:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Congrats BethNaught and welcome aboard! To echo what Xeno said, our admin guide is a brand new portal for all things admin, so if you have any feedback on it that'd be great (I authored much of it, with much help from some friends). Feedback aside, I in particular encourage you to check out the various tools, scripts and gadgets, as this stuff will make admin life much easier. Best wishes and look forward to working with you! — MusikAnimal talk 19:50, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    That admin guide is really handy. If anything comes up I'll mention it. I'll definitely be making good use of Twinkle and your responseHelper script looks intriguing. BethNaught (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, and thanks for running. North America1000 19:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! Mz7 (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Congratulations :) –Davey2010Talk 20:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Congratulations (and condolences)! Kevin (aka L235  · t  · c  · ping in reply) 20:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Congratulations - you deserve it and I know you will use the tools honorably and in a manner that benefits Wikipedia to the fullest! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, BNaught. Well deserved. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Congrats and thanks for putting yourself forward. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone for your good wishes :) BethNaught (talk) 21:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

  • It's the beginning of the end! (Seriously, though, congratulations!) Biblioworm 22:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
    Haha, thanks :) I've been finding my feet with the delete button. The interface is not optimal on a tablet... BethNaught (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Congratulations on your fine showing! I am pleased to present you with your admin T-shirt. Wear it with pride. Or something. (P.S. Here's a hint: the delete button works better if you don't try to do it with your feet.) --MelanieN (talk) 08:03, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! I knew you would be a shoo-in. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! I knew you would become an admin. I will also send a cookie Class455fan1 (talk to me) 12:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Congratulations! May your naysayers always be as few, and as ineffectual. Maproom (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello BethNaught: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 19:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

A turkey for you!

Turkey
Congratulations on becoming Wikipedia's newest administrator, and Merry Christmas! Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 20:24, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Woohoo! Congrats!!!! --joe deckertalk 22:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

My grandma made this brownie for you to congratulate on your successful RFA. I wish you the best for the festive season. EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 01:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations on your successful RfA! Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Congratulations on becoming an Administrator. Enjoy this! Class455fan1 (talk to me) 12:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

congratulations

Congratulations on your successful RFA!
Allow me to impart the words of wisdom I received from the puppy after my RFA passed – eight long, sordid, should-have-found-a-better-hobby years ago:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version. (I got nothing here. It's inevitable.)
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. Without exception, you will pick the wrong one to do. (See #5.)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll. (You'll attract many more of those now, because mop. They must like to drink the dirty water in the bucket.)
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block, because really, what else is there to live for?
  5. Remember that when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology. It will not be a personal attack because we are admins and, therefore, we are all rouge anyway. (Hey, I got called 'an affront to common decency' last week, so yay!)
  6. Finally, remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.


Katietalk 15:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better.
All rights released under GFDL.

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas!!
Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,

Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!

   –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 17:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Congratulations on your successful RFA! To keep you warm during the holiday season, please have a sample of the organic coffee I drink every morning! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 04:00, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

One more congratulation

And thanks for proving your nomination by deleting, at my request, this useless common.js file in my user space. Pldx1 (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Just adding another late congrats! (Sorry to barge into your conversation, Pldx1). Well done, very pleased to see your RfA closed as successful. :) Orphan Wiki 17:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I will sneak in here to offer another late congratulations. I have been offline for over four days but for a brief look-in. I am sure you will do a great job. Donner60 (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry stuff.

Poepkop (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Poepkop (talk) 17:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

I see you've already started working at WP:RPP. Good luck! Dat GuyTalkContribs 22:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 24:03, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Christmas!

Happy Christmas!
Have a happy holiday season. May the year ahead be productive and happy. John (talk) 18:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

{{sprotect2}}

Don't forget to add {{sprotect2}} and etc. to articles you've protected (see here). Dat GuyTalkContribs 13:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll try not to, thanks for pointing that out. BethNaught (talk) 13:54, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 17:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

NBC Nightly News

BethNaught, I know you're on wikibreak, so here's just an FYI: The IP is at it again. And José's article. 😔 When you come back, you can take care of it. If it becomes a bigger problem, I'll go to the noticeboard. Enjoy your break! ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 05:18, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Is Kristen Welker one of the Saturday anchors? I'm not in America so I'm not on top of these things. It doesn't look like it from the internet though. BethNaught (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. Welker occasionally fills in, only if needed. She anchored the Today Show on Christmas and Nightly News as well. I'm looking for video to back it up. Basically she's a when needed anchor. ❄ Corkythehornetfan ❄ 21:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

American Council for Technology and Industry Advisory Council

Thank you so much. I've had an uphill battle the last few days, especially in reporting mass copyright violations to several articles. I suspect everyone's vacationing in the Bahamas, what with the salary administrators pull in. Happy Holidays, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing it and working to stop them :) BethNaught (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bannedmeansbanned

Hello
You took part in the TfD on this a while ago; I have opened a discussion here if you wish to comment. Regards, Xyl 54 (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Revdel not on AN/I?

I am pretty sure I've seen a user with his revdel request on AN/I. Anyways, if you can't find a user who was recently active in the category, where should I go to request a revdel? Dat GuyTalkContribs 10:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 December 2015

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!
Best wishes for a wonderful 2016!---- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

Happy New Year 2016!
Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels?

Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters.
   – Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Mărășești

Thanks for protecting the above article - I've asked the person who originally inserted the casualty figures to provide a source. Regards Denisarona (talk) 08:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year BethNaught!

Happy New Year!

BethNaught,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

Happy New Year, BethNaught!

Happy New Year!

BethNaught,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


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

Please delete this page

Hi, BethNaught. Could you please delete this page (on speedy request). The rationale: it is not yet 2016, UTC. Many thanks. Neve-selbert 23:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

  • No. It's now 2016 UTC, and in any case that was a highly pointy nomination. BethNaught (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Please, could you just delete it temporarily so I can add it back up again with the correct information. Neve-selbert 00:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
If I may add, the list is in-fact 50% factually inaccurate, misleading and false. For example, President Barack Obama will not become a state leader in 2016 until 05:00 (UTC). Of course, it is 99.9% unlikely he will die or resign office, but still, anything is plausible and we must not make premature presumptions. I have downgraded my speedy request to just a normal one. Regards. Neve-selbert 00:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Update: I have had to re-upgrade back to CSD, as XFD usually takes around a week. Neve-selbert 03:36, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, BethNaught!

Happy New Year!

BethNaught,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 11:13, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


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

Nice work :)

Nice work with the ban evasion, and thanks again for protecting my user page Happy New Year! -- samtar whisper 10:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Revdel

Does this meet criteria 2 (grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive vandalism on a BLP) for revision deletion? If so could you please revdel it? Thanks! Btw congrats on your RfA success! BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced it does. It doesn't libel or smear the subject, it's just plain vandalism. OTOH since it's another amateur soft porn pic being used for vandalism, I added it to MediaWiki:Bad image list which prevents its use on Wikipedia, thereby hiding the picture from the diff you give.
As an aside, revdel requests are better submitted through private channels such as email. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 23:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thx 4 listing it - I wasn't sure if it was really bad enough to warrent revdel, but I thought it might be. BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Much appreciated. It's a serious issue and all, no doubt about it, but at the same time they didn't intimidate me. Cheers! :) Amaury (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Glad you're OK. Absolutely intolerable behaviour. BethNaught (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Also, it looks like they are evading their block yet again as 172.56.39.218. Same IP range as the other three IPs from this user that were blocked and same editing pattern of reporting users and IPs on WP:AIV, with most of them being bogus reports. They also remove other users' reports with decisions that, really, administrators can only make. On top of that, Taokola is also EnRouteAviation before they "discontinued" that user. So they've got quite the trouble-making history. :) Amaury (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I knew about EnRouteAviation so I reblocked that account. I can't say I'm familiar with their other IPs? It sounds like you should file an SPI. BethNaught (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll definitely consider that. For reference, here are the past IPs that were blocked by different administrators:
172.56.39.106
172.56.38.28
172.56.39.194
And while I was looking through the AIV history to get those, it looks like there are at least two others that I oversaw, one from today, not including the one I linked to you above. It just comes with the territory, I guess, haha! Amaury (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Based on that information, I have blocked 39.218 as a WP:DUCK. BethNaught (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I ended up range blocking 172.56.39.218/23. BethNaught (talk) 22:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Taokaka filed. BethNaught (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the padlocks

Thanks for doing the drudgework of putting padlocks on all of those indef-protected soft-redirects to Wiktionary.

I wish there was a bot that would sweep all protected pages every few weeks (or on-demand on a per-article basis) and fix incorrect protection templates. It would have saved us both a lot of work. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

These padlocks should really be automatically displayed by the software. I wonder if this has ever been proposed? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@MSGJ: I've wondered this as well. This should be doable as a gadget. We have a gadget for protection symbols at a another wiki that I contribute to. There are some differences compared to the templates that we use now. It puts the protection indicator (padlock here) in a different spot and is not based on a template. This could be implemented to essentially transclude the padlock templates we use now instead. It is based on the edit/move protection level, not the reason or duration. I don't know if it is possible to take those into account. — JJMC89 (T·C) 11:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Userpage Shield
For replying on my talk page for the concerns raised on the article List of state leaders in 2016

Ninney (talk) 13:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, my dear friend, for blocking the vandal. I don't know what I would do without you.

Ilya Drakonov (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

User Talk Page Deleted?

Hi BethNaught,

Actually i don't understand why someone post some stuff on my user talk page Talk Page and then you deleted my page ? Sorry i can't understand what's going on ... can you please explain ? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by UsamaDaniyalXen (talk • contribs)

A vandal posted a rather rude message to your talk page and to many other people's talk pages. Since that message was the only thing that had been posted there, I just deleted the page. BethNaught (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

IP block

Hi. Could this IP please be blocked. They have been warned twice including a final warning and they have continued to be disruptive and vandalise. Cheers. DaHuzyBru (talk) 15:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

An opinion, please

I have run across a relatively new user, BoxOfChickens, who may be overly zealous, especially in warning new editors. Instead of raising it at ANI I wondered if you might take a look and see if my unease is justified. I have chosen at this stage not to tell the I am discussing them. I've tried a note on their talk page but seem unable to engage them in conversation. Fiddle Faddle 21:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Timtrent: Your uneasiness is well justified. BoxOfChickens is one of those users at AIV who final warns a user and reports them immediately after. This event also fits their pattern of giving multiple final warnings which include gratuitous shouting. So overzealous are they that they have accidentally reinstated vandalism for which they themselves have been reverted and warned (in this diff see also Anna Frodesiak's warning about reporting a username for being an IRL name even though it wasn't a celebrity name). As a climax to this litany, see this gratuitous inflexibility and hostility when dealing with self-identifying BLP subjects. The BLP subject was blocked for edit warring but if BoxOfChickens had acted better the situation could have been avoided.
How do you plan to move forward? Their talk page shows they throw their interpretation of the book at a situation without applying much common sense. I don't think I have the energy or ability to make them understand and given how events have played out with the BLP, a unilateral block would look questionable to uninvolved users. Perhaps seek a topic ban from recent changes and new page patrolling at AN(I)? BethNaught (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I think I will go to ANI. It seems the best way. I will make one final attempt to engage with them first. Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
@Timtrent: Ping me if you do, please. That paragraph of diffs is too much to waste 😞 BTW are you sure you don't want some RevDel? BethNaught (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I think a little revel might be useful, but I was wondering what one really ought to do about that IP. It is a legal threat, but one that might be best ignored. It;s really particularly unpleasant. Have I interacted with that IP ever, I wonder? Or is their brand of idiocy sprayed everywhere? At your discretion please revel, I think.
I left a note on the poultry page. If I have to go to ANI I will, I am just hoping to tame them. Leaping straight to ANI is just the behaviour I am truing to counsel them against, after all. The irony is not lost on me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timtrent (talk • contribs)
Done. Unfortunately a WHOIS query resolves to an ISP. You may have interacted with them previously under a different dynamic IP but who knows? BethNaught (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Who can possibly say? I suspect this is some sort of backlash from a couple of deletion discussions I started recently, one on the Psychology of eating meat (kept, though vulnerable) and th either Men Going Their Own Way, likely to be kept but will be claque edited and owned. Each seems to have some sort of sexual issues surrounding it! Go figure. Fiddle Faddle 23:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Happy New Year, BethNaught!

Happy New Year!

BethNaught,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Peppy Paneer (talk) 13:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to send this message

Why you reverted my edition in Frozen?

Why you reverted my edition in Frozen?

Frozen has a Scandinavian protagonist. - Daniel Steinman (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC).

From reading the article, the film is only based on Scandinavia, not explicitly set there. To claim otherwise requires a reliable source. Also, as both I and 78.26 explained in our edit summaries, the category you added to the page does not presently exist: Category:American animation with Scandinavian protagonist is a red link. BethNaught (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
@Daniel Steinman: Now, I'm no expert on creating categories, and there's nothing wrong with a category called "American animation with Scandinavian protagonist", but are there a number of American animated films with a Scandinavian protagonist? Creating a category with only one entry isn't very useful, except in limited circumstances. Both BethNaught and I recognize that your edit was done in full good faith, and that you are trying to improve the encyclopedia. What is your goal with this edit? What are you trying to accomplish? Perhaps there is a better way to do this than to add a category that doesn't exist. All the best, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

RPP thanks

Thank you! best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 January 2016

Could you check a NAC?

Hi BethNaught, sorry to bother - would you mind checking over a NAC I did for this AfD when you get a mo? Thanks -- samtar whisper 16:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

In technical terms, you did not removed the AFD template from the article, nor did you add the "old AFD" template to the talk page. When closing AFDs in the future please carefully follow the instructions at WP:AFDAI. In terms of the outcome, non-admins can close as speedy keep, but only if it's correct. I'm not sure it satisfies the WP:SK criteria but, since WP:SNOW seems to come into play, I won't advise you to revert your close. I would say that though I'm sure you wish to be helpful, it wouldn't have hurted to wait a bit longer before actually closing it to see what others at ANI thought. BethNaught (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh bother - sorry -- samtar whisper 16:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Small favor needed

Hello, BethNaught. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:33, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Black account

Please block user 68.118.134.7. Every single edit from there has been vandalism since it opened. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but there have only been two vandalism edits today and the last an hour ago. Blocks are preventive so if the vandal has gone away for now as it seems I won't block. Please do report to AIV if more happens soon though and as it's a school's shared IP address there will be escalating blocks. BethNaught (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Changes to the Danielle Spencer page

Can you please tell me what changes you have made to the page. I got an email saying that you did but I don't see the changes. Dldavid1970 (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I cannot see that I have made any edits or administrative actions on Danielle Spencer or Danielle Spencer (American actress). I don't know why you received such an email. BethNaught (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What happened to my talk page?

Seems as though this edit occurred and then you reverted it. What happened here? -- numbermaniac (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Somebody made a suppressible edit. I reverted it and reported it to the oversighters, one of whom suppressed it. That's all I can say. BethNaught (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox delete

Just out of curiosity, when a page has been nominated for speedy deletion and also courtesy blanked, do you have to use admin glasses to see the text that was blanked? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

No. The blanking is just a normal edit removing all the content and replacing it with the CSD templates and blanking notice. Therefore the potential attack is still visible in the page history. BethNaught (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Thank you for answering, and thank you for deleting the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Why do these pages exist?

List of Internet slang phrases, it's fully protected and there's "apparently" no existent page there, with it saying "Wikipedia does not have an article with this exact name. Please search for List of Internet slang phrases in Wikipedia to check for alternative titles or spellings.". Could you delete this page, along with List of Internet slang? There's legitimately no reason to keep these pages around. Anarchyte 11:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

These pages are meant to be like this. If people search for that title, it tells them that Wikipedia doesn't have an article (it doesn't; it was moved to Wiktionary) and where they can find the information, including a link to the page's new location on Wiktionary. This is analoguous to leaving a redirect after a page move, except here the page was moved to a different wiki. BethNaught (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
But even then, going to a nonexistant page is more useful. It shows this: https://gyazo.com/f0803f33d23f3168577c8ec80cdb792d (don't mind the green circles). This has even more links than the current ones. Anarchyte 12:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
This isn't the place. If you want them to be deleted, WP:AFD is thataway. BethNaught (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 January 2016

Jani-King

Thanks for quick response. Article is quite old and company gets occasional media coverage which were my only reasons for not speedying immediately. (It came to my attention from the Stratus article - the creator of that page was asking "They get an article, why don't we?") Blythwood (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

About Deletion

Why did you delete my page? Shaikhsikandar (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Like I wrote in the deletion log, there are several reasons:
  1. It was promotional. Per criterion for speedy deletion number G11, pages which consists of promotion can be immediately deleted. While your page was not outright advertising, it was wholly positive and written in an adulatory rather than encyclopaedic manner.
  2. It was an biography of a living person without any references to sources. These can be deleted after a week; taken in combination with G11, it was immediately deleted.
  3. This is not technically a reason for deletion, but it was an autobiography. Writing about yourself is strongly discouraged, because your bias towards yourself means you will likely write a promotional rather than neutral page.
BethNaught (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Help with MetLife article?

Hi BethNaught, I'm been working on behalf of MetLife to propose improvements to that article. I see that you have been active recently on the page and appear to be a very experienced editor, so I wondered if you might be available to help me with a few requests?

To briefly summarize, though some positive changes have been made to the page by other editors, there are some issues that have been introduced and some outstanding problems I would like to address. In particular, I'm hoping to correct inaccuracies and bring the page inline with Wikipedia’s citation guidelines. I posted a note to the Talk page back in November, to summarize and clarify the outstanding requests, but so far I haven’t had any replies.

Again, while there have been changes made to the page, it’s been difficult for me to get editors to respond to my requests or to discuss where changes have introduced problems (e.g. the addition of company structure information that's confusing and outdated). Because of this, I'm reaching out to you to see if you might help. Due to my paid COI, I have not and will not be making any edits myself. I’m watching the Talk page and will gladly respond to any comments or questions there. Many thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry not to be any help but evaluting COI requests isn't my strong suit and I'm not feeling well at the moment. You'll get it looked at sooner by asking somebody else. :( BethNaught (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 January 2016

AIV thanks

Thanks very much for your help here. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Please reprotect/delete (return to draftspace) Ryan Driller

This article was salted by DGG last year following multiple recreations after AFD deletion. After the events mentioned on the RFPP page, it was submitted via AFC, where two different AFC project members found the new claims insufficient. Rather than taking the matter to DRV, the standard process for matters like this, Sammy1339 joined the AFC project only to reserve the decision of other editors, discovered the page was protected, and posted rather incompletely to RFPP. Despite what he said there, the issue was not the accuracy of the claim involved, but whether the draft had sufficient independent reliable, as noted by the two experienced editors who rejected the AFC submission. User:Bearcat accurately wrote that " It takes reliable source coverage about him to get him over PORNBIO, not primary source mentions on the website of the organization that granted the award". User:SwisterTwister similarly wrote "Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Neither of them "doubted that he really received the award because the fact that he received it was cited to the granting organization's press release" as Sammy wrote at RFPP; instead, they questioned the independence of the coverage. Given that XBIZ is a PR business and its award nominees are not independently chosen, but "are submitted by clients"[2][3], this is a very reasonable concern. This was an attempt at an end run around both the DRV and AFC processes, and shouldn't have been allowed -- especially based on a misleading, inaccurate RFPP post. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Facepalm Facepalm Done. For anyone else coming here asking why, read what's written above. The changes aren't as significant as I believed, so take it to DRV. BethNaught (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Sorry about that - I wasn't aware there was an argument about whether the XBIZ awards counted towards PORNBIO. Can you direct me to any previous discussions of that, to avoid further confusion? --Sammy1339 (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
There have been some discussions, but no real resolution even approached. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XBIZ Award and the HuffPost article I cite there for some useful comments, as well as Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254#DRV treatment of porn-related content. A DRV might well be a good place to address this question more directly. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Interesting. The HuffPo piece you cited makes a damning case. I'll have to look into this more. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Sammy1339, HW is wrong. The only one on WP questioning if XBIZ is a well-known/significant award is him because he doesn't consider any porn award to be well-known/significant, not even the highly prestigious AVN Award for Best New Starlet (he actually voted to delete a recipient of it). There have been AfD's resulting in "keep" for a recipient of XBIZ's Foreign Male Performer of the Year award (a slightly les prestigious award than Male Performer of the Year) as well as a recipient of the female equivalent of the award Driller won (XBIZ's Female Performer of the Year). BethNaught, could you restore and start an AfD please. Me and Sammy1339 aren't trying to avoid having a discussion on this like HW insinuated above, I actually requested we have an AfD for this last week. The reason why I'm not taking this to DRV is because DRV is not AfD. DRV is meant to review the most recent AfD there was for an article and either endorse or overturn its close. If I take this to DRV, it will be referred to AfD anyways, so why not skip that step? Rebecca1990 (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@Rebecca1990: I'm reading up on it and reserving judgment for now. If there's really strong evidence that the XBIZ awards are bought, then they shouldn't count. On the other hand people have said this sort of thing about the Oscars for years.
If there's going to be a discussion I would suggest that the place for it might be a policy RfC asking whether the XBIZ awards satisfy PORNBIO#1. We shouldn't pretend it's just about this article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I have looked into this. I didn't find anything to strongly suggest that the awards were corrupt, as the 2013 HuffPo piece refereced by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz suggested. I also found that Springer's Handbook of the Sociology of Sexualities has this to say on page 425:

Similarly, XBIZ describes itself as the “global leader in adult entertainment industry news,” providing current industry coverage on their website as well as two monthly trade publications for the Internet and technology (XBIZ World) and the retail market (XBIZ Premiere) (XBIZ.com). XBiz hosts four trade events annually that include the XBIZ Awards, which honor influential companies and performers in a red carpet event like AVN’s awards ceremony. XBIZ.net serves as the industry’s social network, connecting adult industry professionals with community news, information and business opportunities around the world (Xbizworld.com).

Lynn Comella (2010) suggests that trade shows like those of AVN and XBIZ offer a “sociologically rich window into the marketing and mainstreaming of sex in American society” and provides “an opportunity to assess the challenges confronting the industry” like internet piracy and declining DVD sales (p. 286). Indeed, her ethnographic research on the women’s market for sex toys and pornography involved attending three tradeshows to gather data from industry professionals and trade events and seminars, which she argues are the “best way to gauge what is new, what is notable, and, importantly, what direction the industry is headed” (p. 303).

It seems like on the basis of this it's reasonable to say that the top XBIZ awards satisfy WP:PORNBIO#1. Another issue was brought up at the AfC by Bearcat here. If I understand correctly, Bearcat claims that, while there is no doubt that the subject received the award, we nevertheless need a secondary source stating that he did in order for the SNG to be satisfied. I cannot find any pertinent policy or guideline that says anything of the like, and I have to say it makes no sense to me. Do we imagine that the author of this secondary source would do anything other than check the XBIZ website in order to verify that the person received the award? If not, for what reason on Earth do we prefer the secondary source? In fact this seems like a case where the primary source should be preferred.

Bearcat also questioned whether the subject passes GNG, based on a Google news search, plus coverage in the trade journals, I think he probably does.

I understand that Rebecca is terrified of DRV because she believes that the people there have a punitive attitude toward pornography articles. I do think this is a case that might pass there, but I also wonder if it's the appropriate venue, since there is actually no dispute about the previous decision, which was made before he won the award.

To sum up, as I see it there is no doubt that he received the award, and little doubt that the award satisfies the criteria, and the only objection lies in the desire for a secondary source for a specific fact that no one doubts; furthermore some editors want this to go to DRV instead of AfD simply because it was rejected on this interesting basis. On both counts I have to point to WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, and ask for some good will. The draft should simply be accepted. If anyone really wants to argue that the secondary sourcing is necessary, AfD seems like a perfectly good place. --Sammy1339 (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you Sammy1339, primary sources are good enough to prove someone received an award. As a matter of fact, secondary sources can be untrustworthy. For example, Las Vegas Sun mistakenly reported that Kendall Karson "won multiple awards — 2013 AVN Best New Starlet, 2013 Exotic Dancer Awards Adult Movie Feature Entertainer of the Year, 2013 Sex Awards Porn Star of the Year, Sexiest Adult Star and Porn’s Best Body." The official websites for those awards do not list her as a recipient for any of those categories in that year ([4], [5], [6]). Rebecca1990 (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
If you're so sure that the subject passes GNG on the basis of media coverage, then add some of that media coverage to the article. We have to be especially strict about reliable sourcing in a biography of a living person, both because Wikipedia articles about people tend to be magnets for attack editing against the person (especially if the person's notability is tied to something that some people have moral qualms about), and because people frequently try to get into Wikipedia by making inflated or outright false claims of notability (e.g. writers calling their book "bestselling" when it really just sold four copies on consignment at the local diner, musicians calling their latest song a "hit" when really one radio station in their own hometown played it one time, and on and so forth.)
The problem with sourcing an award win only to the award's own website, and not to any independent coverage of the award win, is that the award's notability has not been properly established if it's not a thing that gets media coverage of any kind — if "award win sourced to award's own website, with no independent coverage of that award present anywhere in the article or locatable anywhere at all" were enough to get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, then we'd have to accept anybody who ever won any award at all for anything whatsoever. I've seen many articles about people which claimed notability on the basis of the person having been given an award, such as the Canadian Centennial Medal, despite their articles containing no sourcing to demonstrate why they would belong in an encyclopedia for that fact in and of itself.
The award's own website certainly verifies the fact of the award win, nobody's ever said otherwise — but it's not enough to demonstrate that the award win is, in and of itself, a thing that a person has earned an encyclopedia article for. That takes media coverage about the person — no claim of notability on Wikipedia, no matter how impressive it may sound, ever confers an exemption from the article having to be reliably sourced. Even presidents of countries don't get to keep unsourced or unsourceable articles, and they're a lot more "inherently" notable than porn actors are. It's not enough to assert that it's the top award in its field of endeavour; the sourceability has to demonstrate its topness. Bearcat (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2016

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:BethNaught/Archive_3"