User talk:TonyBallioni/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Move to draft

Who on earth created (or re edited) the message template that is placed on user talk pages following a move to draft? It basically gets the message across but the prose and vocabulary looks as if it has either been written by an elementary schooler or has been subtly attacked by a vandal. Unfortunately I don't know where to find the template to improve it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Kudpung, I believe it was Evad37. You can find the script at User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js. He might be open to letting you rework the message if you ask him. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the template was in fact written in GF, but I found it confusing. The script was a very necessary one, and another example of something that shold have been a core feature of Curation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I wrote the basic template text (apart from some word choices, e.g., "confirms") back when I used to move-to-draft manually. Evad37 created the script as a favor for me and I'm glad others find it useful. I don't find your criticism particularly instructive but if you want to propose an edit, you can centralize discussion at

User talk:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User rights vs PE

Can you remember if following the KDS444 issue if there was ever a RfC or an AN discussion regarding paid editors and advanced rights? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User: Boldstandard

Boldstandard has already been placed on a 48 hour block by you on the Columbia University page and he has now continued to edit war on Teachers College, Columbia University page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B05B:10B4:6DB7:2783:5A81:14D8 (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Newsletter 10

I have prepared a draft of the next newsletter at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination/Newsletter10.

I have mass-message-sender now, so I'll send this one out myself, but if you have any changes or additions that you would like to make or suggest, please let me know. Kudpung may also be keen to comment. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere, please don't for a moment. Timing is rather important this time and Tony and I have already prepared one but we will include your content in it. It won't be sent just yet.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't planning on sending anything without input from you guys, especially with everything going on at the moment. I had no idea anyone was working on one, it would be nice to be in the loop. Are you guys on IRC, and if so, which channel? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I am never on IRC. I personally have no need for it and I don't like chat rooms. I'm around on Wikipedia almost 24/7. For anything that's really sensitive I can be reached by email. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I also despise IRC (I've tried but it just sucks). Try to keep me in the loop with upcoming stuff with regards to ACTRIAL and NPP. I am also available via email. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 10:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

We will. We were discussing it this morning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Autoconfirmed article creation trial/Request for comment on permanent implementation

Hi, Tony! Well done for starting this, an urgent and important step! I was almost thinking we should have an RfC to ask for temporary re-activation while we discuss the permanent one. Just to satisfy the few remaining prescriptive pedants among us, could you change "3. Less low-quality and inappropriate pages" to read "3. Fewer low-quality and inappropriate pages" ("page" is a countable noun). Thanks, best regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers: done. Funnily enough, I'd copied that from the WMF's report

. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

indeed! Thanks, though, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Congrats Tony and User:Kudpung it feels like the Great Blizzard of 1888 Legacypac (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Event Coordinator RfC

The RfC is going swimmingly, very good work putting it together. I have some thoughts on the 'event coordinator' user group that you have drafted at User:TonyBallioni/Event_coordinator. I suggest modifying line #3, indicating that Admins should give the user right to experienced event coordinators permanently, and perhaps give it to first time event coordinators on a temporary basis initially. I think that we should also require that the user applying for the right be extended confirmed I think, as we need users here to have at least a decent amount of experience editing the wiki (this was one of the concerns about the first failed RfC, many of the accounts in the 'account creator' group were themselves not experienced enough). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Has anyone looked at the average response time at PERM?
I've discovered the people that want the floodgates open have empty CSD logs. Shows no understanding of the issues faced at NPR.
I like the extended confirmed suggestion - maybe that should be a requirement for event coordinator? Temp granting seems like extra work - if any rights granter started approving spammers we'd block them anyway. Legacypac (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, I've left a comment at User talk:TonyBallioni/Event_coordinator where there a discussion on this already seems to be happening. I suggest that both of us (and anyone else tempted to comment about this) comment over there instead. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to comment there. As I mentioned to Lane, I like workshopping in my userspace (usually with a smallish group of diverse users). I find that the small group of diverse users workshopping method usually leads to a broad consensus that isn't perfect, but everyone can get behind. I'll look over the comments more later. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent A7s

I'll see your Shrikantarts' and raise you a Daniel Van Schie :-P Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for killing of what few brain cells I had left... Primefac (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, that is good for non-admins the entire content of Daniel Van Schie is as follows: Daniel is vewy good at inglish and luvs to play vidio gayms. I have to give MER-C credit for discovering Shrikantarts' as the first article created by a new user after ACTRIAL. He also found Big man tyrone which in it's entirety is our boy tyrone is a good boy. Real FACs here... TonyBallioni (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You all just need the freedom to get up, get out and set free, in a world of your own. GMG ^talk 14:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

#HappySliming Primefac (talk) 14:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I got one that said "Now I have a Wikipedia page. Lol" and another I preserved here as as a public example Draft:Mateismo complete with tags as I found it. Legacypac (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"Real FACs here" - assuming the F is for some other word that isn't "featured", maybe. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

#BeSlimy ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Hi TonyBallioni, I saw your message and I don't think it was nice to just move my article to a draft because nobody said I was done with that article. I still had 20 more paragraph to put in but I stop because I had to leave to a convention, so next time you just mess with someone's text just ask. THEGREECEPEACE 00:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Greecemaniac2005, many other admins would have deleted it. It wasn't really appropriate for mainspace at all. In draft, you can work on it so that it is ready to be published, and get feedback from the AfC process. Also, you should change your signature so it contains a link to your user page and user talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

G12 speedy deletions

If I understand you correctly on this page, you seem to be endorsing use of G12 where there is a lack of attribution in the edit summary, even where, as in this case, the origin of my version was an email from Elisa.rolle giving me the text of her deleted article, which I then rewrote. I find this an extraordinary interpretation of "unambiguous copyright infringement".

As a separate issue, were you implying that the articles written by an editor under investigation for copyright issues were to be judged to a different standard to those of other editors? Deleted rather than having the copyvios removed and rev-dels done? Can you point me to a policy page or a forum discussion on admins' discretion with regard to these issues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes on both counts. I typically cringe when we G12 something for lack of edit summary attribution, but it is within the norm (typically when someone copies a terrible draft from draft space to main space without attribution or something similar).

The relevant policy to G12 on sight problematic contributions from editors with a history of copyright violations can be found in WP:DCV, which states . If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed that all of their major contributions are likely to be copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately. G12ing content that lacked attribution and was created by an author who would be subject to much looser G12 standards than other editors is within admin discretion, IMO. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Mail

Hi, you've got some mail. Could have a look at your earliest opportunity? Cheers. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:59, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333, responded. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:28, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Snowing

How long do we have to let this RfC run again? Please don't say 30 days. And again, great job on this. Legacypac (talk) 04:07, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a big thing, it needs to run for a good long time to make sure everyone gets their chance to have their say. In particular it needs to run through the weekend at a bare minimum, regardless of how big the snowball gets, so that the weekend warriors get a chance to see it. NPP can survive, we've got well over a month of noindex built up, so even if the backlog keeps growing during the RfC, we can deal with it later pretty much regardless of how much it grows over the next month. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 04:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm just curious. I'm plugging away at AfC and helping knock down the backlog. Legacypac (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)IMO, a minimum of 2 weeks.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, and probably a month unless there is a real clamoring for a close. We survived 16 years without it. Waiting 1.5 months to have it again won't be the end of the world. Let the people who oppose it get it out of there system and express their views: we currently have a pretty strong consensus, and I don't see that going anywhere. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick question...

Hey, Tony - if...on the TP of a BLP that is subject to DS/civility restrictions, an editor makes fun of a 3rd party BLP's name, and it's removed 2 or 3 different times by other editors who also see it as a BLP vio but the same editor keeps reverting it back in each time it's removed, is that a BLP vio or a DS vio? ^{Atsme📞📧} 01:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, this is the Trump talk page reversion I've been seeing on my watchlist but haven't actually looked at I'm assuming. Just looked. I'd agree with MelanieN. I wouldn't call it a BLP violation, though I think it isn't exactly conducive to a discussion about whatever topic is at hand (I have no idea what is actually being discussed. I just looked at the diff). I'd put it firmly in the "dumb thing to post on Wikipedia but nothing worth edit warring or going to a noticeboard over" category. Also, I have no idea who that person is or the context, so I think I'm pretty free from bias on the BLP question. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The person initially used "blowhard" to describe the person, and when criticized, they struck it through, rather than delete it, because it had already been commented on in multiple places at Wikipedia. Then a newcomer came along and decided to delete it (IOW to alter another person's comment, a practice we do not normally condone). The author restored it, the newcomer deleted it again, then other people kept restoring it (unlike the impression given by Atsme). Multiple people kept restoring and objecting to its deletion. A lot was made out of a simple offending word. A little bit of name calling is hardly a BLP issue. Unwise? Okay, but who is innocent?

The basic premise still remains, that we don't normally allow further revisions to a comment which has already been commented on, because that removes the context for the other comments, thus confusing newcomers to the discussion. Only in extreme circumstances do we remove such things, and this was not at all extreme. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not really an AP2 guy, to the point where I don't know where the regulars there fall on the perceived political spectrum. My personal view is similar to my friend MelanieN's, but I'm sure Atsme was also acting in good faith. While my talk page is an open place for anyone to comment, I'd prefer it not turn into a rehashing of things at noticeboards or on the Trump talk page. I've given Atsme my view, and while I am not going to close of this thread, I think everything has been said that needs to be said. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't come here and ask that question with any intention of getting anyone in trouble which is why I did not mention any names, or consider it almighty important to detail the exact circumstances. I also didn't think it was necessary to give anymore information than I provided - should have provided less. It was simply something I wanted to know for my own benefit, not intending for it to be blown-up into a full scale discussion. For Pete's sake, the attention that simple question garnered, one might think I had cut the cheese in a room full of Russian diplomats. *sigh* ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You're fine. My comment above was just in general that I didn't want this thread to be a full discussion now that others had commented. Like I've said, my talk page is always open. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

My intention was to clear up a possibly misleading comment ("it's removed 2 or 3 different times by other editors who also see it as a BLP vio but the same editor keeps reverting it back in each time it's removed,..."). The opposite is what happened (multiple people kept restoring it because they did not see it as a BLP vio), so it appeared that Atsme was indeed fishing to get them in trouble. I couldn't let that happen without posting a clarification. Since this has settled down now, I see no point in continuing here either. My point has been made, and I trust that Atsme did not do this deliberately. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

WP doesn't need hall monitors, so you can stop following me around. People might start thinking we're an "item". ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:14, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

One small correction, about the timeline and the actual origin of this heavily-battled-over word: the person did not describe the person as a blowhard and then strike it through when someone objected. They did it all in one edit, as humor; since the person's name sounds a little like blowhard (let's call it Buford), they referred to him as "~~Blowhard~~ Buford". It probably drew a few chuckles. But what I find astonishing is, while people edit war over whether to remove the struck-out insult version of the name or not, the same editor came back and expounded at some length about why he thinks the person really is a blowhard - and nobody has called that a BLP violation or attempted to remove it! People never cease to amaze me. OK, enough about this (and I hope it doesn't metastasize to the talk pages of any other uninvolved people). Sorry, Tony. --MelanieN (talk) 06:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. I thought they did it later. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Why bother to say anything? I imagine they've seen how I and other editors have been treated, and I didn't even try to revert the offending statement - just noted that it was offensive, and look what happened. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

New reviewer

Would you please take a look at Adamstraw99's work. They have been doing quite a bit of bad CSD tagging since they got +reviewer. I have not taken a look at their reviews yet but I fear if they have as nebulous a grasp of notability as they do of CSD they should not be reviewing articles. I am also a bit concerned that, from what I see on their talk page, they do not seem to even know how to thread a talk page discussion. Anyway, I meant to go to sleep a couple of hours ago... Jbh ^Talk 07:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. Was coming here to suggest you review his work. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:04, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @ Jbh and @ Espresso Addict, I Understand I Applied wrong criteria in tagging many articles for CSD..But it was my first day reviewing and around 15-20 articles i tagged yesterday are deleted now so there was much accurate tagging too .. Still, i think i need to take a break and read the guidelines about applying correct tags based on criteria..And I Am doing it now... I won't tag any new article now until i am well versed with guidelines to tag correctly... Please let me continue with this work... thank you -- Adamstraw99 (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No-one's doubting your keeness :) seven NPR userboxes?!?! :D —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 08:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

While intentions may be good, there's more trouble than needed out here! —SpacemanSpiff 09:06, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Adamstraw99, I'm afraid I agree with my colleagues above, and have removed the flag for now. Feel free to apply again when you have a bit more experience. TonyBallioni (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Test block me

Hey, Tony, can you block me for a couple of minutes? I want to check something, and I'd just as soon not get mocked for blocking and unblocking myself. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, I think I just figured out where to look. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to see the block message. I seem to remember it being a lot longer last time I was blocked, and I thought it included UTRS info, which is not currently there. Thanks for the assist! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem :) TonyBallioni (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

A stuff

Special:Diff/832069026, See my userpage and you’ll know what I want to say. :) (And... is that fighting? /me thinks) — regards, Revi 17:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. Put the - there the first time in case people passed by who didn't know who you were

TonyBallioni (talk)

Hmm...

I know you deal with UPE more than I do, and I'm not sure anything needs to be done about it... but there are several things that are suspicious about this, especially given a recent AN thread related to NPROF. Just in case you are aware of some broader trend. GMG ^talk 12:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Highly sketchy. What actual newbie creates an article with {{Cleanup bare URLs}} already pre-loaded into it? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that bit is actually pretty common. What's uncommon is seeing it when there's apparently no previously deleted article floating around. Also, having the wherewithal to go around adding wikilinks to the author in citations. GMG ^talk 13:02, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, yeah, I meant when it isn't copy-pasted from a deleted article. It's very weird overall. I don't see anything alarming CU-wise, though. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I assumed there was probably little that could be done, since if you're gonna do this kindof thing, it's probably day-old throwaway accounts all the way down. Like I said, figured I'd check and see if anyone was putting together a puzzle this might be a piece in. GMG ^talk 13:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, now that I think of it, ping @Jytdog: in case they know anything. GMG ^talk 13:15, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

AFAIK, from COIN and off-wiki discussions, there has been several UPE-rings which have been indulging in creating articles for academicians, profesors etc., taking advantage of a sector where our guidelines of inclusion are much less lax ^{IMO, correctly}than other arenas.But, I was highly surprised at the lack of a previously deleted article.~ Winged Blades^Godric 13:22, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

(Baffled talkpage stalker:) did you mean the guidelines are more lax for professors, Godric? And are they? Bishonen | talk 15:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC).

Yes, WP:NACADEMICS is generally considered to be far more difficult to pass than (e.g) NSPORT. Play five minutes for a fourth-division football team and yer in; write twenty books over twenty years and prepare for the hoop-jumping :) —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 15:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Also far more strict than the GNG, which can be passed by a mediocre PhD candidate fairly easy these days. Definitely by a tenure track assistant professor. There is a reason we de facto treat it as exclusionary: it has a lower sourcing requirement, but it is much harder to pass... TonyBallioni (talk) 15:57, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know that I agree NPROF is consistently more strict than GNG, but besides that matter of opinion, it's a perfect storm for predatory UPE. They're people who often have their emails published in public. They also often have public bios/CVs posted. NPROF is easier to check objectively (read "by a bot"). For example, how many times to you think "chief editor..." or "distinguished chair of..." appears on a .edu site along with an email address? That's in addition to automated searching for publication history to check for NPROF #4, even if they don't have a publicly available CV. That is, assuming of course that they're doing much vetting at all, instead of just mass emailing people to see who will take the bait. GMG ^talk 16:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

My comment was meant somewhat from GMG'S POV.Obviously, NPROF is far more restrictive and difficult to secure than NFOOTBALL but, unlike NCORP et al, it is a set of (mostly) highly objective criterion.Add to that, that the wiki community, including me, is generally far sympathetic at XFDs as to academics, as compared to companies etc. and they've got a deal good enough!And, as much as I agree with Tony that our standards are exclusionary by nature, in this sphere, it does not consistently prevent itself from being superceded by GNG in certain cases.~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Curiously, has there been any record of biographies of footballers being produced as UPE?! ~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, for the sake of it, several PhD candiadates will pass GNG sans NPROF but will surely fell afoul of BLP1E.~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

More than anything is honoured to have Bish as a talk page stalker. Also wondering if I might have some of the cakes in Bishzilla's pocket? Jimbo Wales doesn't need them all. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:51, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

[Bishzilla tries to write small also, for politeness, but feels so unnatural.] All the little Jimbo does in pocket is sleep! Jumped in during netsplit on IRC, which left Zilla and Jimbo alone in room, and went right to sleep. True story! Cute little fellow! Welcome in pocket and especially in fridge, young Tony. Note, attempt just now to add pocket link to sig was flummoxed by lack of space in Preferences signature field. Bishonen ask question at Village Pump. Already resolved! Tony and guests here be first to enjoy display of "hospitality sig" with invitation to pocket! [Bishzilla twirls to display the handsome link in her tail tip.] bishzilla _ROARR!! pocket 21:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC).

Yeah, no new editor creates this. Likely to be commissioned, though, fwiw, it's not the worst case of it. (Also, edit filter 867 is probably like shooting fish in a barrel for UPE again now that ACTRIAL is ended. It had become less useful during the trial, but I didn't get it amended because I knew we were switching off. If ACPERM is a thing, I'll likely have to up the definition of "large creation".) TonyBallioni (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Revdeletion necessary?

Hi Tony, I've accepted a stale AfC draft now at John McVay (producer). The original turned out to be a copy paste from the subject's Pact bio, widely copied over the net. I have rewritten entirely to remove this material. Is it necessary to use revdelete to get rid of the infringing revisions? I'm worried it would remove attribution to the creator (though no direct words remain) and also of course the AfC reviewer's comments. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Very typical problem at AfC. Lots of copyvio. Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Espresso Addict. Thanks for stopping by. Yes, it needs RD. I've gone ahead and done it. The attribution remains in the edit history as all the authors are listed and anyone who is an admin has the ability to see it. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll look up how to do it myself for the next one; the screen I reached seemed to have different options than when I last used revdelete (probably several years ago now). Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem. It's pretty easy. Click the tick box beside all the revisions you want to delete (so up to the revision before you removed the content), put the radio button for Delete revision text to Set. If it's copyright, choose RD1 from the drop down menu. If it's something else pick the relevant criterion. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think the difference from the older version I've used is that used to default to the behaviour now under the radio button for Set; you only had to change it if you wanted to redact the edit summary as well. But maybe I'm misremembering. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Someone being too kind

Outstanding Contributions Recognition

Tony, your work and contributions are exemplary. From the ACTRIAL re-con, to encouraging editors all around, to searching out prospective administrators, to all the administrative and editorial work you keep doing here, you truly are an outstanding contributor.

Keep up the great work! :)

Lourdes

Thanks, Lourdes. Only doing my bit

. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

NPP charts

[1] at this diff all the links go to the same chart for me - none to the non-ac 87% delete page. Legacypac (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I just copied the templates from WP:MANPP. They render differently on my screen. Might be worth asking MusikAnimal about them. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I was clicking links from the diff - it renders great pie charts when viewinng normally. Legacypac (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, for the whole thing, just go to WP:MANPP. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. Those charts are using the Graph extension, which can be a little wonky sometimes. They all look correct to me in the diff. If they don't for you, clearing your browser cache might help. Note also the charts at WP:MANPP (thx for the redirect by the way) are from 2017. Note sure if that was clear, because the end of the charts are almost the current date so one might get confused and think they are auto-updating. They could auto-update, with the help of a bot, though :) — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

Hello TonyBallioni. I am messaging you to let you know that I mentioned you in a RfC I started here. It was not a disparaging mention, but a mention no less. I thought it would be best to let you know. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

user:Boldstandard

Category:Requests_for_unblock shows you blocked him 48 years ago. Now that's what I call blocking to protect the project. Well done.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:29, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Heh, I saw that and was confused. ~~Magical powers allowing me to time travel to block.~~ TonyBallioni (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Having just woken up from a 48 year nap, I find this comment appropriate. Sorry for the necro posting. Primefac (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2066 (UTC)

Ah, actually, it says they requested an unblock 48 years ago. Mysterious as I only blocked 8 days ago. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

G5 discussion

I saw; would this apply? —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 11:42, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd use PROD or AfD since we don't have confirmation of a sock farm, but I've gone ahead and blocked the account for advertising. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

A very neatly closed stable-door, that :) Righto. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap shit room} 12:10, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And, I'll certainly bet that there won't be any unblock-request..... .~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:15, 28 March 2018‎

Alas, it appears you spoke too soon. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 12:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Felix Sater, again

Felix Sater's public relations aides have done it again. They've convinced you to delete factual information by slandering the source without any factual basis, and they asked for and go partial protection for his page. Please penalize those who remove factual data, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spelunkingmerica (talk • contribs) 18:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't really think Bri is a public relations person for Felix Sater. I've protected so consensus can be established as to what the BLP policy says. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not. In fact, I've reverted the people who are actually doing PR work. ☆ Bri (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

YGM

Just, in case.....:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Seen. I'll reply in a bit. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric: I've finally replied. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

~~Err...There may be some fault amy ny end, but you seem to have sent 2 mails, both of which are blank!~~~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Scratch that.Weird configuration problems!~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:57, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Imperial Line

I am requesting that you undelete this article since I had done some work on it (including adding sources, uploading images, rewording the lead and re-titling the article) and was planning to come back to it. Srnec (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

All of the work there looked pretty minor to me, which is why I deleted it. I think it fits the G5 criterion. I’ll defer to Vituzzu’s judgement on this one as he’s more familiar with that LTA than I am. If he doesn’t object to restoration, I’ll go ahead and restore. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Generally, anything coming from brunodam shouldn't be trusted at all, he may even contradict sources he adds. Most of the contents were unsourced, one of the citations (which I didn't check for falsifications), at least one of the sources can be classified as "nostalgic". I, for one, wouldn't take the responsibility to ask for undeletion under such circumstances. --Vituzzu (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Vituzzu. Srnec, if you still want it back would it be fine to do it as a userfication so you can work on it to verify the content, etc? I'd prefer not to restore it to mainspace given the above concerns, but we typically allow experienced editor to take responsibility for the edits. Let me know what you want to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Restore it to my userspace and I'll work on it this week. That would be fine with me. Thanks. Srnec (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Srnec: see User:Srnec/Imperial Line. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I created the article anew from scratch. (The only wording from the original I retained was my own.) So I have put the draft up for deletion. This way, the article by Brunodam is not even in the history. Srnec (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

COI

I don't know if this is viable and I might even get scolded for suggesting it: What if all new articles about companies and BLP posted by a new SPA with perfectly formatted sources were to be systematically tagged with the COI templae (and the author) by New page reviewers and remain 'unpatrolled' pending further investigation? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Worth a try. It's an issue in Draft too. A case we uncovered today by pushing hard [2] I fixed the article for them, but I will not be seeing a check. Legacypac (talk) 03:46, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

While almost always, it is either COI/UPE that leads these sort of articles, I don't believe the community would let the core tenet of assuming good faith run away, so easily:) Obviously, NPRs can (or shall) be advised to be more vigilant, in their checks of these articles but IMHO, officiating such a policy would be near-impossible.~ Winged Blades^Godric 07:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Considering the recent drama over the question of whether a COI editor may remove a COI tag from their article I think this would be met with great opposition. In this case they may even be right since it would be a 'tag shaming', or whatever they were calling it. The exception is if the NPR reviewer can clearly articulate the case for COI and I think it would not be improper to instruct NPR to tag and not marked reviewed articles where they can articulate a reasonable case for COI.

Another way to address suspected UPE is if, upon their own discretion, an NPR simply does not mark suspected UPE are reviewed and again, in their own discretion, un-review, with explanation, articles where they can articulate a reasonable belief of UPE. On Wikipedia, policy follows practice. In the case of UPE (or abusive PE/COU) it is worthwhile to remind editors of the policy that no one with advanced permissions can be required to use those permissions. While UPE have a financial motive to get their articles up, I do not think it unreasonable that the population of good-faith reviewers may not want to use their tools to advance the goals of UPE. As I understand it, many UPE contracts are based on an article staying 'up' for X time. It is likely that X does not begin to toll until the article hits Google.

Let me be clear, I am not advocating the formation of an out of process cabal to thwart paid editing on Wikipedia — that would be wrong. I am, however, reminding everyone that you do not have to be the one who allows something you consider to be likely UPE to be indexed by Google. Jbh ^Talk 17:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Jbhunley, what if the article COI tags were to be configure like the deletion tags, that it adds 'no index' to the article until some further action is taken? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:41, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Question

How about restoring the page to Draft:Jane Doe minus the origional name and full birthdate? That would facilitate proper discussion while protecting the potentially real person. Legacypac (talk) 03:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Legacypac, I'm not an oversighter, so I can't. That might be a way to do it (and how I would have requested it if I were the deleting admin), but at the time, I just sent the undelete link in. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It's hard to have a discussion blind obviously. Thanks Legacypac (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

	Happy Easter!
	Happy Easter! L293D (☎ • ✎) 05:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

L293D, thank you for the note. Sorry for the late response. I had a wonderful, relaxing Easter. Hope you did as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Please see

This essay. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:18, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Smallbones, sorry for the late response. Have been busy IRL of late and focusing on some more gnomish stuff on-wiki the past few weeks just to avoid stretching myself thin. I'll take a look at it in the next few days. Something that I think we need to do more about in general (not a comment on the essay) is explain the concept of native advertising to people. I've begun to WikiLink to it in AfDs, and I see that it is starting to catch on, but I would prefer more people be aware of it. Half the battle in dealing with the issue of spam on Wikipedia is educating the editor base of what current marketing techniques are: with native advertising being one of the preferred methods for many companies (if not the preferred method).

In that regard, I think this essay is very important: I know it goes beyond native advertising, but that's really the thing we are most up against, especially in understanding how it interacts with NPOV principles (I think you can guess my views on it). Anyway, I'll look at it soonish. Talk page stalkers might also have thoughts on both the essay and the problem in general. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User:أشواق الجبوري

Hello Tony, see here, also be aware about this user, she is a sockmaster in ar.wiki --Alaa :)..! 14:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Alaa. I'll keep an eye on the contribs. If she has other socks that are active on en.wiki, let me know and I'll look at them. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

User rename thanks :)

Thanks for renaming my account for me :) I feel bad though, you had to take the time to move a whole lot of long-forgotten subpages I'd totally forgotten about (& that I've now speedied!). Sorry about that. --- PageantUpdater (talk) 08:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC) ... annnd, that's how I figured out it doesn't automatically change the signature. So thanks indirectly & unintentionally for that too! ... Thanks, CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 10:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Your signature should contain a link to your userpage, talk, etc... WP:SIGLINK: "Signatures must include at least one direct internal link to your user page, user talk page, or contributions page; this allows other editors easy access to your talk page and contributions log. The lack of such a link is widely viewed as obstructive." — regards, Revi 10:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @-revi:, I realised as soon as I published the changes that I'd missed that when I reworked the sig, have fixed it now ... Thanks, CJ [a Kiwi] in Oz 10:13, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Great. Last PS (also known as "Too much information"): Without link to your userpage/user talk, Ping do not work. — regards, Revi 10:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@CJinoz: not a problem :) Don’t worry about the subpages: the software does the moves automatically once the rename has been accepted. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Good article reassessment needing eyes

If any talk page stalkers who may be interested in early modern history (or are willing to take a look at an article and the sourcing) would mind commenting at Talk:Papal conclave, 1769/GA2, it would be appreciated. It is only an individual reassessment, not a community one, but as I'm one of the few people who is currently working on the conclaves, I'd like to have feedback from others as well. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

I gathered some diffs for the sockpuppet investigation that I think establish a behavioral pattern. More evidence can be provided.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented at the SPI. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Need advice

I am not looking for any blocks, but I wanted to discuss this comment by Johnpacklambert. I see him around AFD regularly so you can imagine my surprise when I read this. Although he rephrased his !vote, it was not a "oops, made a typo" sort of thing, but rather a "opps, cannot let anyone see that". A part of me wants to learn where this came from, but I do not want to appear like I am "escalating" the situation. Should I just ignore it instead and move on?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick, I gave a discretionary sanctions awareness alert and left a note. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Like I said, after working with JPL for awhile, I was suprised that came from him and worried that is how he feels about me and others. I am glad I came to you about it.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The Palestinians especially Hamas want to expell Jews

The Palestinians have yet to acknowledge the right of Israel to exist. Helen Thomas called for expulsion of the Jews and sending them back to Poland. This despite the fact most Israelis trace their recent lineage to Arab countries, at least a lot more than to Poland. How else can we see the Poland call then an allusion to the gas chambers. It is an entirely fair comment and no Palestinian has yet demonstrated a sincere desire to accept Israel's right to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Johnpacklambert: A contested geopolitical situation where one side doesn't recognize the right of the other to exist is not the same thing as want[ing] to send the Jews back to the gas chambers. I'm not familiar with Helen Thomas's comments, but I don't see them as particularly relevant to an AfD about someone who is recently deceased as she's been dead for almost 5 years (and she also denied your reading of them anyway). One can be anti-semitic without advocating for genocide.

Anyway, the AfD is about whether or not someone who died 6 days ago is notable. I don't have an opinion on that question. I do, however, think it is inappropriate for you to leave such a broad comment on a contentious AfD where it could easily be read as you stating that you think the authors of that article support mass genocide of the Jewish people. Even if you are only referencing what you think that some Palestinians believe, I hope you realize the chilling effect such rhetoric could have at an AfD conversation. Like I said, I'm glad you changed it afterwards, but I was leaving a note because it really shouldn't happen again. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I will admit my statement was probably an overreaction, which is why I removed it. However I grow tired on the one-sided attacks on the actions of Jews in the middle-east, their constatnly being villified in the media, and the fact that those who publish such hate filled rhetoric are never called into question for the real world consequences they create for Jews living in such countries as France.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate that those are your views, and I am grateful that you removed the comment. I also think anti-semitism is a cancer, and was dealing with an anti-semitic SPA here yesterday behind the scenes. I do request, however, that you not repeat accusations like that on Wikipedia without proof. We wouldn't accept them in article space unless they are sourced, and in project space, they can be read as a personal attack. From your statement above, you seem to recognize that it was a mistake, so as far as I'm concerned, there's nothing really more to talk about and we can all move on :) TonyBallioni (talk) 16:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Draft: The Croatan at ECU was deleted from Wiki but also from my sandbox. Can this please be reveresed so I may continue my work in the sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattklettner (talk • contribs) 15:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Mattklettner, I can email you the content if you wish, but I won't restore it to a page on Wikipedia in the form it was when it was deleted as the G11 criteria applies to all pages on Wikipedia, including sandboxes, so it would be eligible for deletion even there. If you want me to email you the prose, you should enable your email. You can see how to do that at WP:ENABLEEMAIL. Once you have enabled email, if you make a request again here, I can send it to you. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

OK email is active now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattklettner (talk • contribs) 16:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Mattklettner: emailed. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Curation

There is something seriously wrong within the WMF. See Horn;'s latest at m:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2018-2019/Draft#Tools. It's bordering on the farcical. Is there anything you can do? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Gah! I was not kind. Maybe one of you can try a diplomatic approach using my not-diplomatic-at-all comment to lever and redirect the conversation. Alternately just say 'that Jbh is an asshole, just ignore him' — whichever you think may help to break through the stupidity over there. Jbh ^Talk 16:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I've commented on meta. I'll say here what I said there: I do not think all 64 current requests are all needed to improve the tool. See my comment here for the popular request for userspace logs for deletion tags. This is a popular request, but ultimately unneeded as the system already provides a similar function (that is actually, IMO, better in terms of transparency, as you can't U1 or blank logs, and no admin would RD them. It also doesn't have an opt-out, unlike twinkle.) I think many of the requests there are very much needed, such as this suggestion I made and put into phab as T167475 almost a year ago. I'm not pointing it out because I suggested it, but because, this is just a basic system functionality that page curation lacks but that we are improving most other areas of MediaWiki to include now. I think requests such as these are the ones the WMF is more likely to focus on if we had a focused list as they are things that are agnostic as to which Wiki it is installed on, but which would provide a real benefit to users. Cutting down our list of 64 needs and wants to a core list of top 10 needs would likely go a long way with actually getting some work done. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

IMO, the best thing the WMF could do right now is explain how the page curation toolset is supposed to work. I don't think I've ever seen an explanation for the fact that the New pages feed shows "No Citations" in the feed, but has no filter for it, or that selecting Show:Nominated for Deletion does not allow to select any criteria in the That: list. Or why it lists articles deleted for nomination regardless of whether or not Show:Nominated for deletion is selected. Nor have I seen any rationale for posting the feedback to the creator of the page, in stead of the talk page. Nor has anyone ever appeared to have looked at which tags are being used by reviewers, and which ones ought to be removed or added. So maybe we can start with that: document the software we have, and share the design decisions with the shareholders. Then solicit feedback from the top 50 users, or do an analysis of how they use the tool and what workarounds they use to overcome limitations in the software. That would help rebuild trust between the NPP'ers and the WMF, I imagine. Vexations (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is much that can be done to build confidence in the WMF. There has been a gaping rift between the paid staff and the volunteers for years and no official lines of communication between them and the community. They have made several serious errors of judgment in the past that have cost millions, and incurred major mop ups by the community, one of which I led.

I populated most but not all of the required tweaks at the Wikipedia:Page_Curation/Suggested_improvements, but I have not suggested any priority for each of them. I tend to regard the list on that page as one single project rather than 60 or so individual pieces of software for an Xmas stocking filler. Now that we have over 600 supposedly active revieweres, I'm planning something that will provide a lot of feedback on how they use the system (or why they don't), and what they actually feel would be a priority list for the individual tweaks. On another issue, I think it is becoming appropriate to question the perceived hierarchy within the WMF. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

NPR Bronze Award

		The New Page Reviewer's Bronze Award
		For over 1000 new page reviews in the last year, as well as all the other work you have done for New Pages Patrol, thank you! — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 00:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Revert of portals consultation

Hi Tony,

Any particular reason? It's not the first time a discussion has been boldly moved, others also expressed that it should be. On the flipside, I didn't see anyone actively arguing that it shouldn't.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 05:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Because it’s been advertised at CENT, is already taking place at VPR, and you’re simply making a mess of an already complicated process. I’ve also deleted your archive. I’d highly suggest you remove the RfC banner from the new page you created as well because having two ongoing RfCs at the same time will be a complete mess. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) My concern is that this isn't really going anywhere in its current structure, as it's already a mess. It's produced some discussion but as it stands it's disorganised, innavigable, and has no sensible way of determining any outcomes. Subthreads are literally repeating themselves. How would you suggest addressing that? --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 05:06, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

By letting an experienced user deal with the closure when the time comes. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I still feel having some kind of an overview would help. I've removed the RfC tag, how about I restructure the page I created to provide the same content without attempting to be a venue for discussion, and then link that from VP/PR?--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 05:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I saw the attempt to move the discussion. What in the world? Legacypac (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm assuming that's rhetorical, but I was just trying to help bring some structure to the thing. So yay or nay on keeping the page as a quick summary?--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 05:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That’s your call. If it were me, I’d just would be sure not to frame it as resembling a new RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Done, I think. Thanks for your help!--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 05:33, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Curiouser and curiouser

TB, could you look at this discussion (which later descended into farce, but that's not important right now...), and look at Greg J. Marchand (created with a single edit, such is the way), which had previously been created by User Rcerrone1 and deleted, but has now been resurrected as a redirect by this same editor today.^Update And what's this—by their sixth mainspace edit they know to remove a category when the sub-category is present?! What say you? Hope all is well. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 08:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129:--Bah! Good spotting:) I failed to think of the obvious variant to search in the deletion log and Ritchie too replied in a negative, as to existence of any previous version!~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC)The t/p discussion is at another height......

Wot t/p discussion? —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:19, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion ain't a valid term.But, the farce that played out on Freak's t/p, including profanity-removal and all....~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that was classic! I thought it was an exercise in gaslighting until I realised what they meant...it's funny, but I suppose after x-amount of time here you kind of don't "see" sigs anymore do you. It needed a noob to point it out. Having said that, what a load of cobblers. Profane, my a*se :D More importantly, they are clearly paid, socking, and nothere, in no particular order. —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 10:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Tony:--Does there exist any way to search for text-strings in deleted pages?~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:04, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Blades, I know you were, although you ignored me when I mentioned it...I assumed due to you having a glittering crown of all Empires dangled before your eyes by Ritchie333 I was no longer good enough to be seen with :p —SerialNumber54129^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 09:08, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Err...Crazy stuff but I ain't very sure that the ping went out successfully, though it ought to......(My notification panel doesn't show it.Check the sequence of the t/p edits, invoked in the panel; you have pinged somewhere in between....).~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

And, is the subject really notable? From the quality of the sourcing, I don't think so.~ Winged Blades^Godric 09:29, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Godric, there is no way that I know of to search for text strings in deleted pages, though Special:Undelete is better at turning up the titles that you are looking for than the actual search feature (i.e. If I searched for Bob Dole, Bob Dole (senator), and Bob Dole (presidential candidate, etc. would all turn up.)

Dear Integer, I'll have a chat with them. Thanks for the heads up. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for establishing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Event coordinator proposal. It is an excellent and timely proposal. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:14, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry, not a problem. I'm always about creating solutions. Also, congratulations on the position at UVa. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)