User talk:De728631/2017

This is an archive of past discussions about User:De728631. 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.

Archives

2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:54, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Stifle (talk) 09:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes

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

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

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

Technical news

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

Arbitration

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

Obituaries

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

---

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, per the discussion at DRV I have restored the article in question into your userspace at User:De728631/2013 Berlin helicopter crash. Good work on continuing to look for sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC).

Excellent, thank you. I'm going to add the latest information and sources and will then republish the whole thing in the article name space. De728631 (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello. I'm a newcomer. When you wrote that "Cisternal progression/maturation: probably non-free image, nominated for deletion at Commons" it made me wonder how I can monitor that nomination. Please let me know if you have time. Thank you. JeanOhm (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

OOOPPS! Never mind. Now that I looked at my commons watchlist, I see the link. Thank you again. JeanOhm (talk) 01:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi De728631.

I see that you deleted

• Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page;
• Category talk:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page

despite the G4 tag being disputed, and despite the non-trivial, forward-looking discussion on the talk page, including the G8-exempt tag. Did you note the extensive discussion at Wikipedia talk:User categories‎? G4 was not applicable, because the redirect, now in widespread use on categories deleted at CfD but in continuing use, is substantially different to what was discussed at the original CfD. Also, in line with discussions, and what I characterised as a "contested consensus" redlinked-usercategories are no longer tolerated. One admin suggested allowing one to continue, but what is really needed is a proper CfD discussion. If the category is to be deleted, emptying the category has to be on the table. You should note that your deletion of category technically fails to delete the category, it is still there, still fully functional, and populated. You do not have authority to unilaterally empty it (previous similar attempts demonstrate this).
Would you please undelete both, and list at CfD. There really needs to be formal discussion, and the proper place for that discussion is CfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This is also what I recommended in the edit summary when I deleted the category page. Instead of being recreated, the page should have gone through deletion review first of all. De728631 (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Since you closed the last one, I thought I'd bring this to your attention: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Jennepicfoundation:_move_from_topic_ban_to_full_ban regarding her behavior. Toddst1 (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

The Siebmacher drawing of the Ritter v. Weber arms does not match the blazon -- bend sinister, field gules rather than azure -- but it is the form of the arms displayed in the armorial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filokalos1974 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

That's right, I've checked it, but I think it would be confusing and misleading to present this depiction together with the others. That is why I removed it. De728631 (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you change the template for this so that it says OLiS instead of OLIS?

"Oficjalna lista sprzedaży :: OLIS - Official Retail Sales Chart". OLiS. Polish Society of the Phonographic Industry. Retrieved..."

I don't think that I would change it on my own without asking first, but I can't even figure out where the template is. I concede that it might seem like nitpicking, but I think that OLiS is what it should be. Thanks.

Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ira Leviton:  Done I have adjusted the output of {{Album chart}}. De728631 (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being so fast! —Ira

Ira Leviton (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello De728631,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from German to English Wikipedia?

File:Language icon.svg

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original German article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including German , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from German. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

1. Amalie Haizinger ✓ Pass
2. Angela Roy ✓ Pass

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the German article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.

If you can help, please {{ping}} me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Mathglot:, I have checked the two articles and added a few corrections. I'm afraid that imho both articles were a ✗ Fail. Amalie Haizinger had too many inaccurate "false friends" translations that made no sense. Angela Roy was very solid in the beginning, but later on in the text, someone had decided to directly translate a lot of German titles of plays and TV series (most of which did have corresponding articles at the English Wikipedia). De728631 (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Just to be clear: you said, "were" a fail, but then mentioned corrections. How do you rate them now, post-corrections: are they "pass" now, or still "fail" because further corrections are needed? Also, we have quite a backlog, so if you can you take on a few more evaluations, that's be appreciated. Mathglot (talk) 20:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The articles are now "pass" since I corrected them. Unfortunately I'm quite busy at Commons at the moment so I won't be of much help with the translation backlog over here. De728631 (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks (added "pass" tokens above in-line). Note that the canonical task here is evaluation not translation, so it can be much quicker than correcting articles and still be quite helpful, but I respect your choices. If you have time later at some point, we'd love to have you back. And thanks again. Mathglot (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that will make it much faster indeed. I'd say just drop me a note if you have a new assignment of this sort and I will have a look at it. By the way, is there any central place where all this information of fail/pass is evaluated? De728631 (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Can you have a look at these:

1. Conversations (software)
2. Daniel Scholten

The results first get merged to WP:CXT/PTR/BL#de articles but there's some housekeeping required to make sure we don't lose track of what's what. If you're willing to follow the procedures at #Collate results you can update your results yourself. As far as finding new ones, I'm going to have to update the instructions but basically if you use {{Checking}} to check out new ones from the list as shown at #Send invitations in the blue box, that should work. It's probably simpler for you just to ping me here, but if you want to do results or new checkouts yourself, that's fine, just let me know so I can watch for issues and answer any questions. Mathglot (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mathglot: Alright, I've checked these two and added the results to the overview page. I've also left a note that I can take more. I think it would suit me best though if could take a look at the to-do-list from time to time and pick new pages myself. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 19:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:03, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Vielen Dank! De728631 (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi deb

I dont know how to show evidence for my article.evidence is there.but dont know how to publish it.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Thadagam_road#Contested_deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balaji Ananthanarayanan 07 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I will leave you a reply at the article's talk page to keep things in one place. De728631 (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

I found your name in Wikipedia:Translators_available#German-to-English. I recently translated a few articles German Wikipedia articles about some small German towns using Google translate, and I'd appreciate it if you could double-check them to the point where the "rough translation" banner could be removed. The articles are:

• Fußgönheim
• Assenheim
• Hochdorf,_Rhein-Pfalz-Kreis

Thanks! - Degeno (talk) 15:20, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

@Degeno: I appreciate your effort but in general, automated translations like Google translate and the like are exactly what we don't want at Wikipedia. I have checked your articles and there were hardly any failures left. However, these types of translation software are far from being perfect and all those programs usually create much more failures than the effort of correcting the output is worth. The correct way of translating an original article from another language is to request it at WP:Translation or leave a headnote {{expand German}} at the corresponding article at the English Wikipedia. De728631 (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! - Degeno (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

hi, could you check for [1] if it had a license tag on Commons? Te750iv (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Te750iv: It did have the same one as over here, namely GFDL. Please see Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Hosingen zendmast.JPG. De728631 (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the undeletion request. Te750iv (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

In light of the new information provided over there I have now nominated the Wikipedia file for deletion. De728631 (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello De728631,

I removed your speedy deletion tag since being elected to the city council of a city of over 300,000 people is a plausible claim of notability. You can try AfD instead if you want. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Could you please advise why this entry on me (which was written by wikipedia editors) has been deleted without any warning ? thanks you. Charles J. Doyle — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.254.188.224 (talk) 10:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The page was deleted because the content was overly promotional and the article had been created by a Wikipedia user who was blocked indefinitely and should not have been editing here at all. These are criteria for speedy deletion per our policy. De728631 (talk) 22:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for declining speedy deletion request ({{db-repost}}). AaronWikia (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm hoping to end confusion on the Ashbury band page. On this page Wikipedia gives reference and facts on TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BANDS---BOTH named Ashbury. This article credits the SECOND Ashbury (Las Vegas, 2005) with pictures of the ORIGINAL band (Tucson, AZ., 1983) and also lists one of the ORIGINAL band's albums "ENDLESS SKIES" as credited to the second Ashbury. Hopefully Copyright infringement claims will not be necessary if this can be corrected. Our attorney will be next to contact Wikipedia if necessary. Having the original band's (founded by Randy and Rob Davis) photos and album credited to the wrong band is NOT acceptable. Perhaps two different articles can be published---one for each band, ---the Tucson Ashbury founded in 1983, and the LV band in 2005. For the best reference, please refer to IRON FIST Magazine, May/June 2015, Issue #14, pages 62-65, www.IronFistMag.com for detailed information on the ORIGINAL Ashbury band. If it matters any, the original Ashbury's album "Endless Skies" has sold more copies than any of the other Ashbury's albums.Ashburyfounder58 (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2017 (UTC) Thank You, Sincerely, R. Davis

I emailed you a geeky question. Yay!

Drmies (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Portadas para facebook.png

@Drmies: I see your goat and raise you a glimpse into the future of Man. De728631 (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Ha, yes, that looks like me. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
• Thanks for the note. I see Samsara has been out and about--Samsara, I asked De about blocking batches of articles (in relation to AndresHerutJaim), but he didn't know of any such possibility. Drmies (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Drmies: We indef EC protect articles on the Israel-Palestine conflict as soon as there is disruption caused by non-extended confirmed users - WP:ARBPIA3 is the shorthand for that. For LTA affected articles, we may sometimes protect sets of them using other forms of protection, but then the trade-offs need to be considered more closely. Samsara 22:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hallo! Can you please translate this article from German into English? I would be very grateful. Thanks! 80.246.140.248 (talk) 16:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

 Done Please see Klexikon. De728631 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks! I appreciate it! :) 37.142.174.153 (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I was just looking through my CSD deletion log and my attention was drawn to the occasions where my nomination was declined, including this one where you stated that G4 did not apply to drafts. There are three G4s in that list that have been approved, so I have reviewed WP:G4 and I think the subtlety is that G4 does apply to drafts as long as the article hasn't been moved from mainspace to draft for the purpose of improvement. This is borne out at WP:GCSD ("These apply to every type of page") and at Wikipedia:Drafts#Speedy deletion too. You were right that the draft in question had been draftified. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Wow, with all those drafts in your message it took me some time to figure out what you meant. I think I need a draft beer now. De728631 (talk) 17:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

🍺 Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI: Ich habe gerade diesen krummen Vogel aus dem Verkehr gezogen: Pcpus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Ist wohl auch hier ein indef Kandidat. Ich stelle keine Anfragen mehr auf's Admin Brett auf en-wiki. Aber anyway: Prost! --Hedwig in Washington ^(TALK) 22:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Prost, and thank you. I'm going to check this guy's edits over here. De728631 (talk) 22:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Might want to check out 123456789amanda123456789 as a sock of Waxcreative Design, as this new account made its first edit on Lori Foster almost immediately after the latter was banned. Thanks. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 23:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Beemer69: Technically that would be a legitimate sockpuppet because I blocked the former account only because of the inappropriate username. Such users are even encouraged to create new accounts. I have, however, zapped the photo over at Commons because it was a copyright infringement. De728631 (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been on Wiki for a decade and never reported a sock before, so I'd hoped I'd used the right terminology. :) sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 01:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@De728631: Why was the photo a copyright infringement? New here so am confused. Thanks.123456789amanda123456789 (talk) 23:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @123456789amanda123456789: When the page where the image is located includes the text "Copyright © 2012-2017 Lori Foster. All Rights Reserved", that means it's not free for Wikipedia to reuse. —C.Fred (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Ah interesting. I run her website for her. I'll just pick a different image. Thanks 123456789amanda123456789 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@123456789amanda123456789: If you run the website, then put up a gallery page where it's noted that the images on that page are either under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license or in the public domain. Then we'll have verification that the images are, in fact, free for all derivative reuse. —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

@123456789amanda123456789: Even that is very likely not going to work because the copyright is usually held by the photographer and not by the person depicted in a photograph. That means owning copies of these photos does not put Lori Foster into a position to licence their re-use by other people unless she purchased the copyright along with the images.

To host a copyrighted image at Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons we need a permission by email from the actual copyright holder. If the photographer transferred their copyright to Lori Foster, a copy of the written agreement would be sufficient, and a confirmation of a free licence of Lori Foster's choice (e.g. Creative Commons 4.0). Otherwise, only the photographer can grant a free licence for anyone to reuse the image(s) for any purpose. Please see commons:COM:OTRS for more information. De728631 (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings. I've submitted a draft for the recreation of Jack Radcliffe, which you were previously involved with deleting after a previous recreation by another editor. Please feel free to review the proposed draft. I believe I've satisfied WP:GNG and improved the page from whatever it previously was. Any input you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!Luminum (talk)

Thank you for your notice but I think I'll leave that to the regular article reviewers. De728631 (talk) 21:11, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No problem. The page history just said to notify those involved with previous deletions. Thanks!Luminum (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the same is on the Page Kokand under History. So the Khanate of Kokand doesnt need it as Page. Nalanidil (talk) 16:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Such "history" sections often repeat content from the main article on the history of the subject. This is by no means a reason to merge everything from the Khanate page into the article on the city. De728631 (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no living descendant page, when you push the bottom there is no Page Nalanidil (talk) 16:22, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

So what? This is NOT a reason to delete the entire talk page. It wouldn't even justify erasing that paragraph about any alleged living members. If you have reliable evidence that there are no living members, you can just place a reply there stating your opinion. That's how Wikipedia works. De728631 (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Indeed, there is not living Member, because the las Khan died childless. And this a Facebook page who doesnt existed. So it is better tho deleate it Nalanidil (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't delete talk page content even if it is factually wrong. Deletions are only for legally problematic edits like copyright infringements and for cases of libel, violations of the WP:BLP policy, etc. De728631 (talk) 16:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It is wrong, because there is no any sources given for a living male descendant with this name, and this link doesnt show anything. So this should to delete it. Thank you. Nalanidil (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Then please write at the article's talk page that it is wrong because you think that there is no male descendant. That's how Wikipedia works. De728631 (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Nalanidil: Thank you for making your point at the article talk page. However, after that you removed the entire paragraph from the talk page. This is absolutely not allowed by our policies and guidelines and the next time you do this you will be blocked from editing! It seems to me that you are not aware of the purpose of Wikipedia talk pages. Unlike the main article pages where wrong content should be corrected and may be erased, talk pages are meant to discuss the relevant article. That is why we never edit or remove anyone else's posts at a talk page, even if it is factually wrong. You may reply to a contested statement on a talk page but removing other editor's talk page contributions is strictly prohibited except for some special cases. So please try to stick to the rules. You may want to read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines for more background information. De728631 (talk) 16:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

• https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

• Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 18:24, 1 December 2017 (UTC)