User talk:Feminist/Archive 14

When closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ray Harryhausen Podcast, you wrote "Redirect to The Ray Harryhausen Podcast" which of course makes no sense. I believe you meant to write "Redirect to Ray Harryhausen". I've fixed your close and fixed the redirect. If I've misunderstood your intention, feel free to revert this. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, that was what I meant to write. SSTflyer 16:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SSTflyer, I noticed you closed as redirect The Ray Harryhausen Podcast to The Ray Harryhausen Podcast. We now have a redirect loop. Shouldn't the close have been redirect to Ray Harryhausen? I read the consensus as delete BTW, but that's a different matter. Mduvekot (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See the section above. SSTflyer 16:18, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albrecht Dürer, famous German painter of the German Renaissance. Hello, SSTflyer. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: List of German painters Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Brain damage • Education in Bangladesh Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

IMO, this AfD should not have been closed, as the current state of the edit history is not acceptable.  If there is currently consensus for a redirect, it is for a delete and redirect, which non-admins cannot do.  There also remains the possibility that sourcing will be added to the article, which cannot easily happen in its current state.  I request that you revert the close and relist.  Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for closing the Frost Fight AfD. However, I a have an editor that does like the decision thus is edit warring over the addition of information beyond what he considers to belong there. Can you come to the talk page and clarify as the closer what you felt the intent of the consensus was. Spshu (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Se-jeong (singer). You closed it as "redirect" despite no one advocating for a redirect. Could you undo your closure? -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A response that you undid it would be nice. Your continued lack of communication is a concern. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:50, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Could you reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamen Rider Wizard (character) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamen Rider Beast as AFDs should never be closed on one !vote, Also you're closing AFDs way too early - They need to run the full 7 days (you're closing them on 6), Thanks. –Davey2010^Talk 17:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both discussions have run for more than 13 days when I closed them. In both discussions, there is consensus between two users that the topics are non-notable. Both discussions have already been relisted. Further relisting is unlikely to bring a different result. SSTflyer 11:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there was consensus in that it wasn't notable however the nom went with delete whilst another went with Redirect .... Both had strong arguments and so further relisitng could and would establish consensus which so far there isn't any, As I said AFDs should never be closed on one !vote unless under certain and special circumstances .... In this case it was an inappropriate closure and I would kindly ask you reopen and relist it, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 18:16, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still consider these closures to be appropriate, but I relisted them anyway. Life is too precious. SSTflyer 09:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SSTflyer. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Math rock Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: List of German painters • Brain damage Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 3 October 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles with the most citations. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Articles with the most citations redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 07:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The 50 DYK Nomination Medal
		This is in recognition of the more than 50 articles you have nominated for DYK, on a wide variety of topics. Thanks for enhancing the DYK project! Yoninah (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A spelling bee at Jhenidah Cadet College in Bangladesh Hello, SSTflyer. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Spelling bee Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Math rock • List of German painters Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 04:03, 10 October 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rest of the world. Since you had some involvement with the Rest of the world redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NASA researchers at Glenn Research Center conducting tests on aircraft engine noise in 1967 Hello, SSTflyer. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Noise Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Spelling bee • Math rock Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

The attic at a factory Hello, SSTflyer. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Attic Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Noise • Spelling bee Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:07, 24 October 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Street food vendors at a roadside market just outside of Hua Hin District, Thailand Hello, SSTflyer. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Street food Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Attic • Noise Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions[reply]

Would you like to provide your input at this discussion regarding references and the Airlines and destinations tables? Thank you! — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 22:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feminist,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was redirected again, by the same user. Love on the Brain (talk) 14:30, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just read it. The one line summaries are brilliant and quite insightful. Well done. Lourdes 16:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SSTflyer. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity...as I've known you since the start here and have been impressed by your contributions. Lourdes 10:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your interest at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/New page reviewer in the way minor user rights are accorded. Admins can usually be trusted to do significant research and basic clerking is done by a bot that was recently developed to reduce the need for Non Admin Comments. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for closing RM discussions. I noticed that you are not adding {{RMNAC}} in closing comment. According to closing instructions, every non-admin closure must have that template. Please remember to add that in your closing comment. Regards, Fuortu (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is the second request to refrain from commenting on user requests for permissions. As pointed out by Samtar, WP:PERM is not a voting process. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:VietnamAirlines.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do great work, and are very experienced with RM from what I can tell. However, I'm kinda shocked by your NAC closure of this RM based on 'rough consensus' when there was 5 experienced RM volunteers all with over 7 years of experience, and one of which is an admin -- all !voting against the move. And while we don't simply count !votes, there was only 5 experienced RM volunteers voting with support (granted 4 of those were admins). And on both sides, there were some much newer people voicing their thoughts on the topic. I'm not sure how you 've determined a rough consensus on this. May I propose it be reopened and relisted and/or closed without consensus. But to suggest that there was consensus here is somewhat shocking. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Your argument is basically the strongest among the oppose voters, though BHG and Bradv have also brought up reasonable arguments. However, support voters ultimately make a stronger case in support of the move, providing evidence of much higher usage than other topics, compared to oppose voters who provided weaker arguments for why the politician isn't the PTOPIC for "Gladstone". SSTflyer 02:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although I still consider this closure to be appropriate, I don't mind allowing an admin to close it. However, I don't think relisting is appropriate, because there has already been plenty of discussion. SSTflyer 02:16, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I think it was a perfectly valid close. Most oppose arguments were quite weak, with no actual evidence to counter the assertions that William is primary for this term by page views, common usage and long term significance compared with any other topic.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SSTflyer: thank you for respectfully reopening the discussion and we will see where this lands in the end. A couple of things:

1. I guess my biggest issue is that the closure description was overly simple and presumptive without detail, where I believe there was a dissenting views which were not trivial. Rought Consensus does permit discounting !votes which are by non-experienced editors or those which have no possible bearing on legitimate application of policies. I believe that both @Brownhairedgirl: and I both brought up policy and/or precedent based reasons to oppose the move - and simply claiming 'rough consensus' completely discounts those valid points brought up.
2. Per WP:RM/CI NAC closures are permitted, must be disclosed by the NAC template, and after 7-days consensus must be clear -- which is different from rough consensus. But when still choosing to do close anything that might be viewed as contentious, we ought to be providing more extensive closing notes to rationalize why we're closing it the way we are.

Now @Amakuru: may be right that the move will remain as it is, as often they do once a move is actually performed, but I'd prefer an admin to close, as well as 'feel' that some valid points raised during the discussion are accounted for instead of 'discounted'. Let me do close this by saying "YOU DO GOOD WORK" and are appreciated around here. THANK YOU for all that you do... and HAPPY HOLIDAYS... Tiggerjay (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Right, thanks Tiggerjay, and happy holidays to you too, and to SSTflyer as well; we're all working away to make this a better place. Let's see how the things pans out. I do agree with you on the closing notes though... it's a good idea for anyone, admin or otherwise, to provide a lot more detail as to their reasoning in the close when closing something that looks very close on paper. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, need your help explaining that "User Intent" or "Query Intent" is a real SEO term / CRO term

Article for Deletion Discussion Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/User_Intent#User_Intent

Thanks! JoseRolles (talk) 07:59, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SSTflyer, I invite you to contribute to this RfC on the Airlines and destinations tables on airport articles. True, we had an earlier discussion, but this RfC debates whether the tables should exist at all – and I am seeking a diversity of editors to contribute in order to establish true consensus. Thanks for your time. — Sunnya343✈ (háblame • my work) 20:58, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

(rename request page watcher) You've made so many contributions to the project, many of us could actually hear the Wikimedia servers spooling up to handle all the 100,000+ edit reclassifications which had to take place! Chill-- (talk) (c) 23:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just found Talk:Breitbart News/Archive 2#Requested move 24 September 2016 in the talk page archives and I think it's a matter of time before it's raised again, as the shorter name is more recognizable (the name most people will call it), natural (reflecting what it's usually called), precise (unambiguously identified), and concise (not longer than necessary to identify), per the naming criteria (article titles policy)... and hell, it already redirects to the longer title. I don't watch the page, but if you could send me a courtesy ping if/when the discussion comes up again, I'd appreciate it. czar 22:00, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Jan 19 TFDs don't reach "maturity" until tomorrow. I always check the Old unclosed list just to make sure ;) Primefac (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, OK. Am I supposed to revert my closes? feminist 03:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, the two you closed were pretty straightforward, so I wouldn't worry about it. Primefac (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You decided too early on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Through (George Michael song). There was 1 keep, 1 delete and 1 redirect. How is that a consensus? The Afd should have been relisted for more discussion ComebackAgain (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All keep votes were struck as sock puppets. That leaves a consensus against retention of the article. feminist 14:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of sock puppets, you have decided to redirect the article based on one person opinion. Not many people have participated. SAD! ComebackAgain (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How could you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC) as redirect? The delete got more vote as well as more support from guidelines. I will take this closure to review. Qed237 (talk) 10:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to say or if you want to motivate your decision before I request a review, that would be appreciated. Qed237 (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, "delete" and "redirect" are equivalent at AfD, because both accomplish the goal of hiding the article content. In most cases, "redirect" is superior because it preserves attribution and allows the article history to be visible to non-admins. So unless there is a good reason against closing as "redirect" instead of "delete" (e.g. article content falls under WP:CRD or the redirect would not survive WP:RFD), "redirect" would be a better closure. In this discussion, there was some discussion on whether a redirect would be appropriate, and I think the discussion can be closed either way. But since you object to my closure, I don't mind allowing someone else to close it. feminist 14:42, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any discussion here, at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hollywood_cycles&diff=next&oldid=638913973. Did I miss it? Thanks.BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollywood cycles. feminist 15:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you closed the Category:Las Vegas entertainers with only one comment. Don't you think that's a bit limited discussion. I don't have a great affinity for the category, though for that location (Las Vegas) it does make sense for it is a distinct class of entertainer who regularly performs there, meaning a good category. My issue is the lack of discussion and your acceptance of it. CfDs do not get any discussion because they are not announced on the articles affected by the . . . at least until now when the category is being removed. I have argued this point to deaf ears. However you are representing the problem by accepting the lack of discussion and still closing--on one opinion. You should have, and still should, extend (relist) the discussion until it actually turns into a discussion on the merits of the action. That means several different opinions should be heard from before closure of any *fD. Trackinfo (talk) 07:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The CfD actually had no participation whatsoever. The "comment" was merely the nominator's rationale. A non-admin should not be closing CFDs as delete, should not be closing CfDs with zero participation, and should not be summarily removing a category from articles. Please re-open the CfD and replace the category on the articles you deleted it from. Softlavender (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SILENCE. CfD discussions generally receive little participation and closing a CfD discussion with no other comments other than the nominator is not considered inappropriate. Relisting is not commonly performed on CfD discussions. No, it is not optimal for non-admins to have to close CfD discussions, but the large number of discussions ready to be closed is evidence that there are not enough admins closing CfD discussions. That said, I am reopening the discussion given there is no longer consensus for this discussion. feminist 08:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Feminist, Please could you reinstate my draft article Skywhale (band) which was deleted in January 2017. The founder musician of the band would now like to add information which might make the article meet your criteria for publication. Cjcooper (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cjcooper: it has been restored by Tokyogirl79 at Draft:Skywhale (band). feminist 08:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a friendly ping to notify you that you forgot to close the RM after moving Chelsea Green (wrestler) to Laurel Van Ness. As to not get into a habit of forgetting, I normally close the discussion and then move it. Anarchyte (work | talk) 08:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For now, the RM closure at Talk:Airbag (band) is right. However, I'm still awaiting a re-review on Draft:Airbag (Spanish band). If the draft is approved, I'll notify you, so we can discuss the RM closure at later time. How's that?

If the article is accepted, anyone can start another RM to determine whether a new title is necessary. You don't have to notify me. feminist 10:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Feminist,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Lufthansa Airbus A320-211 D-AIQT 01.jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on February 22, 2017. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2017-02-22. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mifter (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]