User talk:Nfitz

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To Do List

Archive 1


Hello Nfitz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  HGB 01:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Pleased to read that you are sorted. - Sitush (talk) 01:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Topic ban rescinded[edit]

In case it was not obvious from the discussion, I have closed your ban appeal as successful ([1]). I am about to remove the restriction from the active log. Welcome back, and best wishes. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks - didn't seem to by much objection, but I did fear it was going to wither on the vine of indifference! Nfitz (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Canada Soccer not an authority on players' club team[edit]

My objection with listing Liam Millar as "Liverpool U23s" is that Canada Soccer is the only source that has him on that team, and Canada soccer recently had Lucas Cavallini as a member of Atlas when that appeared to be completely false. Listing him as simply "Liverpool" is automatically correct given his loan is over at Killie and he is in the Liverpool organization at the moment. Unless another source shows "Liverpool U23s" we should stick with just Liverpool. TrailBlzr (talk) 21:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simply provide a source then. We have a high-quality source saying he's U23. We have no source otherwise that I've seen. If there's no source, you are speculating. Nfitz (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FIFA World Club Cup[edit]

Sorry, I wasn't on the page I had thought I was. Red Jay (talk) 14:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New message from Winged Blades of Godric[edit]

Hello, Nfitz. You have new messages at Draft_talk:Clarice_E._Phelps.
Message added 08:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WBGconverse 08:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well that's interesting User:Winged Blades of Godric - and all rather puzzling given the author's comments. I'm a bit surprised to find so much discussion in 6 hours after I made my query, and to find that User:Serial Number 54129 hatted off the conversation. If there's a desire to close off the old conversation, then I think that the discussion starting with my comment a few hours ago should be in a separate section. SN54219 do you see a problem with that? Nfitz (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)#Reply[reply]
Apologies, I didn't see the latest time stamps, and thought nothng had been said since this time last May  :) now adjusted. Thanks for the pointer, ——SerialNumber54129 13:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meh, Chapman needs to be called out on his blatant hypocrisy; called us to be sexists for denying an article but allotted a footnote to her, in his domain-work. And, the community needs to understand that Phelps ain't meeting the notability guidelines anytime soon. WBGconverse 13:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Surely Wikipedia isn't the place for such activism against Chapman, there's enough on-wiki drama around here already! Whether it passes (or failes) notability should be done on it's own merits. Sooner or later, Phelps may be notable simply for not being notable (I don't think we are quite there yet, but this June 2019 article pushes a bit further). Nfitz (talk) 13:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously, I didn't mean going after Chapman, in any literal sense:-) Phelps may be notable simply for not being notable -- This is the most likely possibility; after a few years, we will probably get enough articles all of whom state nothing but that her article was unfairly deleted from en-wiki :-( WBGconverse 13:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge third anniversary[edit]

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada is approaching its third-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and have no unsourced claims.

You may use the above button to submit entries, or bookmark this link for convenience. For more information, please see WP:CAN10K. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 2019[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Dmehus. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Canada Computers, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can reply here, possibly with a ping to me. I appreciate your good faith edits of Canada Computers in which you attempted to add two citations. In both cases, the articles cited were either irrelevant or tangentially relevant. In the former, the blog post/article referred to "The Hut Dog" but made no mention of the article's subject. In the latter, it made reference to a fire in a building rented by post-secondary students which one of this non-notable computer retailer's store locations had a fire. Such details are trivial and hardly worthy of a mention in an encyclopedia. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Read the whole article - both on the website and at ProQuest - it's mentioned there. I'll restore the reference with a quote to point to the relevant information. Nfitz (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moving this to your talk page to consolidate things and have less back-and-forth. Thanks. I'm willing to let the fire article stand, but "The Hut Dog" one is completely irrelevant and cannot remain. I didn't read the article, but didn't need to as I work more efficiently and use Ctrl+F to search for the subject article's name and/or its address, other details, etc. --Doug Mehus (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I re-read the source, though I didn't have to access via paid electronic database as both articles were freely available. You can leave the references, even if they're trivial details. Thanks for refining/clarifying.--Doug Mehus (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You didn't read the article, but you feel that it shouldn't be referenced? You are "willing to let the fire article stand"? Please read and apply WP:OWNERSHIP! And WP:WAIT while I'm trying to improve the article, which clearly has issues. Thanks! Nfitz (talk) 18:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please keep the discussion together, per my request above. When editing, it is often not necessary to read through entire articles, especially those that make only passing or tangential mentions to a subject. One has to work efficiently. Nevertheless, obviously, I was working too efficiently and Google Chrome didn't find the Canada Computers reference. As I stated, you can leave both references and I appreciate your good faith refinement by adding the quotation in your reply above. --Doug Mehus (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You explicitly asked me to reply on your talk page. And that is often how I edit anyhow. If you are going to revert edits from experienced editors, while they are in the midst of working on an article, you must assume good faith, and they have added the information for a reason. If you want to work efficiently, come back in a day or two, and see where this landed - there is WP:NORUSH. Or just ask me why I added something that appears to be unrelated, instead of starting to edit aggressively. I admit, on the surface, the hot-dog edit looks pretty weird ... hopefully I'll find a better reference before I'm done. Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 18:52, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my initial notification, yes, that's correct, but I used Twinkle to place the notification, which is limited to the degree to which it lets you modify templates. I was never happy with that, so subsequently modified my original request to please reply here to keep the discussion together, possibly with a ping (though I've added your talk page to my Watchlist for a few days, to catch any replies needing my attention). For clarity, I always assume good faith, but I reject your characterization of my edits as "aggressive". They are bold edits, to which I'd add I did not undo your reversion of my edit consistent with WP:BRD and have taken this to your Talk page (where it should be). You're attempting to improve the article, which is good, so I'm hoping we can put this thread to bed now. If you'd like to help rescue other noteworthy articles, one that I stumbled upon is Independent Soldiers. I've added a number of details that establish this street gang's notability, added citations, added an infobox, and re-characterized the "club" to what it is, a street gang. I was surprised it AfD'ed actually, as it's definitely notable. So, I do try and rescue articles where I see potential for improvement and notability.Doug Mehus (talk) 19:01, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Twinkle doesn't sound very efficient to me! Your edits come across as aggressive - you may not see or intend it that way, but others do. I've been concerned for some time, with the various Canadian AFDs you've done of late - this is the first time, I've ever had anyone trying to edit attempts to improve an article in real-time - which I can say isn't very efficient! I hadn't seen that AFD ... improvement probably needed - but it looks under control - I've got a Rugby game to watch ..., and I'm not touching the article for violent criminal organization from my user id with a barge pole! Nfitz (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nfitz: Oh, you're a rugby fan? Cool. Why do you say you wouldn't touch a violent criminal organization's article with a barge pole? I'm just thinking, for prolific edits, the edits would be obscured in one's Contributions log by thousands, or even tens of thousands, of edits. One has to hand it to journalist like the Sun's Kim Bolan et al. that cover these organizations as one googling the organization and his or her name would produce lots of results. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Out of curiosity[edit]

Sorry to message you on your talk page, but the ANI thread was closed before I noticed it. (I regularly Ctrl+F the page for "Japan" to see if my help is needed, but I've been quite distracted of late -- I actually did notice the thread a few days ago and stayed away for my own reasons; I didn't notice アリ until just now, though.)

You recently referred, on ANI, to an edit saying that the Japanese girl's name "Ari" meant "ant" as being correct and not nonsense. This seems ... questionable. Japanese is infamous for its large number of homonyms, and while Kojien only lists the words for ant and "to be"(-ish), it has never occurred to me that the girl's name "Ari" could come from the word for "ant". It's never written with the character 蟻 -- lists 44 different ways of writing it as a "female given name", and 蟻 is only given (questionably) in one that it lists as a "family name / given name".

Hijiri 88 (やや) 15:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Later on in the discussion, I noted that it was the same word, but didn't appear to be that meaning (a hononym, though I didn't use that), referencing a discussion about that. As such, it may have been nonsense, but not complete nonsense - as the editor wasn't making it up, but had likely read something erroneous. Thanks for the background - the etymology often fascinates me - but I'm far out of my league when it comes to some languages? Nfitz (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, FWIW, I've had a lot of bad experiences with editors posting patent nonsense on Japan-related articles, then getting into long IDHT runs on the talk pages, and then when I asked the community to deal with it at ANI they just said "I don't see how that's patent nonsense" apparently because they themselves didn't understand the content; so I may be biased here, but I agree with the editor you were arguing with that that edit was patent nonsense, and I think it was somewhat unhelpful to argue with him at ANI that it wasn't. (Going to his talk page and asking for clarification probably would have been better.)
And yes, I do see what is happening to him at ANI now as somewhat problematic -- a bunch of editors who either don't like him for their own reasons or who don't understand the nature of his disputes and are just assuming that there must be a problem calling for him to be TBANned or even SBANned.
Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well at least there's no talk page rants from that user, User:Hijiri88 The edit, poor as it was, seemed to be in good faith, and I did find web pages discussing whether there was a link to "ant" so not completely out of the blue - and certainly not even the complete nonsense that was claimed by the instigator of that ANI thread. That edit added two facts that seem correct, and the not unique misconception about "ant". The editor making false claims and exaggeration about vandalism, trolling, and complete nonsense don't help. And that was the worst edit I could find ... most were pretty innocuous, though badly formatted. I asked more than once for diffs of vandalism and trolling - none were provided - and then later, they attack me with what appears to be a racial slur (or is it some strange sexual thing - I remain somewhat baffled)? Simply because I called them out about making false claims about trolling and vandalism? Perhaps you should read more of the discussion. That being said, some of the further edits by 서덕민 ‎since that discussion are becoming more concerning. Nfitz (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you link me to one or two of those websites? It sounds like a joke/hoax -- you can be suckered in and not be in violation of Wikipedia policy as long as you don't add it to the article space, but an editor who either (a) doesn't believe it and adds it to our article maliciously or (b) adds it to our article because they sincerely believe it, is a problem for the project either way. Making a judgement call and saying it is (a) and not (b) (what you call "false claims about trolling and vandalism") may not be the move I would have personally made, but I don't think it's fair to go after Sk8erPrince for doing so as you have been doing either. I don't know what "Korean fetish" meant, but given what S8P has been putting up with for the last week or so his being frustrated and lashing out in general is very understandable -- and indeed it is appalling that nothing has so far been done to address this harassment -- and given that you had already effectively shut down an apparently good-faith ANI report and involved yourself in a discussion over whether S8P should be removed from the project, his lashing out at you specifically is understandable if not necessarily justified. I think if you find interacting with him to be unpleasant, there's nothing stopping you from walking away, and there hasn't been for the last several days. Your !voting in the AFD was entirely uncalled for, IMO. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
??? The sites said ant wasn't the meaning of Ari (name), but confirmed that Ari was a name in Japanese - are you saying it's not a name in Japanese? I don't see any evidence of malicious behaviour. The problem is that Sk8erPrince doesn't listen - and kept going on about trolling without providing a diff, refusing to see that some of the edits were correct (like noting that Ari was a name in both Korean and Japanese). Looks like they were already criticized by others before they even started at ANI - whatever trouble they seem to have had was brought on themselves, between the initial ANI case, and overzealous AFD (given their previous two topic bans about being overzealous at AFD). I only became involved when just after their ANI complaint was closed, they asked for examples of problems with their recent on-Site behaviour, claiming the issues were all in the past - to which I answered simply answered honestly. There's little justification for being uncivil simply because one is frustrated - but if one is uncivil - why not delete or apologize for the "Korean fetish' comment? There's been no attempt at that. Why? Why do you defend an editor who won't even apologize for being grossly uncivil - violating a basic pillar of the project? I asked them several times to provide diffs of vandalism, trolling, or complete nonsense - and the best they could come up was that Ari edit - which at the worst was only partial nonsense, given that he also correctly identified that it's a name in two other languages. Surely making false accusations and biting newcomers is a far worse issue than poor grammar and etymology, which could quickly be fixed. Which isn't to say that User:서덕민 isn't going to have to be dealt with - though I'm just noticing that overnight they created Hanna (Korean name) - which does seem to be an improvement over some earlier edits, and does address some of the comments made about earlier edits (though I'm not sure about the messaging of others, that there should be standalone pages like this - but that's not my area of expertise). Nfitz (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I apologize if our recent interaction on ANI got a little heated. I've been under a lot of stress lately for ... reasons. I think you and I disagree as to whether it is acceptable to call a certain type of edit "complete nonsense", but now that the editor who actually did that has been indeffed for probably unrelated reasons, I see no reason why we can't move forward, agree to disagree on minor trifles like that, and behave in a collegial manner toward each other. In that spirit, I would like express regret over that recent tiff on the noticeboards. Kind regards, and happy editing! Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. After the "fetish" comment, I did some digging, and came across off-site evidence of the same kind of stuff that they'd previously been topic-banned for ... and far worse. This changed my my view from being relatively passive in the second ANI discussion. I suspect others had seen similar. But discussion has to be related to on-site actions. Glad to see Arbcom taking this out of our hands. Wow ... Nfitz (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your comment at ani[edit]

You forgot to sign it. —AdamF in MO (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disco ball of unlimited knowledge[edit]

I appreciate your contributions! Thanks for continuing to make Wikipedia a productive space. Lightburst (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is it just me, or does it seem like the above editor is thanking every editor who has even a civil disagreement with me, regardless of whether he himself had any involvement therein? Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I was just happy to see the nice spinning ball ... and fire up some ABBA tunes! Nfitz (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BLPN discussion on Mark Bourrie[edit]

Hi, just to let you know in case you didn't yet notice, the Mark Bourrie article was recently mentioned at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Mark Bourrie. Yes by socks, but per DOLT etc, some regulars did check out to see if there was anything that could be improved in the article hence the recent edits. Nil Einne (talk) 10:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 2020[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Atlético Ottawa. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • That is not true Walter Görlitz, it was not unsourced. I put the source in the edit summary with my very first edit, and then added it to the article almost 2 hours before this WP:DTTR failure. While the source I provided is a primary source, it doesn't qualify as unsourced material. I also asked in the edit summary for someone to find a better source. I note that you've improved the referencing diff and I thank you for that. Please AGF and DTTR. I look forward to your apology. Nfitz (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry for bothering you, but...[edit]

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers
  • New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
  • If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)(click me!) 19:55, 2 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quick question about GNG[edit]

Hey, I'm still getting my head wrapped around the concept of WP:GNG. For example, would Ali Al Haj and Peter Khalife pass, in your opinion? Nehme1499 (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good question, and it's not immediately clear. Looking quickly, they are certainly both more extensively referenced and better written than many borderline cases we do accept. I'll look into it in more detail when I have some time. Perhaps the best test, is what are the best two references for each article that are significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject? Though even experienced editors disagree on what's "significant" or "reliable". Nfitz (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I would say that Al Haj doesn't satisfy GNG, while Khalife does. Do you agree? Nehme1499 (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would take some time to research! I'm off to enjoy the beautiful spring weather and sunshine! Nfitz (talk) 17:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ahahaha have fun! I'm here in quarantine so yeah... Nehme1499 (talk) 18:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gosh ... in northern Italy I assume. Hopefully it doesn't come to that here. Good luck! I will look when I have a chance. Kids have worn me out ... Nfitz (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah you assumed correctly ahaha. Don't worry about it btw, take a look at it when you get the time. Nehme1499 (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at Ali Al Haj], I see other references, such as this. It's a bit borderline, and it would be nice if a couple of the references were more in detail, but I think the sum total of everything is good enough. I'd oppose deletion if the article existed. As for Peter Khalife - not quite as well referenced, but a couple of the references are a bit more detailed. Still borderline - perhaps slightly stronger. Some would argue delete for both I'm sure. Good luck - I'm not really sure what supposed to happen with such large quarantines. All very unexpected! Nfitz (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The difference between the two is that, while Al Haj has double the references, most if not all are just trivial mentions. Khalife has 7 pages talking solely about him (Jbeil Daily News, Malaaeb, sports-961, flyfoot, elsport, laebarabi, football-lebanon). So idk, because I've always been sure of the notability of the people of whom I've created the pages, since they all pass WP:NFOOTY. This would be my first case in publishing pages which don't satisfy it, so I want to be extra careful ahaha. Nehme1499 (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I'm not sure what conclusion you can draw from the pages edited (Except they all edited Freud), but one thing is certain, they all edited at the same time (same times of day) and meaning Skoojal and FKC are in the same time zone.

The latter two are blocked socks of FKC. Heiro 22:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah User:Heironymous Rowe, I spotted the time zone thing - there's certainly no end of material to look at. The one thing that jumped out at me is look which admin did the first block in 2008. Hard to think that this hasn't crossed their mind at some point, given their participation at ANI on this. Nfitz (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The one from 24 September 2008? Hadn't noticed that, but, yeah, seems like it should have and probably will now.Heiro 23:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Foysal Ahmed Fahim[edit]

If you want a second set of eyes on the sources before you move it back to mainspace, feel free to ping me and I'll have a look. SportingFlyer T·C 04:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure - but it looks like I should remind User:Fenix down who replied to neither discussion on his talk page. Nfitz (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've got a mail[edit]

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

Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 03:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New message from Stifle[edit]

Hello, Nfitz. You have new messages at Stifle's talk page.
Message added 08:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]

Stifle (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Gaffer (magazine) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gaffer (magazine) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ♠PMC(talk) 21:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why only notify me, and not Serankail, given you are already aware that the material is his, as are the subsequent edits, User:Premeditated Chaos? Nfitz (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's automated via Twinkle, which I'm sure you must be aware of. ♠PMC(talk) 22:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not actually ... I've never used Twinkle, and it's not mentioned as to who get's notified at WP:AFDHOW. Seems to be an oversight, that it doesn't notify the most frequent editor(s), in addition to the creator. Perhaps they should improve it ... I'm surprised it doesn't at a minimum indicate who it's going to notify ... Nfitz (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Twinkle tells you it's going to notify the creator, not who that person is. Auto-notifying the initial creator is the only way for a notification to be automated but also fair. Notifying the most frequent editor would be extremely problematic for a number of reasons. If you go strictly on edit count, that person may turn out to be someone who made a bunch of format fixes (or a bot) and who isn't actually interested, not necessarily the most "substantial" contributor, and never mind the arguments that would ensue over what edits should or shouldn't count for that number. Figuring out who the most "substantial" contributor is is not something an automated process can (or should) do. ♠PMC(talk) 23:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, good point. All or nothing I suppose. Nfitz (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

comparison articles[edit]

I don't think speedy or prod's will work, I believe they will all have to go through AfD. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably not, but I noticed that some of their articles had been prodded successfully already - and not much work. And then there's Atlanta Braves–New York Mets game on July 4, 1985 ... which might almost meet GNG. Nfitz (talk) 12:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ironic edit on "Karamo Brown"[edit]

In this edit, you reverted my change with the comment "no indication on why this content was removed" - but actually, my edit added content, while yours removed it again. Are you aware of that? Korny O'Near (talk) 14:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Janne Mortil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The Gazette
Tony Nardi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to The Gazette

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

BMB 722[edit]

Please point out to me where it is stated that BMB 722 is blocked for socking. The block rationale is not for socking (nor ever has been) and they are not mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman nor Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:41, 29 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments are frequently struck from blocked editors, whether socks or not. Technically the indefinite block was for another reason, but it's pretty clear from the behaviour, article contributions, and user name, that it was yet another Kingshowman sock - and this is now Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kingshowman/Archive. I just about fell off my chair in surprise though when User:TonyBallioni mentioned you were an SPI clerk ... I did not see that one coming. I guess if one is going to be wrong, go big! :) No hard feelings. Nfitz (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

IP block exempt[edit]

I have granted your account an exemption from IP blocking for a period of one month. This will allow you to edit the English Wikipedia through full blocks affecting your IP address when you are logged in.

Please read the page Wikipedia:IP block exemption carefully, especially the section on IP block exemption conditions. Inappropriate usage of this user right may result in revocation. I hope this will enhance your editing, and allow you to edit successfully and without disruption.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:02, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, that will make life simpler! Not sure about some of those blacklists ... can't particularly see what is flagging that IP. And ironically my own IP (which does reset from time to time), seems to actually hit more blacklists than that one! My IP knowledge is pretty rudimentary ... I don't have the skill to fake, or avoid, much ... other than going to the library, and using a computer there ... which isn't even possible with the lockdown these days .. sigh. Nfitz (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Please be careful about WP:3RR on Jeremy Clarkson. You are very close to it at the moment. Please offer your thoughts on the talk page where the other editor has started a new section to discuss this issue. Woody (talk) 20:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Woody: I only see one edit revert in the last 24 hour period by Nfitz. Or am I missing something?-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 20:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ponyo: Initial edit 03:23 19 Aug then revert 1 at 18:10, revert 2 at 22:05. The other editor has 3 reverts. In total that was 5 reverts in 28 hours without any discussion on the talk page from anyone which looked a bit like edit warring to me. I'm entirely happy to be told otherwise? Woody (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There was definitely edit warring, but only one revert by Nfitz within the 24 hour 3RR window (the one you link as revert 2). I just wasn't sure if the correct article had been linked, which is why I asked. As always, the advice to use the talk page is spot on.-- Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 21:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No worries, I misread the timings when I first glanced at it for the first one. Either way, hopefully the discussion will resolve it. Cheers, Woody (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Gosh, I've never received a warning for a single revert before User:Woody ... I'm not sure what your revert 1 is ... it's a completely different edit than the first edit, which addressed the concerns after the initial - 1-character, edit. As Clarkson started on Top Gear around 1988 or so, my first edit was simply to correct what appeared to be a typo of 2002 to 1988. Then when that got reverted, the following day I inserted new text differentiating between his first 21 series of Top Gear between 1988 and 1998, and his later 22 seasons between 2002 and 2015. Surely that isn't actually a revert, as it was substantially different text, intended to address the concerns of User:Chaheel Riens. And yes, then I did a single RR. Even if you count the second edit as an RR (I'm curious about that), I was only at 2. Surely best to warn at 3, so that the troublesome 4th edit wouldn't happen ...
  • But hang on, User:Woody, you are raising this 23 hours after I edited this?!? I'm not sure how such minor edits on an article about a B-list journalist seems to be so contentious ...
  • And could User:Chaheel Riens avoid the unnecessary critical edit summaries? I said myself that it didn't flow very well, after you rejected the initial correction. Not sure why you want to differentiate so much between 2001 Top Gear and 2002 Top Gear. 2002 looks more like 2001 than it looked like 2015. Please work co-operatively with other editors ... I really don't care how it get's phrased, but initially using 1998 in the lead (it's a lead, not a lede - UK spelling for this article), and then a paragraph later getting into 1988 doesn't flow well. Something needs to change ... if you don't like the way I changed it, you try and fix it, instead of just reverting every attempt to have it make more sense. At least User:Davey2010 liked it ... Nfitz (talk) 22:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FYI I thanked Nfitz for this edit which I felt was a compromise, That being said whilst he had been there since '88 he was obviously primarily known for the '02-'15 series,
It would seem silly having it as "He is known for co-presenting version of the motoring programmes 1988 Top Gear from 1988 to 1998 and best known for co-presenting Top Gear, from and 2002 until 2015"
That seems a mouthful but is the best I can think of (Also yes apologies I don't know the wikilink to the 1988 Top Gear and cba to go hunting for it). –Davey2010Talk 22:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hindsight ia a glorious thing: I should not have labelled it as 3RR nor gone into reverts, this was a note about edit warring more than the bright line of 3RR. I didn't want to template the regulars rather I had hoped to stop any more reverts and push it to the talk page. In terms of not being complete reverts and being amended text I take your point: it wasn't a plain revert, but your edit was still contested and that should have then gone to the talk page rather than long edit summary discussion. Sadly, I'm continuously amazed by what is deemed contentious on Wikipedia and I don't think it will ever cease to amaze me. In terms of your last paragraph Nfitz and your responses Davey2010 I think these would be much better placed at the article talk page so it can go towards addressing the issue in one place: preferably on the article talk page as it pertains to article content. Cheers, Woody (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hindsight would have stopped me fixing a typo in an article about a barely notable @*%@ ... I've uncovered a cult, haven't I? :) Didn't seem any point starting an article talk page discussion over such a trivial and non-enduring edit ... oh wait, there's discussion there too since I looked yesterday. Sigh ... this is worse than a scifi page ... oh well, it's over 24-hours ... maybe I should completely rewrite those two paragraphs in the lead tonight (hmm ... or rerite the lede tonite - lol) Nfitz (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As one of the two editors involved, I'll add what I hope to be neutral comments about both our behaviour.
  • Templating either of us wasn't required. Whilst this was obviously a content dispute, talkpage discussion had begun, and the editing had stopped. So nut sure why Woody feels that he needed to template (or indeed warn in any manner) us to "stop any more reverts and push it to the talk page" - when that had already happened.
  • I accept my edit summaries were overly critical - bad day and all that - and were probably provocative. Apologies, and noted for future.
  • I've always maintained that an edit becomes contetnious as soon as it is reverted. The actual first edit may not have been contentious, but as soon as it is reverted - vandalism or pointy notwithstanding - the very act of reverting shows that at least one editor in the world disagrees, and thus there is contention. That is the very core of BRD.
I'm quite happy to discuss this elsewhere - either my own talk page, or the article page, but there seems to be more open discussion here at the moment about the manner of editing, rather than the content itself. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Newport County AFD's[edit]

I do not have a issue with the club, I am just nominating non-league seasons which should never have been created anyway. (Also I'm not just nominating Newport articles. I am focusing on non-league season articles in general, and Newport seem to have a lot of them). REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But you've also included pre-1920 Southern League seasons, when it was the third tier of English football. This is inconsistent with past treatment. And really, if there's only a single season, and the team remains fully-professional, that the team drops down a level, before jumping back up ... how is notability going to be any different for that season. You are applying non-existent black-and-white rules to articles that have been fine for years. Surely, there's better uses of everyone's time. Nfitz (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Southern league was not part of the Football league at the time, hence the non-league part of my nominations. There is currently no consensus that I can find as to weather early Southern League seasons are notable or not. Which is why I have AFD'ed the articles to see what others views are on them. I now see that Southern League seasons are considered notable and there will be no more nominations on such articles. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why not simply AFD one of them ... or better yet, ask others opinions about it, like at WT:FOOTY or WT:FPL, rather than shooting first, and asking questions later? Nfitz (talk)
Yes I probably should have asked others first. Maybe AFD'ing all of them without any confirmation as to weather they were notable or not was a mistake. I will try not to do the same in the future. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a note[edit]

Hey there! I just wanted to possibly give you a quick word of advice about Talk:Proud Boys#Claim that Proud Boys are racist - while I'm sure you absolutely mean well and are just trying to ensure that the other editor is aware of one of the ways that their messages may be interpreted, it's always best to assume good faith and not allege that they're spreading discriminatory beliefs. I've archived the discussion just to try and prevent any heated arguments, and to help keep the talk page on-topic, since the edit request it's related to is has already been answered. ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 08:05, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surely, User:ItsPugle, it would be remiss of me, or anyone, to not mention that someone is spreading blatant racist propaganda. I was AGFing, otherwise I'd have pointed out the user was racist, rather than simply spreading racist propaganda, which could of course by accidental. Though given the edit history, and the brevity of it, I think my AGD was generous. Also - shame on you for implying there are "sides" to racism. You are literally normalizing racism. Nfitz (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just stepping in to stop the article talk page being used for irrelevant discussion about the technicalities of a word. I'm not taking a position on either 'side' of the word's interpretation here, just working to keep the Wiki moving. Personal grievances should be taken to user talk pages, though I'd advise you not to bite the newcomer.ItsPugle (please ping on reply) 09:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough - though I don't think hardcore AGF is necessary when it's pretty clear there are racist overtones to a brand-new poster, who seems to be able to navigate wikidiosyncrasies easily. Nfitz (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Editing Scapegoat (talk) 22:30, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Folarin Balogun[edit]

I'd expect you to know this, but you should not copy & paste content from sandboxes/drafts into mainspace articles. GiantSnowman 19:37, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't own the content, and it fits better in the article. If you have problems with the text, please discuss it on the talk page for the article. Nfitz (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wrong, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, which you have now violated TWICE. GiantSnowman 19:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wrong - I attributed it to you in the comments. Please don't make false claims. Your sense of ownership here is completely unacceptable. To try and delete an article because you had a draft of it somewhere else, and then delete attempts to delete the content from the article is worthy of being removed from the project. Nfitz (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wrong, you did the bare minimum of adding a link to my userpage, and that's it. "It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving notes at the talk pages of both source and destination". It's also simply courtesy. I'm not seeking to delete the article because I have a pre-existing draft, I'm seeking to delete it because I think it is non-notable, as I clearly explained at the AFD, and as community consensus at the previous AFD five days ago which resulted in the article being deleted clearly concluded. I suggest you start AGFing. GiantSnowman 19:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wrong. Stay off my user page, if all you are going to do is come here, say things that aren't true, and justify your violation of policies, such as WP:OWN. 19:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

need your help[edit]

As it seems your are an experienced editor here with more than 15 years of contributing, would be my please if you help me in some articles that I might have problems or questions. Thanks --Thedunker66 (talk) 11:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You wouldn't be here if you'd checked by block history! :) But I'm happy to ask questions, or have others learn from my mistakes. Nfitz (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
doesn't matter, we need to make mistakes to learn an earn experience. I need to rescue an article about Iman Farzin who had some Revelations about the corruptions in Iran, and after that, some mafia editors from fa-wiki are trying to delete the article. please have a look, thanks --Thedunker66 (talk) 10:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Advice number one would be to stop canvassing. I normally look at most contentious football deletions. But you've now all but sterilized my input by canvassing me. The input by sock puppets here is also troubling. All the sources seem to be Farsi. Any other sources - even if not in English? Nfitz (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In case you saw my recent contribution to the discussion, I thought your signature said Keyswab, which led me to misinterpret it as them saying that we should negate the results because Fox said it. It wasn't directed at you and I've recanted, so I hope it didn't offend you. ;) DÅRTHBØTTØ (TC) 21:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't actually seen it - and can't even remember quite which discussion. So no harm done! Nfitz (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hallo, you participated in this discussion in its early stages. Therefore, I would take the liberty to ask you if you would like to review 2014–15 FC Winterthur season again. In the meantime, I have added texts and citations. Perhaps you would like to add a new comment, and perhaps with a couple of suggestions, to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014–15 FC Winterthur season discussion page. Your opinion would be appreciated. Thank you very much for your participation and please feel free to delete this message from your page, if you so wish. Thanks again and kindest greetings from Switzerland --Huligan0 (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Signature on RfD comment[edit]

Hey, just a heads up that it looks like you forgot to sign your comment on the RfD for Capitol Insurrection. I left an {{unsigned}} note, but feel free to replace it. Thanks for contributing to the discussion! SpurriousCorrelation 23:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Nfitz (talk) 02:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AFD participation request[edit]

Nice to meet you again. As you are one of the active participants in AFDs, i request you to please have a look at this case. As there are so many pending AFDs to be resolved and so less volunteers, your assistance will help us reduce the workload drop by drop. Thank You, Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 15:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

JoelleJay (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eventually. Instead of debating the deletion, why not just improve articles for which there is no consensus to delete. No one seemed to have added additional sources for years, such as this. Nfitz (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia Library[edit]

Thanks again for flagging that resource in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kennedy Cartoons. I reached out at Wikipedia_talk:The_Wikipedia_Library#Access_issue and they were able to solve it. Look forward to using it to access more older articles. Star Mississippi 15:32, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great! Glad to hear - it's a great resource. Nfitz (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The Barnstar of Integrity
For your help, I appreciated it. Lightburst (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Naveen Jain Afd's[edit]

Thanks for your responses at the Deletion Review and on Doczilla's talk. Given the first Afd, where it listed references, I saw no need to list them again.

I was looking for an archive of the now deleted article too. Any suggestions? --Hipal (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • You could ask for it to be temporarily undeleted for the course of the DRV, in the DRV thread. Might be useful, given I had no idea how extensive it was, when I "voted" to relist. Nfitz (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This may be the first deletion review I've involved myself with, so apologies for the questions, and thanks for the help. Looking more at the instructions, I probably should have gone directly to an admin to get the deletion undone while review is underway. Where should I request it be restored? I made a request in the review discussion, but a direct request seems the appropriate solution. --Hipal (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've only ever seen it in the review discussion before. Normally very uncontroversial - especially with dozens of references! No problem BTW - some of these processes are rather cryptic. Nfitz (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The personal commentary [2] is not appreciated and disruptive. Please remember to focus on content and policy, and work cooperatively with your fellow editors. --Hipal (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was trying to mitigate the impact of comments you made in your request - which I thought was unlikely to happen after you started saying all sorts of extra stuff in the request. Nothing personal. It really helps in an AFD and DRV to avoid tones that aren't neutral - and I say that from years of sounding really annoyed in such discussions. :) Looks like it's undeleted now. Nfitz (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tone? Neutral? I think I pointed out clear facts. As I keep saying, it is very alarming that SPAs can get away with this so easily. I thought deletion processes were better at handling such situations. --Hipal (talk) 18:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By tone, I mean things like your opening remark at DRV like Another attempt to whitewash the article by deletion by a bunch of SPA accounts. This condemns those who wanted to delete it in two different ways. Better just to write something like "those who supported keeping pointed out that the article is well referenced, with some references in major publications passing GNG", while those wanting to delete claimed otherwise, without any proof; there are also concerns about SPA and low-edit counts".
The conclusion I've been coming to over the years, that many of the "senior" editors here are very young - often well under 40 - and have lead a very sheltered existence where they receive medals for just participating, and have never encountered criticism during their education or work career - and instead take any negativity personally as harassment and attacks, rather than just discussion. Part of this is that they see the negativity, and their brains shut off, going into panic mode, and don't even process the full meaning of what is written, stuck on the incomprehensibility of someone speaking bluntly. I say this from experience, and at risk of the WikiPutins putting me on the rack again :). Nfitz (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Again, those are the facts. I certainly could have worded it better, but to focus on that seems a waste of time at best.
This is a volunteer-run encyclopedia, and the work environment here is chaotic and often hostile. Best focus on content and policy, and avoid inflaming a situation where it's clear we have NOTHERE editing going on from throw-away accounts.
That appears to be my very first time at DRV. I've got a good feel now of what to do if I ever come across the need again, but I hope that won't be for a very long time. --Hipal (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I saw your DRV comment of Our job is to make sure there was consensus in that discussion to delete the article (and I don't see it. Just FYI, it seems that you have not placed a formal (i.e. bolded) !vote for that specific E. J. Jones (rugby_union) thread. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I believe I did on February 17 - with separate entries for both articles. Certainly not clear though, given the length of discussion. Nfitz (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not sure what happened when I did cntl-F. I did it twice before, thinking it must be wrong, and now I see it. Ughh. At any rate, it's the 3rd DRV I've seen where it's the same DRV closer ruling "Endorse", previously this.—Bagumba (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I did a CTRL-F too ... and the first time I couldn't find my vote either? The problem is that DRV is to confirm that the close was good - not to do a supervote. And I don't see how there was any consensus. Still, at the same time, I don't see how the article remains when there's nothing other than their presence in the Olympics. I think a redirect is the correct outcome - I'll talk with the closer. Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, I didn't participate in either AfD and was comment strictly on the given arguments. No opinion on the merits of the (former) articles.—Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 2022[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Notability (sports). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Wug·a·po·des 21:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Given there is a thread on this at AN that none of the other offending editors have commented on - including yourself, this warning seems to be inappropriate - and an uncivil violation of WP:DNTTR, User:Wugapodes. Nfitz (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You will notice that WP:DNTTR is not a policy, WP:EW is. I'm working on a comment at AN, but stopping an edit war took priority. Wug·a·po·des 21:54, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Which is why I asked it, User:Wugapodes, that to be refrozen in the pre-existing state where it was previously frozen. It's hardly an edit-war when there's a discussion ongoing already, and the article was previously frozen - it's not like I was doing it by stealth. DNTTR is not a policy, but WP:5P4 is a pillar. Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)eeReply[reply]
    Quickly reverting back and forth is a textbook edit war. Requesting a page be protected to prevent edit warring and then starting an edit war yourself is plainly disruptive. Wug·a·po·des 22:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is not what happened. Besides - you are involved - which is surely a much greater sin than not violating 3RR - for which the penalty can be desysopped rather than (checks notes ...) not reverting an edit for which I could no longer edit anyhow. See my comment on your talk page. Nfitz (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Involved violation by User:Wugapodes[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Wikipedia:Notability (sports)) for a period of 36 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Wug·a·po·des 21:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nfitz (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

This is a blatant and knowledgeable violation of WP:INVOLVED by User:Wugapodes and I request that this be reverted and that he be blocked from my talk page. (not that I have any intention of editing NSPORT for the next 24 hours anyhow). Nfitz (talk) 22:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 23:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nfitz (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

There was a violation of WP:INVOLVED by User:Wugapodes, who is very much involved with the changes at NSPORT (diffs - one, two, three and I request that that the block be reverted due to their violation of INVOLVED. I've twice politely queried User:Jpgordon on how that isn't an unblock request, but they have chosen not to answer. Nfitz (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

You were not edit warring with Wugapodes. They are not involved. Since this is only a partial block, you should bring any grievances with other users to the appropriate forum. 331dot (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Other comments from a user who is ignoring request to stay off my talk page[edit]

  • Copied from my talk page: "requesting a page be protected to prevent edit wars and then starting an edit war yourself is plainly disruptive. Don't edit war. Don't revert after you are warned about edit warring. As for WP:INVOLVED I haven't participated in a conflict. My only participation has been administrative, closing an RfC, responding to concerns, and ensuring that the project moves forward without disruption. Throughout this process, other administrators have specifically asked me to do more to ensure the orderly implementation of the RfC, so I never got the sense that my closure prevents me from making edit-war blocks." Wug·a·po·des 22:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You are very much involved - that you don't see that raised some big questions. Also note that I asked you to stay off my talk page - why are you violating this? Nfitz (talk) 22:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March songs[edit]

March songs

Thank you for support in the RfC for DYK - music with a chance to listen, - the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices afterwards call "Freiheit!" instead of "Freude". Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Prayer is on the Main page, finally + new flowers, and btw: the TFA is a young writer's first --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"I wish someone would add {{Use mdy dates}} to all the Canadian articles"[edit]

I just saw the above at WP:ANI.

Please don't. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Strong national ties to a topic "Articles related to Canada may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article." So no date format template, {{Use mdy dates}} or {{Use dmy dates}}, should be used until there is an actual date put in. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree. I also don't know why one would ever use dmy dates - official usage in Canada is ymd, and mdy is also common. Outside of the financial world (which is increasingly using ymd), I don't see much dmy usage. I don't see any need to not put in the template if there is no dates. And to a great extent, I'm relatively neutral on either format - I only think that they should all be the same ... and I shouldn't have to worry about what format to put in a reference. I'm certainly not going to go on a crusade. Nfitz (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Nfitz,

Thank you for creating redirects from some articles that were recently PROD'd. I think in these cases, redirecting the page was the better solution than deletion. The high number of articles tagged with PRODs for today was definitely an anomaly that will not be repeated. I appreciate editors like yourself that review articles that have been PROD'd and either find some additional sources or come up with a better solution than deletion. Many thanks! Liz Read! Talk! 23:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks. But will it stop, User:Liz? I see more poor prods, poor AFDs, and poor redirects in the last hour or two by User:TenPoundHammer. I'm puzzled why no one is bringing this to ANI. Nfitz (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The only real issue was that I prodded 300+ articles in one day, which Liz informed me of and which I agreed not to do again. In the AFDs I made, I have tried to point out that I did do a WP:BEFORE. @Cunard: was able to make something from nothing and rescued a whole bunch of these, for which I applaud them. (Perhaps they have access to some sort of source wizardry that I don't? I was legit getting zero hits on GBooks,, etc. for some of these.) I'm letting the other AFDs run their course, keep or delete. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That is most certainly NOT the only issue User:TenPoundHammer. At a minimum, those prods should have been redirects to the list of network programming. There've been many prods on other days, almost all of them have failed. Including today. Then there's the choice of redirect targets, which I've pointed out, and you've agreed that there's a batter target - but not only have you not gone and fixed the ones you already did - you've created more! And finally there's the AFDs that you continue to create. If any have delete consensus I haven't seen them (but there's so many, I can't possibly look at them all. I do not understand why this isn't being discussed at ANI. Nfitz (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maybe because there are ones that had consensus to delete? And because I'm not turning around and AFD'ing every declined prod? And am visibly working on User:TenPoundHammer/TV cleanup to raise awareness of problem articles? And am working on getting two articles through GAN, one through GAR, and one through DYK among others? And because I added the sources that Cunard found to a few of the articles? And added sources to articles that got prodded or deprodded? And just added sources to random articles that I felt needed a touchup, like Frank Nicotero?
    There is no Mr. Bean (season 1) article, so redirecting the Mr. Bean article to List of Mr. Bean episodes when it had literally zero sources is not a problem is it? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 23:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are there ones with consensus? I looked at the first ten AFDs of your listed at WP:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television, and there seems no consensus to delete on any of them. Heck, there's only 12 delete "votes" - and 10 of them are yours! (don't "vote" delete on your own AFDs!). As for Hair by Mr. Bean of London, why redirect it to List of Mr. Bean episodes when you could redirect it to List of Mr. Bean episodes#ep14? Nfitz (talk) 01:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, I see what you mean. I rarely do redirects that way. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 22:05, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Hundreds of hits in Proquest"[edit]

If you're going to say something like that, can you please WP:PROVEIT and add the sources somewhere? Even just dump them in the AFD? That's really all I want from you. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • You should be doing a BEFORE. Sure, if there's a single AFD to look at, adding a source to the article, or at least listing it here is reasonable; but when someone is creating dozens of simultaneous AFDs (very few of which are looking like there's consensus for deletion), and hundreds of prods, that's asking a bit much. I don't think we are getting anywhere here. Do you want to start the ANI thread, or should I? Nfitz (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is no need to. You've made me aware of ProQuest, which should help clear up User:TenPoundHammer/TV cleanup and see far fewer articles going through deletion processes. If I have doubts, I'll use ProQuest. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:54, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    ETA: I've closed Tuckerville and I thank you again for pointing out Proquest. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 22:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

May 2022[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And please don't stalk me around and pointlessly revert prods then go on to make bad faith accusations (which I can't take as anything but personal attacks at this stage) at the AfD. If I bring something to AfD, its specifically because it is not an issue which can be fixed, or at least not one which can be easily fixed without starting all again from scratch. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, a move discussion from one year ago is not "very recent"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Re. your question: you never edited Child singer or it's talk page before. And then you suddenly come and contest a prod (by me) and then make a bad faith accusation (about me) at the AfD. This doesn't require too much connecting the dots to figure out... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please keep this discussion on your talk page instead of copy-pasting it each time on mine? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why, that's a pretty standard way of having an urgent discussion. Are there special rules for you? Isn't your double violation of WP:5P5 a bigger issue than discussion formats? Where did I follow you from - I can't even see an interaction between us, except the months-old ongoing discussion at NSPORTS where you and I interacted 6 days ago, in the most banal way possible? If you are going to make extraordinary and very false claims, you need some evidence. Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(though if you'd actually looked at my editing history, instead of simply starting personal attacks you could easily see how I ended up on that page. Spoilers - it has nothing to do with you). Nfitz (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
None of your edits before have anything to do with the topic of child singers (the article was nominated at AfD after your first edit to it, not before), even remotely, and I'm supposed to assume you just chanced upon it right after my edit to it, and then decided that I was gaming the system by removing an unacceptable list and nominating an otherwise sub-par article for deletion? That kind of coincidence doesn't happen. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:45, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you practised AGF, it would never have crossed your mind why I was there. Where do you think I stalked you from anyway? Yes, blanking an article (twice) and then prodding and nominating it at AFD does look like gaming the system to me - am I not allowed to say that? Normally people prod and AFD articles in their current state; not remove most of the content, and then try and get it deleted. But even if the did, surely the Prod justification of "a violation of WP:NOTDICTIONARY" when it wasn't a violation on WP:NOTDICTIONARY before you deleted what was clearly a List of child singers. It was a terrible article - I'll agree to that. But that doesn't mean that the transparency should be lower.
I'll repeat the key question here - Where do you think I stalked you from anyway? And why? Where have I even had much interaction with you? Have an Admin check the logs (permission granted) - I didn't even look at your edit history until after I removed the prod. Stalking would have me then going somewhere else you'd been! Please apologize for your gross violation of WP:CIVIL and not repeat it. Thanks! Nfitz (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removing a bad list from an article which is not a list (a list which seems to have no clear inclusion criteria, and really seems to mostly include "pop singers who started singing before turning 18") and which has other issues (can you find any sources about "child singers" - sure there's plenty of stuff about children and singing, but about the specific topic of [professional/encyclopedically notable] child singers? not really...) is not gaming the system. Realising that there's no way to reasonably improve it and nominating it to AfD on those grounds is not gaming the system, either. Loosely tossing about accusations of "gamming the system" is either A) a self-evident accusation of bad faith or B) simply a somewhat silly thing to do. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We aren't going to agree on that; (though why one wouldn't default to "silly thing to do" I don't know). Where do you think I stalked you from? Have I been waiting 3 months since I last recall an interaction of note, to strike? Nfitz (talk) 00:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm TenPoundHammer. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bumper Stumpers that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grand Hotel Cabaret[edit]

It might have an article on Italian wikipedia but I can't find anything in decent about the article. I think it should be deleted.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps it should be - but the orginal prod justification by another user was "Zero sourcing found" - which wasn't true. That it might not be good enough sourcing may well be true. I've no prejudice against an AFD. I'm digging deeper into sources now - and I perhaps it wasn't the best prod removal. Nfitz (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S. I've now AFDed it. See WP:Articles for deletion/Grand Hotel Cabaret Nfitz (talk) 14:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 00:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank-you for the notification. I would note that I don't think my claims were baseless. Nfitz (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from Fakescientist8000[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways based on reliable sources and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Your comment regarding Sinn Fein was grossly inappropriate, and a violation of WP:NOTFORUM. We all have our personal opinions, and we don't taint Wikipedia with them. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 16:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I commented to WaltCip, Fakescientist8000, I'm confused in how I violated NOTFORUM, as I expressed no personal opinions, and carefully chose my words so as not to show any opinion, let alone bias. I very much agree that it personal opinions shouldn't come into it. Can you explain how I did so; I can only assume that there's implications to the word groundbreaking that I'm not aware of. I'll happily replace that word, if it's less neutral than I thought it was. Nfitz (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"No personal opinions"? So "And it's a very different from Northern Ireland where the election win by the political arm of the Provisional Irish Republican Army terrorist organization is groundbreaking" showed not only no personal opinions, but also no bias? The IRA has nothing to do with the Hong Kong chief executive appointment, and that's why you violated both NOTFORUM and NPOV. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 17:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue is that my personal opinion is that Northern Ireland is not comparable to Hong Kong? I suppose that's personal opinion ... but a number of people had already opined on whether it was the same or not, and it was relevant, given the current ITN posting about the Northern Ireland election. It's that Sinn Féin is Republican that makes the case for Northern Ireland elections being notable - and especially so given it's history - which is relatively unknown outside the UK (i.e. for the majority of those participating in Wikipedia). I can see an argument that it may not be relevant (though I'd disagree), but I'm completely baffled by the NPOV comment, User:Fakescientist8000! Just because I used "groundbreaking"? Nfitz (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elizabeth line comment[edit]

Just noting that the Gotthard Base Tunnel has no stations within it, and was not dug in a large metropolitan area, that's why it was cheaper. 331dot (talk) 09:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

True - though that doesn't make the project a bigger infrastructure project. It too, is definitely noteworthy - though I expect around the world, awareness is low. Nfitz (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Im sorry you took that as a lack of AGF, I do certainly assume that good faith. I was just going to bed and was looking for outside views. That was not meant to be an attack on you at all, but sorry if it came off as aggressive. nableezy - 12:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Looks like it's all moot now with charges laid. Nfitz (talk) 16:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HugoAcosta and his ban[edit]

Hi Nfitz Im sorry to bother you but User:HugoAcosta9 is still be blocked undefinitely, he really apologizes for his behaviour can yo do something with an administrator or in a topic in ANI to unblock him?. Actually, he apologizes for his not appropriate comments in ANI but sputnik and bb253 deleted his apology. We miss his articles, they have excellent prose a little unorthodox but they are fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:2F0:31C0:AC8:84C5:A9C6:C132:B7DA (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • User:HugoAcosta9 needs to stop their sock-puppetry - and using IP addresses like 2806:2F0:31C0:AC8:84C5:A9C6:C132:B7DA and Do you not realise that the quite reasonable arguments you make, are not only impacted by your inappropriate editing, but that the sockpuppetry actually hurts your arguments. Please stop, take 6 months, come back and apologise profusely - and most importantly never, ever, be a sockpuppet or IP edit again. I'm not sure you realise how badly this is seen by the community. Nfitz (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Related AN (User:HugoAcosta9)[edit]

Pro forma notification re: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Long_stale_DRV although I don't think it's actually required in this case. We're all on the same page. Have a great day! Star Mississippi 20:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Wow - I hadn't realized they were still open! Nfitz (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    nor had I until I spotted it on the Requests for Closure list. Although the next round of AfDs haven't necessarily found their outcomes, there's at least active discussion which is what's needed to resolve these articles. Star Mississippi 00:33, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 December 6 might just span the year. Besides the disruption at the AfDs, I didn't think these articles were that complex to need such prolonged discussion. Hopefully now with the world cup over (in the sense of focus, not that I want it over) we can get sufficient eyes to put these all to rest. Star Mississippi 20:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1994–1995 football season articles[edit]

As requested, I've restored these articles as drafts in your user space:

– Joe (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Danilo[edit]

Thanks for reaching out, I appreciate it. My main point is that we have many, many human name articles where it's like a dozen names and a handful of surnames, or vice versa, and nobody ever complains about them being together. For Joseph, it's not a handful. In this case, people actually found the two surnames after the AfD was filed, and added them there instead of the main article. The separation can make sense, but this one seems contrived. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:35, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toronto Deputy Mayor[edit]

Enough already, you should read the City of Toronto Act, and all major news sources in Canada.

Once the resignation takes place, the deputy mayor assumes the role of mayor and Council meets to declare the office of mayor vacant and within 60 days of the office being declared vacant must pass a bylaw requiring a by-election to take place.

Everything you commented was just speculation, not grounded in real facts and news sources. Even if McKelvie were to run herself, that does not negate the fact that she is deputy mayor and as per City of Toronto the deputy mayor succeeds the mayor. She has not resigned as deputy mayor, and if she wanted to, that is just speculation and there is a process for succession as well. For McKelvie not to be acting mayor would require both Tory and McKelvie to both resign their positions at the exact same time, of which there is no indication of such a thing happening.

“The City of Toronto Act says that once a city council member, including the mayor, resigns, council must declare their seat vacant at their next meeting. In this instance, that could happen as soon as Wednesday, when city council votes on the latest budget, but it will depend on whether Tory steps down before then. Within 60 days of the the mayor's seat being declared open, city council must pass a bylaw requiring that a byelection be held to fill the vacancy, according to the act.”

“Under the City of Toronto Act, Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie will now take over the job until a byelection can be held. She is likely to remain in the job for a period of months, as the City of Toronto Act requires that candidates be given a minimum of 30 days and a maximum of 60 days to file their nomination papers after a byelection is formally declared. Election day would then come 45 days later.” Yeungkahchun (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where, User:Yeungkahchun in the City of Toronto act, does it mention that the deputy mayor takes over as Mayor? The City of Toronto act doesn't even mention deputy mayors (though does mention deputy clerks, deputy treasurers, and the possibility that the province creates regulations about the requirements of deputy head of councils (which they, as far as I know, haven't). The media reporting is contradictory. Looking at some of the ones you cite -
  • CP24 and the Toronto Sun says that McKelvie is poised ... which means nothing. General Haig was poised to become acting President - but as that was not the process, it never happened - no matter what Haig was posing. The leader of a failed coup is also poised to take over!
  • G&M says McKelvie is likely to become interim mayor. Not that she will, but likely (and she is - but that doesn't mean we should be saying she will
I've not even checked the rest. We shouldn't make concrete statements about speculative events - no matter how likely they might be. I await your response before considering reverting your edits. Nfitz (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

City of Toronto Act, 2006 Section 196: City of Toronto Municipal Code If the City passes a comprehensive general by-law that consolidates and includes the provisions of any by-law previously passed by the City,

(a) the provisions in the comprehensive general by-law are deemed to have come into force on the day the original by-law came into force; and

(b) any condition or approval required by law to the making of the original by-law is, where such condition was satisfied or approval obtained, deemed to have been satisfied or obtained in respect of the corresponding provision in the comprehensive general by-law. 2006, c. 11, Sched. A, s. 196.

From the City of Toronto Act, from official City of Toronto website (

CITY OF TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 27, COUNCIL PROCEDURES Article 1 Interpretation § 27-1.1. Definitions.

DEPUTY MAYOR - Any Member the Mayor appoints as Deputy Mayor to assist the Mayor , including one individual appointed by the Mayor as First Deputy Mayor to act as Mayor when the Mayor is absent from the City or due to illness or when the office of Mayor is vacant.

Deputy Mayor. The Deputy Mayor has, and may exercise, all the rights, powers, and authority of the Mayor, except the by-right-of-office powers of the Mayor as a member of a Community Council

Major news sources:

“Despite some speculation in Conservative circles that deputy mayor Jennifer McKelvie would launch a campaign, CBC News has learned that she is not going to run. McKelvie is in line to become acting mayor once Tory officially resigns, and would lead council through the upcoming budget process.”

“ Once the office is declared vacant, Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie will act as mayor until a by-election is held.”

“ If Tory’s resignation takes effect in the coming days, anticipated McKelvie, who has served as Ward 25 Scarborough–Rouge Park since 2018 and was appointed deputy mayor in mid-November, will become the acting mayor at that time.”

“ Under the City of Toronto Act, Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie will now take over the job until a byelection can be held.”

Even if the City of Toronto Act had not designated the Municipal Code which provides for the definition and role of deputy mayor in assuming the powers of mayor once the office of mayor is vacant, It is important to note that virtually all major news sources are stating that the deputy mayor is next in line. If that’s what all the major news sources (even if they are wrong in interpreting the law), then that’s what we must base Wikipedia on. All the news sources are reporting

“Under the City of Toronto Act and the Toronto Municipal Code, Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie will now take over the job until a byelection can be held.” 

(As per CTV, CBC, Global, CP24, CityNews etc) Why are we blatantly ignoring the news?


Wikipedia only includes topics that are covered by sufficient secondary sources (

Prefer secondary sources – Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a paper reviewing existing research, a review article, monograph, or textbook is often better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised. Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). (

So using secondary sources, overwhelmingly MOST of the country’s major media news outlet (CTV, CBC, CP24, CityNews, Global, Globel & Mail etc) are saying “McKelvie WILL be mayor”. Yes, several of the articles state “poised to”, “set to”, “will likely” but most of them use concrete terms such as “will”, “will now”, “shall”, “will become”. This is what the news is saying, not me. If the major news media had not all reported this, I would’ve agreed with you. But I base my writing on secondary sources, major reputable news media sources that is, rather than my own “what if” speculations (what if she runs herself, what if she resigns, what if she gives the role away to someone else, what if the council appoints another deputy). Now I will ask of you, where are the major reputable news sources which indicate that the city council will randomly appoint an individual, who is NOT the deputy mayor, to fulfil the interim role once the mayor’s resignation takes effect? I will wait. Please provide the major reputable news sources which indicate that the deputy mayor is not the officer who will fulfil the interim mayor role.

Now CBC has confirmed McKelvie will not be running now, so unless she resigns as deputy before Tory resigns office, she is set to be interim mayor.

That by-law, User:Yeungkahchun, says that the deputy mayor acts as mayor, when the mayor is unavailable or out of town. This has already happened multiple times. It does not say they become mayor. I see nothing to indicate that they won't still be officially the deputy mayor. Presumably the city will re-establish the Office of the Deputy Mayor, similar to what they did when they stripped Rob Ford of most of his powers. Also, I see no such title anywhere as "interim mayor" - can you reference that?
You claim that your sources say that “McKelvie WILL be mayor” - but looking at the sources, they DO NOT SAY THAT. They say she will act as mayor - as she has done on previous occasions. Besides - why the WP:NORUSH and the TLDR (though I did)? Nfitz (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sentence says “Any Member the Mayor appoints as Deputy Mayor to assist the Mayor , including one individual appointed by the Mayor as First Deputy Mayor to act as Mayor when the Mayor is absent from the City or due to illness or when the office of Mayor is vacant.”

The sentence indicates the member “to act as Mayor”… (acts as mayor = acting mayor) literally says so itself: acts as mayor

the last part of the sentence: “OR when the office of Mayor is vacant.”

If one is acting as mayor, it literally means you are acting mayor.

Acting means temporarily fulfils the role of office (gaining the powers & title of the office) when the office is vacant/unavailable

The member acts as mayor when the office of mayor is vacant. A mayoral resignation means the office of mayor is vacant (nobody is occupying/holding the office of mayor)

I agree with your point here though: Presumably the city will re-establish the Office of the Deputy Mayor, similar to what they did when they stripped Rob Ford of most of his powers

“ Once the office is declared vacant, Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie will act as mayor until a by-election is held.”

Will act as mayor = acting mayor

“ If Tory’s resignation takes effect in the coming days, anticipated McKelvie, who has served as Ward 25 Scarborough–Rouge Park since 2018 and was appointed deputy mayor in mid-November, will become the acting mayor at that time.”

= will become the acting mayor at the time

“ Under the City of Toronto Act, Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie will now take over the job until a byelection can be held.”

= will now take over the job until a by-election can be held

All the sources say she will be the acting mayor. They are not saying she will become the next mayor following the election, (the next permanent mayor will be elected in the by-election) they are saying she will become the acting mayor

There are literally numerous articles from major news outlets referencing her as the acting mayor

News headlines from major news media:

“Here’s what you should know about Toronto’s acting mayor” (Now Toronto)

“Who is Jennifer McKelvie? More on the councillor set to become Toronto’s acting mayor” (CityNews)

“Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie to temporarily take reins once Tory resigns” (Toronto Sun)

“Breaking News: Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie becomes acting mayor” (Humber)

Did you even listen to the Tory resignation speech where Tory literally referenced transition with Deputy Mayor McKelvie

“I will be working with deputy mayor Jennifer McKelvie to ensure an orderly transition in the coming days.”

I was literally watching CTV news channel on my own tv, the headline chyron on my tv screen literally stated “McKelvie is Acting Mayor”. I can literally email or text you a picture I took of the tv screen with the news headline.

On CP24 the news headline chyron “McKelvie becomes Acting Mayor”

You stated “That by-law says that the deputy mayor acts as mayor, when the mayor is unavailable or out of town.”

You left out the last part of the sentence of the bylaw “OR when the office is vacant.”

You stated “They say she will act as mayor - as she has done on previous occasions.”

That’s what the sources and I are literally saying, she will act as mayor — once Tory has resigned. She will act as mayor (that’s what an acting mayor does) til the byelection takes place that will elect the permanent mayor! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeungkahchun (talkcontribs) 06:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC) YeungkahchunReply[reply]

You added the text "Upon assuming the powers & duties of mayor, McKelvie will become the first female mayor or acting mayor of Toronto post-amalgamation". If she's already been acting mayor, how would she become one. Also, it's all so WP:CRYSTAL; I'm hearing rumours that right-wing councillors are pushing him to stay. And please stop the WP:VERBOSE responses. Nfitz (talk) 07:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of developments today:
In light of this, I'll softly edit. Nfitz (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was not the one who wrote the text “Upon assuming the powers & duties of mayor, McKelvie will become the first female mayor or acting mayor of Toronto post-amalgamation".

He has not officially unresigned. As of now, his intention is to resign as per Friday’s resignation announcement. Nothing has changed.

The source literally confirms the fact the existence of the interim / acting / caretaker mayor, and that she will not inherit the newly enhanced strong powers from 2022 strong act. The source you cited literally stated strong powers do not transfer to the interim / acting / caretaker mayor.

“But in a statement provided to CTV News Toronto on Monday, a spokesperson for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing confirmed that the powers cannot be transferred to a caretaker mayor, such as his deputy Jennifer McKelvie. “Strong Mayor powers do not transfer to the interim/acting mayor,” Victoria Podbielski said.”

From the very source that you cited.

Please learn to read critically.

And that is just 1 source CP24, whereas most sources all confirm deputy as caretaker/interim/acting/temporary mayor, even CP24 itself has newer articles confirming so.

recent source “Tory's office said he met with Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie and city staff Monday morning to talk about how best to ensure "an orderly transition," signalling his intention to leave once budget talks are complete.

Deasley noted "further details" on the transition will be announced after the budget meeting.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeungkahchun (talkcontribs) 23:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Please sign your posts. You just wrote "the powers cannot be transferred to a caretaker mayor, such as his deputy Jennifer McKelvie." That means that she might become deputy acting mayor. Not that she will. Also, he can't unresign - he hasn't resigned. However, we are heading into Angel/pin territory here, with some arguing at cross-purposes. What exactly do you not like in the current edit? You certainly can't state in her infobox that she is the presumptive acting mayor! And you most certainly can't say "will become the first female mayor or acting mayor of Toronto" as a) she has been acting mayor before when Tory was unavailable, and b) there is no source for that. Please discuss further here Nfitz (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

“She might become deputy mayor” What are you talking about? McKelvie has been Deputy Mayor since her appointment on November 16, 2022

At the time, what I meant was that Tory cannot unresign, as he has not even resigned yet. Again please READ. I said his INTENTION was to resign, as per his Friday ANNOUNCEMENT. Do you know what the word “intention” means?

Above I literally wrote “He has not officially unresigned. As of now, his intention is to resign as per Friday’s resignation announcement. Nothing has changed”

Like seriously. Please.

Anyhow, this has all been put to rest now as Tory has just submitted his formal letter of resignation, to take effect February 17, 2023, at 5 pm and confirmed now that Deputy McKelvie will succeed, as all the news sources have confirmed.

Yeungkahchun (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • You claim above that you were "... not the one who wrote the text “Upon assuming the powers & duties of mayor, McKelvie will become the first female mayor or acting mayor of Toronto post-amalgamation". But you have once again restored that text! You can't disclaim the text, and not defend it, and then restore it! Nfitz (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes you are absolutely correct here, her title would remain Deputy Mayor, and she would would only temporarily obtain the mayor’s powers (except the enhanced strong powers from the the Strong Mayors Act 2022, as confirmed by the Province) as acting mayor in a caretaker capacity.

“ Acting mayor won't possess new enhanced powers in the event of Tory resignation: province”

“ Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie to temporarily take reins once Tory resigns”

Yeungkahchun (talk) 04:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My sincere apologies, I realize that the text (regarding 1st female) was restored along with my edits, that part was not meant to be restored, as I do not agree with that segment. What I was doing was just trying to was restore my part. Yeungkahchun (talk) 04:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop disruptively undoing @GoodDay:‘s edit of Acting mayor-designate. The term “-designate” or “-elect” indicates that the role is yet to be assumed

As per Wikipedia “ An * officer * -elect / designate is a person who has been elected / appointed to a position but has not yet been installed.”

_____-designate or -elect is not a title, it a suffix added which indicates that the role is to be assumed, at a later date. Yeungkahchun (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • That appears to be either foreign or federal, or for an elected official. Show me a single example of it being used for an acting position, ever, in any municipality in Canada. Nfitz (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not a federal term, it is used at all levels.

Sources from official government websites by politicians: Premier-designate congratulations from the PM:

Hamilton, Ontario official mayor-elect congratulation statement by the outgoing mayor Yeungkahchun (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The only relevant one there is the last one - which literally doesn't use the word "-designate". I've heard of a mayor-elect before. I've never heard of a "mayor-designate" let alone an acting-mayor designate! But I'd entertain references. Nfitz (talk) 05:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We've had Prime Ministers-designate & Premiers-designate, so why the opposition? She's not been elected acting mayor, but is designated to become acting mayor. GoodDay (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Extrapolating a job title is original research, if there's nothing to back it up - not even a primary source? Nfitz (talk) 05:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In less then 48 hours, the title will be changed to "Acting Mayor of Toronto". IMHO, it's no worth fussing over. GoodDay (talk) 06:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not worth fussing over - but you've been fussing over it?!? I'm not sure how original research is ever good. It's simply not a thing. But I'm in 3RR territory on that one - so add all the fake titles you want! Nfitz (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair, as it now officially confirmed directly from the City via formal public statement from official channels. Now there is no room for doubt. As per the City Official Statement, there is no such office of acting mayor in the City of Toronto. With this direct clarification, we can confirm this. Previously, there was no outright public statement clarifying such amidst the all of the noise, thus there was room for doubt and speculation. Now all is clear beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no office of acting mayor, as per the City. Yeungkahchun (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Irrelevant side note: Now I still see most news media still incorrectly using the acting/interim mayor terminology. But that doesn’t matter now, with the City’s formal public clarification of the transition process with the general public. I base my editing on factual information, and when that is not clear, I base it on the major news media. So now even as most major news media are wrong, I am sticking with the official city’s statement. Because at the end of the day, the City is the legitimate source and relaying its interpretations to the public. Yeungkahchun (talk) 08:22, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Previously, User:Yeungkahchun we had The City of Toronto Act, the Municipal Elections Act, and Bill 3 (Strong Mayors, Building Homes Act), which also didn't have interim mayor and acting mayors. More importantly were the events of 2013/2014, where Norm Kelly remained the deputy Mayor - even while the mayor was institutionalized. The references I checked that you kept quoting, were all rather vague and avoiding titles - more so just describing roles; (though that some foreign media may have taken that, and made errors, in the same way that you did, isn't surprising). I'm not sure what you are looking at today that is still incorrect. I have both today's Globe and Star open on the table here, and the Star simply uses Deputy Mayor, while the Globe very very clearly says that "Ms. McKelvie will not become interim or acting mayor". I'd suggest in the future, sticking to papers of record. Can I also suggest that be a lot more succinct in your responses, and pay careful attention to the exact wording of what you are using to support an argument - it has often felt that you've quoted a sentence of an article, but missed the full meaning of the sentence (such as "Did you even listen to the Tory resignation speech where Tory literally referenced transition "). And what's with the insulting aggressiveness you've used such as "Enough already, you should read the ...Act" and "Please learn to read critically.", "Like seriously." BTW, looks like the Internet version of the G&M article is here. Nfitz (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most the major news sources (incorrectly!) had headlines referring to acting mayor. I was just basing it off the major news sources, as most the major news sources wrongly made reference to acting/interim/caretaker mayor. (For example one article wrongly literally said “Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie is the new acting mayor”

The fact is that there is no such thing as acting/interim mayor.

The major news sources from a week ago (now outdated & old):

“Here’s what you should know about Toronto’s acting mayor” (Now Toronto)

“Who is Jennifer McKelvie? More on the councillor set to become Toronto’s acting mayor” (CityNews)

“Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie to temporarily take reins once Tory resigns” (Toronto Sun)

“Breaking News: Deputy Mayor Jennifer McKelvie becomes acting mayor” (Humber)

We now know, that this is all incorrect, as per official City law. The indisputable fact, as verified by the City, is that no such office of “acting mayor” or “interim mayor.

“Enough already” was just copied pasted from your initial edit on the page.

I extend my sincerest apologies for coming across roughly to you. Thank you so much for your contributions and bringing this information to light. Yeungkahchun (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The major news sources were wrongly headlined refer to acting mayor (a lot but not most) . I stand corrected, at present, all of today’s news headlines are relaying the correct information and using the proper terminologies.

This can all put to rest now, as there is no such thing as acting mayor. Confirmed by city.

At this time, I extend heartfelt deepest sincerest apologies for the inappropriate tone used against you. I appreciate you and thank you for all the useful and good contributions you have contributed on Wikipedia, and keep it up. Wikipedia needs and benefits from users like you, who are clear-eyed and continue to press on with the right thing even amidst any controversies or misinformed speculation. Again, I express fullest apologies for the harsh tones. You were right about the non existence of the office of acting mayor. I recognize that the city confirms there’s no such thing as acting mayor and I recognize the news sources were incorrect annd often vague, I recognize this and own up to it all. Yeungkahchun (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks. Sorry if the "enough already" was mine - I haven't checked, but it does sound like me! I'm not sure I'd call NOW or Humbernews major. Let's move on. Nfitz (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No hard feelings, I do deeply regret the tone used, I realize it was aggressive, inappropriate and inartful. Throughout this discourse, you have been polite and back up your with reasonings.

Glad we can move on a good note, I never want discussion on a bad terms, I fully express regret for the harsh tones. No hard feelings.

You are a good insightful Wikipedian, and Wikipedia has a lot to gain from you and your efforts.

PS. Hope the next mayor will do good for the City of Toronto!

Best Yeungkahchun (talk) 03:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 2023[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on 1992–93 FC Desna Chernihiv season. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Your edit summary was a personal attack, presumably intentional, against User:Onel5969. Personal attacks in edit summaries are serious because they cannot be stricken except by administrators. You may and do disagree with Onel5969, but insulting them in an edit summary is uncivil. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:14, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A statement of fact is not an attack. I didn't attack them as a person, and with their inability to even admit that AFDing and prodding several high profile articles was wrong, both descriptions remain true. That said, I should have been a bit softer in the edit - but I've wasted so much time trying to clean up the inexcusable mess of this editor lately, it's frustrating. I'm not sure why you aren't warning them about their disruptive AFDs and prodding in WP:FOOTBALL which is far more serious than being a bit too testy in an edit summary! Nfitz (talk) 04:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


In my opinion it's crazy how football pages with many sources and/or appearances in pro leagues are getting spam nominated for deleted nowadays like Kibu Denis, Chris McStay, Felipe Ortiz, Ömer Aysan Barış, Fabio Ulderici, 2021–22 ÖFB-Frauenliga, Chris Chung, Luka Jovanovic, Aurélien Hérisson, 2005–06 Udinese Calcio season, and Eriko Goya Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I agree - it makes it very difficult to tell the wheat from the chaff - or heck have time to tell the wheat from the chaff. It's certainly a good way to lose articles for various, often diverse, players and leagues, which are so much more work to source than players in English-speaking nations. Wait ... Udinese - really? I didn't see that one; you have to be kidding me! BTW, I did look at Christopher Chung (footballer), and I had a hard time finding significant references, at least searching in Chinese - but perhaps I missed something? Nfitz (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nfitz:, You're right the Udinese nomination is weird... other weird ones are Ömer Aysan Barış and Aurélien Hérisson, both of whom have 50+ games in fully pro top flight (in the formers case, 100+ games) and many sources... Sorry for the late reply, you probably aren't missing something for Chris Chung, he is a tough one... Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gosh, I guess I should have opined at Luka Jovanovic - it was a pile-on last time I looked - so I felt my limited time was better spent elsewhere. Nfitz (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nfitz:, Its fine that makes sense and he was probably a borderline case anyway... unlike the nominations of Aurélien Hérisson, Ömer Aysan Barış, and now Jesús Urbina, all with 50+ fully pro games and many sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Das osmnezz:, I had it put back to draft at Draft:Luka Jovanovic; when I get a chance, I'll see if I can add some sources, or have it deleted again. Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 17[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Brett Mellor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hull.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Mr bot for checking my link! Nfitz (talk) 07:07, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Airline destination lists[edit]

I’m genuinely confused at this point over certain editor’s reasoning regarding these. The same lists for American, Air Canada and Air New Zealand are of no better quality than the 13 deleted, yet still exist. What gives? SurferSquall (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Especially as some AFDs were SNOW keeps. And then there's this RFC (WP:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#Should Wikipedia have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations?) which then lead to an AN discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Mass deletion of pages - question of protocol which notes that "These AfD's should contain a link to the closed RfC, and the AfD closer should take the RfC closure into account when closing the AfD" ... oh wait, that's all in the AFD. Should have been obvious, I suppose, that the outcome from the AN ruling would be that BIAS would be the outcome. That said, looking at the AFD, I don't see how the original decision would be overturned. None of the Keep arguments were made on policy, and we have community consensus that such articles shouldn't exist. Other than a GNG argument - that no one made, it's hard to see what basis there'd be for keep. I'm not even sure the use of such an article. Knowing which destinations an airline serves isn't much use, if you don't know where the origin! It's all fine knowing that United serves Wichita and Walla Walla. But do they have a Wichita to Walla Walla route? It seems an surprisingly controversial topic area, that falls into the less I know about it the better, category. Though the choice of airlines selected for this treatment is unusual. Nfitz (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All need to be deleted, or none. We can’t pick and choose. Maybe the lists shouldn’t exist, but then none should exist. SurferSquall (talk) 14:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. But based on the established process, I suspect we'll see Syria deleted, and United Airlines filled with Keeps. Nfitz (talk) 17:52, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would be interesting to see the keep arguments for that if it does happen. SurferSquall (talk) 00:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably GNG for those (I'm not sure I support that, but that's what the arguments will be). There's a lot of major news coverage here in recent years for Porter Airlines as it expands, and adds new services. And also the cancellation of previously major Air Canada services. That GNG doesn't necessarily mean keep, after than RFC and AN ... but I bet that's how it ends. Nfitz (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GNG? SurferSquall (talk) 03:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:GNG - A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Newspaper articles are the most common used - though books, journals, etc. are good too. Nfitz (talk) 05:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could see how that could be used as a strong argument, to be honest. SurferSquall (talk) 18:33, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I immensely appreciate your messages. HugoAcosta9 (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just dropping by to apologise for my comments yesterday at ITN. You're right, they were unnecessary and I'm sorry for crossing the line. Kind regards, Anarchyte (talk) 04:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks - at the same time I was a bit harsh on User:Knightoftheswords281 - and I'm sorry for that. The whole ITN has become a bit too adversarial in recent years. I wonder if having article improvement and nomination all in the same stream is still the best approach (though it does at least get more eyes). Meanwhile, it almost feels like some are trying to be Wikinews; and some of the nominations have been very local (as a Canadian, I'll point to the Johnston resignation - which while it may ultimately have massive global implications, is certainly not anything other than a local Canadian story for now). At the same time, we don't want to build a bureaucracy. Nfitz (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please don't accuse a living person of crimes that he hasn't been convicted of: the BLP policy applies even at AfD and even when it's Donald Trump. Thanks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't think that applies, as he's most certainly a criminal after the judgement in E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump affirmed that Trump had raped Carroll. As for the racism, I think that Racial views of Donald Trump speaks for itself; not to mention the 1975 consent decree. Please User:Extraordinary Writ don't try and pretend that Trump is not a rapist. Nfitz (talk) 06:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • BLP simply doesn't let you call someone a criminal without a criminal conviction, which the Carroll verdict was not. I'm not going to press this any further, but there are plenty of admins who take BLP even more seriously than I do, so I would strongly suggest reverting your most recent edit to that AfD. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • A court of law ruled that he raped someone. That surely meets BLPCRIME. Shame on you for suggesting raping women - with one's penis - isn't a criminal act! Please revert your abhorrent redaction, User:Extraordinary Writ. Nfitz (talk) 07:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I did not (and would not) suggest that: I'm simply saying that calling someone a criminal requires a conviction through the criminal (not civil) process. And even putting that aside, what I redacted certainly did not treat the subject conservatively, cautiously, or with a high degree of sensitivity, as the BLP policy requires. Obviously we're not going to agree here, so if you really believe my revdel is "abhorrent", you're welcome to take it to WP:AN or WP:AARV for further review. I'm going to bed now, so any admin who thinks I'm in the wrong here has my blessing to un-revdel. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:52, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I'm off to bed too, so lots of chance to discuss further tomorrow. Is there some previous ruling that supports that? In the real world, use of the word "criminal" doesn't need a criminal (or even any) conviction - but I realise the BLP rules are tighter. It seems claiming in Wikispeak, that he's not a criminal because there's no criminal conviction, is ignoring that the victim didn't report the rape until after the statute of limitations passed. Given the court clearly affirmed that Donald Trump is a rapist - and we note that he is a rapist in mainspace - that calling him a criminal in wikispace leads to a redactment is ... bizarre - and morally inexcusable. Nfitz (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]