User talk:RL0919

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

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, RL0919,

I just wanted to say that I appreciate you offering a closure rationale when you close AFDs, whether they are contentious or there are just mixed opinions on an article's fate. Most admins closing AFDs just provide the outcome (me included) and while that's fine when the opinions are unanimous or one-sided towards Keeping or Deleting an article, it's very helpful to read how a closer came to their final decision.

I often go back to AFDs that I passed on closing to see how another admin decided to close a complicated or divided discussion and I usually learn something from reading your decisions. I still consider myself relatively new to the AFD world so thank you for sharing your thought process when weighing conflicting opinions on what should happen to an article. Liz Read! Talk! 22:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I second those comments. Thorough rationales are much appreciated. Throast {{ping}} me! (talk | contribs) 16:22, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thirded. I just read your summary on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions and it was fantastic. Thanks for being a model for good behavior. Fogsparrow (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg

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) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).


CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of Tandy CoCo games[edit]

I had just finished adding an intro section to the article to help establish notability. In other words explaining the distinctive situation in the TRS-80 market where Tandy attempted to create an entirely closed market for software, including games, for its computers. Which is why it makes sense in this case to have separate first-party and third-party lists. Did you see that intro item? The existing AfD discussion does not reflect the existence of that sourced information.

Please note: I previously reverted my posting above because I was confused by your newsletter and similar content and thought I misplaced my message. Sorry for the confusion. Carney333 (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update/new comment: Although I appreciate the existence of this page Draft:List of Color Computer 1 and 2 Games from Tandy I'm puzzled as to why it seems to be a major reversion shorn of much information, now lacking not only the introductory text and citations, but also the extensive citations I provided from various reliable sources about individual games on the list.Carney333 (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After looking at the edit history, my best guess about the draft is this: The draft appears to be the result of another editor moving your first version of the page, probably while you were still editing it. When you saved your second edit, it recreated the article without you even realizing it had been moved to draft. The re-created article is what was then nominated for deletion, and deleted, but the moved original still sits in draft. Very confusing! But it's the only way I can interpret the histories that makes sense.
In any case, I can still view the final version, and don't see anything in the introductory material that addresses the arguments for deletion that were presented in the AfD. --RL0919 (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK thanks for explaining the existence of the draft and the state of its contents. And for assuring me that you saw the final version. Obviously I disagree on it addressing issues at hand but no point rehashing that; just wanted to make sure you'd seen it. Sigh oh well Carney333 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per your closure of this AfD, I'd like the article restored as a userspace draft in my name. I acknowledge that any speedy recreation may be subject to a G4 deletion. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FormalDude: Restored and moved to User:FormalDude/Nick Fuentes, Donald Trump, and Kanye West meeting. --RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Daily Dozen deletion review[edit]

Hi, I have submitted the recent Daily Dozen AfD closure for review. By my count, 10 voted for Keep, while 12 voted for Delete. This should be grounds for relisting in most instances, never mind an AfD that has become so contentious, and has triggered many more AfDs, some seemingly made on a whim. Moreover, it would seem reasonable to expect that those voting Keep would like it to Merged as the next best alternative, in which case there would also have been a clear consensus to Merge. In any case, it does not seem obvious to me that a consensus to Delete emerged from the discussion. Best regards, KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 21:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm surprised to see this was closed when multiple votes were cast even today. ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created a spreadsheet to track the positions taken and how they were supported. You are correct that 10 editors supported keeping, although two of these did not cite policy-based reasons and one argued that notability guidelines are "advisory". There were 13 editors explicitly supporting deletion, all citing policy-based reasons (typically WP:SIGCOV and/or WP:NCORP). Four editors supported merge as their primary position; three of these also said the subject lacked notability, giving the same reasons as the pro-delete editors. One editor who otherwise strongly argued for deletion said that merging was an acceptable alternative; no editors who supported keeping gave merging as an alternative. One editor made a humorous comment that I think was probably favoring deletion, but it was not clear so it isn't counted in the 13. One repeatedly queried the sources but never took any clear position about the outcome. Another switched positions twice, ending up as neutral. Plus there was a smattering of meta-comments and other noncommittal remarks.
To summarize, 16 of 27 editors with explicit positions said the subject was not notable. That's the clear majority I referred to. Of those, 13 called for deletion, which is the plurality among specific positions. It's hard to make a consensus for merge out of that, and impossible to make a consensus for keep, unless the arguments on the other side were obviously defective/off-topic, which isn't the case here.
As to the possibility of relisting, some of the ongoing commenters had dug in positions and the discussion was becoming increasingly personalized, which did not bode well for a relist being beneficial. --RL0919 (talk) 22:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You deserve some kind of medal for taking on that close. Re merging, the fact that the result wasn't Merge never means a WP:DUE amount of material (in this case, one sentence) can't be added to an appropriate other article (in this case, Pike Place Market), per WP:NNC. EEng 23:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the option of mentioning this subject in the Pike Place Market article is definitely allowed. One of the "no clear position" commenters mentioned that specifically in one of the merge-related threads. --RL0919 (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Going further, the goals of merging are sometimes better served by a delete outcome than by a merge outcome. The deletion discussion itself, this one in particular, is a permanent record of references that can support one to two sentence long content in the target article, making it much easier to produce a desirable merge result, without carrying over any cruft (i.e. without having to go trough the whole article thinking what to merge in the first place, what not to merge, and what and how to condense; takes many times more effort). So yeah, everything is great here. —Alalch E. 23:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strongly disagree. The article history and talk page history should be preserved, IMO. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I replied to this point at the DRV, toward the end of this diff. Flatscan (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Well done on your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions. That was a complex discussion to close and you did so masterfully with a well written closing statement explaining your rationale. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Props also go to @DatGuy and ToBeFree: for protecting the page when the discussion started to derail due to an apparent campaign of disruptive editing. TheSandDoctor Talk 05:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
😅 A few hours of that are mine. The barnstar is probably well-deserved, I don't judge – but as noone has challenged the closure, it seems to be pretty objectively good. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:39, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ToBeFree: My apologies for not acknowledging this; I didn't know you were involved in its closure as it wasn't a panel closure. TheSandDoctor Talk 22:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No no no, I mean only a few hours of the protection were caused by my action! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I see. Either way you helped @ToBeFree:! Don't short-change yourself Face-smile.svg TheSandDoctor Talk 06:54, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Continuing from the DRV...[edit]

Thank you for continuing to engage in discussion. I find it a privilege to disagree with people like yourself who are articulate and cordial, if not outright kind.
With respect to the first issue, I do not think that considering redirection or merging as regular editing or improvement is as much a stretch as you think it might be. The entire page at WP:DEL is talking about deletion, an act that only administrators can undertake. If you read the policy as a whole, this really stands out in the ATD section. That section goes on to explicitly encompass everything less than deletion, specifically editing, tagging, merging, redirection, incubation, and transwikiing in that order. That is, in the context of WP:DEL anything other than deletion counts as "editing" because that is what headlines the whole alternatives to deletion section.
With respect to your second point--this is not how things are normally done--you have my complete agreement. I maintain that it is 1) what we're supposed to do "on paper" and has been for years, and 2) the actually optimum way to handle things. If you get taken to DRV for merging instead of deleting something like the article that spawned the discussion, I can't prevent that, but I can--and will--show up to defend you or any other admin who takes the time to solve the problem (content not ready for mainspace) in the least destructive way appropriate. Following policy is not supervoting, no more than it would be if 20 people wanted a copyvio kept and you deleted it anyways.
Again, than you for taking the time to try and do the right thing in a difficult situation, even if I would have handled it differently. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year, RL0919![edit]

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

Moops T 17:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news



  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Precious anniversary[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.



  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion review for Tuliram Ronghang[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tuliram Ronghang. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 06:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion review for Rina Bovrisse[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Tuliram Ronghang. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

I would like to appeal the deletion review for the Rina Bovrisse page. The page was deleted due to heavy editing wars and hack attacks. Conflict of interest by the hackers are implied.

​​​​​​​N.CelikovicLet's Talk ! 06:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@N.Celikovic: Given the concerns about sockpuppeting and possible paid editing related to this article, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to reverse the consensus I found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rina Rose. It appears that you have copied another editor's message about a different article, but have not actually opened a Wikipedia:Deletion review for the Rina Bovrisse/Rina Rose article. You are welcome to do that if you wish, but a better next step in this case would be to create an appropriately-sourced draft. That would allow uninvolved editors to review the article you propose to create, and decide whether it addresses the issues raised in the AfD. --RL0919 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ayn Rand[edit]

Sorry to see your FAC on such an important topic get archived for inactivity. If you ping me when you renominate, I'd be happy to have a look through. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:50, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion review for Rener Gracie[edit]

Hello, RL0919. I'm writing to request reversion of Rener Gracie's page which was recently deleted and redirected to the Gracie Family page for lack of notability and possible COI (I know the subject). The discussion ended with two KEEPs and three REDIRECTs. I participated in the deletion discussion. I justified my objectivity as a contributor to counter the suggestion of COI. I also made several edits to the article to establish the subject's notability with more to come. In short, I agree with the aggregation of most Gracie family members (there have been 11 redirects), but this one subject warrants a dedicated page. I admittedly dumped 20-30 references to buy time by showing that there were many articles in the hopper that I could add to establish notability. But, I subsequently added content highlighting the subject's contributions to national efforts to combat bullying, sexual harassment, and police violence and mapped them to supporting citations. In the process of upgrading the article, I found that the contributors and a "senior editor" were offering to re-write the article for thousands of dollars to include generating citations from top tier sources - clearly a scam that led me to believe this may have been a targeted attack on the article. Please consider restoring the page to its latest version so that I can continue to upgrade it. Billodom2 (talk) 14:23, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Billodom2, the page has been redirected, but it is not deleted. You can access the redirect page itself here, including the "View history" link that allows you to access the older versions of the page. You are welcome to copy one of the old versions to a userspace draft to work on adding sources. When it is ready, you can ask to have your draft replace the redirect. (See Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft for more information about how to submit your draft.) If you do make such a copy, please use an edit summary when creating it that attributes the text to where you copied it from; a typical phrasing would be "copied content from [[Rener Gracie]]; see that page's history for attribution". RL0919 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RL0919, @Billodom2 Gracie clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability as a coach and an entrepreneur. The article was just poorly written and referenced it just needed to be improved not sent to AfD and redirected. It has now been rescued. Lewolka (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC) edited Lewolka (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have nominated Harriet Tubman for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. DrKay (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion review for Miles Routledge[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Miles Routledge. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. jonas (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 4 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Procedural notification[edit]

Hi, I and others have proposed additional options at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC_on_a_procedural_community_desysop. You may wish to review your position in that RfC. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion review for Allen Holub[edit]

Hi, I asked for a deletion review of Allen Holub, because I found some reviews. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Mathnerd314159 (talk) 06:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news



Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on University Scholars (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. gnu57 21:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oops! see my sandbox[edit]

@Lingzhi.Renascence: I used some of your ideas in this edit. That brings it to 687 words for the section. I tried to retain the links to notable works and artists so readers could easily navigate to the articles about them rather than having to consult the sources. I also won't be removing the mention of the $20 bill, which was a very misguided suggestion IMO. --RL0919 (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mmm yes removing the bill will spark arguments and protests of "WIKIMAGA" and counter-protests of "WIKIWOKE". But I sorta mildly disagree with your other point. But whatever. Someone will figure it out. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 15:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My greater concern about the bill is that regardless of whether it happens or not, the plan to do it has been widely covered in sources, to the point where not mentioning would be a significant oversight. --RL0919 (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 15:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.


  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]