User talk:Deryck Chan/Archive 17

Wikimania

Hi. It's nice to get a question about participating in Wikimania and not just organising a Wikimania!

The idea for Hong Kong to host a Wikimania has been suggested since we hosted the Chinese Wikimedia Conference 2006, and the intention for Hong Kong to bid for Wikimania 2013 was conceived at Wikimania 2011. Preparations for the bid began in late 2011 and the formal bidding process was in early 2012. Hong Kong was announced as the winning bid in May 2012, which gave us 15 months to organise the conference.

In terms of participation, it is not necessary at all to be "known to communities" before you attend Wikimania. Actually, attending Wikimania is the best way to make yourself known to the wider Wikimedia community. However, Wikimania is a very intense conference. In order to make the best out of Wikimania, I generally recommend new participants to have been editing a Wikimedia project for a year before attending Wikimania. If there's a local meetup nearby, it will be a good idea to attend it to get a general feel of offline Wikimedia events.

Don't let anything dissuade you though. Wikimania is an awesome conference, so the above are just some advice on how to prepare yourself so you can get the best out of Wikimania. If you want to go and have the time and money to travel there, just do it! Der yck C. 19:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Carrying on from email) I'm not sure what are your concerns. I agree that there is a significant threshold of entry for Wikimania organisers (and rightly so), but there is no barrier for anyone to become a participant. I was only trying to give some advice to help people enjoy Wikimania as much as they can. In fact, at every Wikimania there has been local people who had never edited Wikipedia and simply joined Wikimania because they were interested. Der yck C. 16:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to have this conversation on-wiki so that other Wikimedians may benefit from it. Attending Wikimania is as simple as "apply, buy the flight tickets and go". Every year, there are CentralNotices (banners on every Wikimedia site) to encourage people to register for Wikimania. There's also a central page, m:Wikimania, where you can find information about Wikimanias in general. For local Wikimedia gatherings, see m:Meetup. Der yck C. 19:22, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you have decided to post on my talk page which is the talk page for discussing encyclopedic stuff, I would assume you are fine to receive a reply on your talk page on English Wikipedia. First of all, although getting a reply about past wikimania's from an attendee is good, you mistook my question(s), that were the time managements of a prospective attendee or organizer. As you are frank on answering questions overtly about wikimania, I just notice a bit of grammatical wording - 'I'm not sure what are your concerns' - that may be typical of a writer from an Asian background, therefore I assume you may not understand fully my questions. How early is the CentralNotice available online so prospective attendees can arrange their time ? Would attending local meetup provide quicker information about organizing and/or attending wikimania ? -- Ktsquare (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktsquare: Typically, the CentralNotice will be on for a few weeks as Wikimania registration opens. I think the Wikimania 2015 CentralNotice was up and is now taken down, but registration is still open. The quickest way to get information about Wikimania is to subscribe to mail:wikimania-l. Attending local meetups will give you a good idea of what offline Wikimedia events are like, because Wikimania is basically a very big meetup. Der yck C. 22:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chan (2015) wrote, "The idea for Hong Kong to host a Wikimania has been suggested since we hosted the Chinese Wikimedia Conference 2006, and the intention for Hong Kong to bid for Wikimania 2013 was conceived at Wikimania 2011. Preparations for the bid began in late 2011 and the formal bidding process was in early 2012. Hong Kong was announced as the winning bid in May 2012, which gave us 15 months to organise the conference." and, "Attending local meetups will give you a good idea of what offline Wikimedia events are like, because Wikimania is basically a very big meetup." If I had known this perspective ahead of time in early 2005 which had already been three years after my registration at Wikipediae, I would not have waited until today to ask you about Wikimania. In retrospect, do you think "[being] known to communities" (Ktsquare, 2015) is currently crucial to get up-to-date information about activities, projects and whatnots of wikimania and the Wikimedia Foundation ? -- Ktsquare (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktsquare: No, it's not crucial. However, I agree that it helps to have connections. The more meetups you go to and the more people you know, the more likely you'll be informed of future meetups... Der yck C. 10:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: Given all you have mentioned above, one important aspect that I want to know for sure is do I need consent from senior community member from a wikimedia project, say the Chinese Wikipedia project or even a representative of wikimedia project in the wikimedia foundation or at wikimania to participate in any wikipedia project ? I have not received any idea of this aspect from at Chinese Wikipedia from their zh:Wikipedia:Bureaucrats -- Ktsquare (talk) 14:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktsquare: No. Be bold! Der yck C. 15:33, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(Carrying on from email) I'm not sure what are your concerns. I agree that there is a significant threshold of entry for Wikimania organisers (and rightly so), but there is no barrier for anyone to become a participant. I was only trying to give some advice to help people enjoy Wikimania as much as they can. In fact, at every Wikimania there has been local people who had never edited Wikipedia and simply joined Wikimania because they were interested.
— Der yck C., User talk:Deryck Chan, 16:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

What can prospective organisers do if they want to help organise a Wikimania at their localities ? Say Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Mainland Chinese could do or have done to organise one from scratch ? A brief history will suffice. -- Ktsquare (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktsquare: See meta:Wikimania Handbook and wm2013:User:Deryck Chan. Der yck C. 11:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

St John's Blackheath

Hi. Having reviewed various sources I'm undecided on this one: independent sources seem to be split about 50/50 for either name. I wouldn't object to a rename to the shorter name, or to an alteration to the lead such as St John the Evangelist's Church (commonly known as St John's Blackheath) or St John's Blackheath (formally known as St John the Evangelist's Church). Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 13:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassocks5489: The church calls itself by the short name "St John's Blackheath" in most of its publications. So if independent sources are split for either name, I think we should move the article back to the short name and adopt the second proposed lead text you've given above. (COI declaration: I used to live in that area and attended that church regularly.) Der yck C. 13:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been reverted.

Your 2011 edit [1] to the Hamilton C shell article, removing a COI tag, has been reverted [2]. There is some related discussion on the article talk page. Msnicki (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for your work on RfD! sst✈^(discuss) 15:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

benn jordan

how did you possibly keep this page when it was a blatent puff piece and the only voters for keep were himself and his friends? wiki guidelines call for considering arguments and facts not majority. its a horribly sourced article and i disagee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.194.149.117 (talk) 21:33, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho

Ϣere SpielChequers is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15a}} to your friends' talk pages.

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:02, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ferguson Plarre Bakehouses

Hi Deryck Chan, thank you for protecting the article. However, in choosing a 2014 version to revert to, the copyright violations on sustainability [3] were restored--I think I removed it at least three times last night. Again, your assistance is much appreciated. Cheers, 2601:188:0:ABE6:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following up. Very best, 73.159.24.89 (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cairo derby

You blocked Cairo derby from editing, but there is a mess, go and revert, or correct, scroll down and see the mess. thank you.--Fanatic of Football (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fanatic of Football: With my limited knowledge about the subject, I'm not sure I can find a past version that is substantially better than what we have now. You may want to contact User:Ben5218, who requested the protection, for advice. Der yck C. 00:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for amability of replying, "Honours" section is modified (vandalised), try to revert it to the last version. (just the Honours) Anything is better that what is now ! Check ! I will also contact Ben. Thanks !--Fanatic of Football (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fanatic of Football: I went all the way back to this edition and found a version of that table with sensible numbers. I've restored that. Der yck C. 00:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is perfect ! Also in Top goalscorers Abdel-Karim Sakr is vandalised, El Ahly (0) El Zamalek (9999) That is not correct, maybe you can also find it. Thanks !--Fanatic of Football (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And if you allow me, I can improve a bit the article, to create a bit more of bluelinks !--Fanatic of Football (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here you have some references to add please: [4] [5]

@Fanatic of Football: In two days time, the article's protection will expire, so you can do it yourself! Wikipedia:Be bold. Der yck C. 00:38, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is this article will be constant vandalised ! So in this situation we have to update it, and after permanent block ?--Fanatic of Football (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Fanatic of Football: You now have 244 edits. (How did you do so much on your first day as a logged-in user? How much time do you spend on Wikipedia?) In 4 days' time, you can edit semi-protected articles, so you'll be able to edit it even if I extended the protection. Der yck C. 00:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am in love with Wikipedia ! I will just do day night edits if I could do it. I spend all my free time here ! it is so much to do here, many many articles are low quality, but soon I want to create my own Wikipedia Football ! I need a team, they will work because they will be paid, not for free, add advertising, we will have a sponsor, and many others ideas I have, are you in ?--Fanatic of Football (talk) 00:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We will have the football articles from this wikipedia, and take everything and improve it and add more and more.

Differences from current Wikipedia : we will allow the own research, because is football and anyone can make charts and statistics, tables, if you already have other informations about it ! (teams, players, scores, etc)--Fanatic of Football (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We will add advertising, bet companies will be our sponsors, we will allow chats between users, we will have all time charts of the teams results, maybe a live score after ? what do you think ? I have so many ideas... can you create a different wikipedia working in a team, and be the boss from behind this future business ? We can make a complete site for football ! (and the difference is that we will allow people to edit or report errors) - there is no football website which allow people to add information or report errors !--Fanatic of Football (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We will be famous like Mark Zuckerberg who invented facebook, but our site will be 5 in 1 ! facebook (chat for people), wikipedia (lots of information), google (with a search engine), live score (live time football scores and matches) and after even live matches and also a bet page, where people can choose what they want to bet, and our sponsors will be a sportsbook, with sure we will find with so nice webiste. Are you good enough to do it or to find a team to create something like this ?? i will do my best with the football part, and statistics, I already have a team with some of the best knowledge people about football.--Fanatic of Football (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's Football Wikia already :) Der yck C. 10:47, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help decide the future of Wikimania

The Wikimedia Foundation is currently running a consultation on the value and planning process of Wikimania, and is open until 18 January 2016. The goals are to (1) build a shared understanding of the value of Wikimania to help guide conference planning and evaluation, and (2) gather broad community input on what new form(s) Wikimania could take (starting in 2018).

After reviewing the consultation, we'd like to hear your feedback on on this survey.

In addition, feel free to share any personal experiences you have had at at a Wikimedia movement conference, including Wikimania. We plan to compile and share back outcomes from this consultation in February.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk), from Community Resources 22:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tossing votes calling the redirects nonsense?

[6] you went against a 7:3 consensus here. I don't see how you can ignore the users who see the redirects as nonsense. Legacypac (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: Thanks for asking. I admit it wasn't an easy closure. I do think there's a genuine split of opinion with strong arguments for both outcomes. After one relist, I'm fairly confident that we'll continue to get a 1:1 or 1:2 keep:delete split from the wider community even if I opened that up for further discussion, so I think no consensus is the appropriate closure for now. On a side note, I think most agree that these are obscure / disused real words, so I'm surprised nobody suggested we should create Wiktionary entries and soft redirect there. Der yck C. 10:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also believe continued input would go delete roughly 2:1. I've processed well over 1000 Neelix redirects, many of them these obscure/made up compound words and we usually delete them, sometimes as housekeeping. They turn up under 400 total Ghits. A dictionary entry would be equally useless as the meaning is just 'with perfume'. Do you mind if I DRV it if you don't want to change the close to delete? Legacypac (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Legacypac: I agree with you. This will make a good precedent, so I might actually DRV myself... Der yck C. 22:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your close for 沙盒

I saw that you attempted to create an "edit notice" in your deletion summary for editors who may be looking up that title. I've actually tried to suggest that myself during another discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 May 16#Template:Other uses-section. However, it seems that what I was recommending either wasn't understood or just wasn't agreed upon, but I'm no sure. However, also, back then, I wasn't able to create edit notices. I wasn't sure if that would work for the close you made for 沙盒 since I assumed that edit notices only appeared on edit screen where the page exists. But, I thought I'd give it a shot and created Template:Editnotices/Page/沙盒. Turns out, even though the page doesn't exist, the edit notice appears on the edit screen below the deletion log and above the note stating that only auto confirmed editors can create the page. So, I just found out something today: Feel free to tweak the edit notice. Steel1943 (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: That's a great idea, thanks! Der yck C. 20:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. Thanks, Steel1943! I wish that notice could display above the big box of previous deletions, but I don't think there's anything we can do about that. Deryck, based on your zh-4 userbox, do you think you could add something in Chinese so the edit notice is bilingual? That may be helpful. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD:

Done. Der yck C. 21:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! I'm very pleased with this outcome overall. --BDD (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A most elegant solution, thanks! It's unfortunately quite cluttered because of the lengthy deletion log (and looks positively horrid on mobile) but can't be helped, I guess. Hopefully it helps. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without warning?

Re your case statement: Sorry to hassle you here but a meme is developing that FPaS did not warn TRM prior to blocking. It's true no templated warning was issued, but I think that the sequence of events shows a very clear warning was issued, and the warning was acknowledged. In fact the warning was not only acknowledged but was challenged in a way that escalated the situation.

Please consider the following timeline and let me know what you think.

20:25, 11 January 2016 TRM restores trolling at talk:TRM
20:30, 11 January 2016 FPaS warns TRM at talk:FPaS
20:31, 11 January 2016 FPaS removes trolling at talk:TRM "rv proxying for banned harassment vandal. Whoever reinstates this will be blocked"
20:32, 11 January 2016 TRM restores trolling at talk:TRM
20:33, 11 January 2016 TRM acknowledges receiving a warning at talk:FPaS "... Block me and you'll be at Arbcom, remember?"
20:33, 11 January 2016 FPaS blocks TRM

I might post this at the case request, but wanted to ask if I've missed anything first. Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: You've done more research than I did. I think you're right. I might change my statement to reflect your findings. Der yck C. 21:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some more data here: User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise/sandbox. I notice your statement still says I blocked TRM while he was "involved in the controversy" – which controversy, exactly? You will find TRM was involved in no controversy with me at all at the time I blocked him, other than the "controversy" of being unhappy about the administrative action(s) I had taken or was about to take with respect to him (i.e. there was no more "involvement" than between any blocking admin and any editor who dislikes being blocked). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Future Perfect at Sunrise: I think it's over the top to block an editor only for insisting to restore a probable banned user's message on their own talk page. There are two administrative functions here: reverting a probable sockpuppet's edits, and blocking an editor for obstructing admin function. I read from other statements that the offending comments were directed against you, so I think it would've been better to get another admin to do the blocking because your block gave an impression of partiality. I used "involve" liberally to include restoring the message and I apologise for the lack of precision. Der yck C. 22:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's great in principle but the logical conclusion is that a troll can go about their business, then if a particular admin starts reverting them, the troll can prevent further admin action by directing attacks at the admin, so making them "involved". The problem with expecting another admin to take over is that there simply are not enough people willing to do the dirty work, and generating more attention is the opposite of what should happen. A completely uninvolved admin is going to need a lot of explanation before they take action, and they are likely to shrug their shoulders thinking why should they spend half an hour reading the backstory of yet another creep. Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is a very good point. Thanks. Der yck C. 22:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that I had assumed nothing other than to read that FPAS had a history of misbehaviour, and that this IP was informing me of such. That FPAS got involved and then blocked me without a talkpage warning was a pure abuse of his "position". By all means include this interaction at Arbcom. I was happy to restore my own comments on my own talkpage, and, after all, I wasn't the one who made an involved block against policy. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man, Johnuniq, and Future Perfect at Sunrise: My prime concern now, really, is that we move on from this incident. The more we argue about this, the more fodder we're giving the trolls to laugh at. Der yck C. 22:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Overt abuse of admin tools and overt abuse of other editors should be punished. It has little to do with trolls and more to do with the utterly disgraceful behaviour of certain trigger-happy admins who engage in personal attacks and who Arbcom (!!) are too "in awe of" to actually do anything of practical use to the community. What a hopeless and hapless bunch, but no real surprise. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfD: no consensus, default to delete?

On the RfD for ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ, you closed with "no consensus on alternative, default to delete". I don't understand why you did this - isn't policy "no consensus, default to keep"? ··gracefool 💬 20:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Not necessarily for redirects. In a forum like Articles for deletion consensus must develop endorsing a delete outcome, otherwise "no consensus to delete" equals a default keep. At Rfd, there's not really any default outcome because there are more options, so admins have wider discretion. As Deryck explained, nobody wanted to keep the redirects as-is and we couldn't decide on what else to do with them, so deletion was a valid outcome. At least, that's my interpretation of his closing statement. In fact the guideline states that Rfd discussions which don't gather enough participation default to delete, not that that applies here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gracefool: Ivanvector explained it very well. Thanks for asking and answering! Der yck C. 22:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but that doesn't explain why keep isn't a default outcome for redirects, as with articles.

"In fact the guideline states that Rfd discussions which don't gather enough participation default to delete": actually it says "If a good-faith RfD nomination has no discussion, the default result is delete." ··gracefool 💬 23:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to maintaining contribution histories (in my opinion, anyway). We need to develop a consensus endorsing deletion of an article, because all of its history gets deleted along with it. If we can't decide specifically to delete, then we don't. In AfD a "no consensus" result is just one in which nothing happens, which is theoretically different from a "keep" result which is a specific endorsement to keep, although they both result in the article sticking around, so sometimes we say "default to keep" when really we should say "no consensus to delete". Redirects are not so expensive - they tend not to have any significant contribution history, so deletion is not so serious a matter - hence the forum being called redirects for discussion. If one person suggests deletion of a redirect, and nobody else comments, that's seen as nobody objecting, so the redirect gets deleted. The case above was more complicated, because there was a rough consensus that we should not keep the redirect, but no consensus for what else to do with it. Deletion follows from rough consensus not to keep. At least that's the way I see it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gracefool: The way I see it is a bit simpler. What would happen if I "defaulted to keep"? Everybody who commented on the discussion would be unhappy. So that isn't the correct outcome. What is the most plausible outcome then? "Delete" opinions have a plurality; deletion also removes the unwanted redirect and gives search results to readers. So it's the best course of action. Der yck C. 00:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ivan, that makes sense re the general rule.

Deryck that assumes the people wanting a change would be happier with deletion than with keeping, which isn't clear. ··gracefool 💬 00:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gracefool: FWIW, I nominated Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz (disambiguation) with the thought/hope that those who were wanting disambiguation might develop their ideas more and we might end up with a disambiguation out of it. However, it's looking like there's a snowball's chance in hell that it'll end up with a disambiguation, which more or less confirms the result in question here. Personally, I would have closed it with no predjudice for recreating as a disambiguation since we never got to see a draft. Then, if someone doesn't like the dab, it could be taken to AFD where several members of WP:WPDAB like to lurk, and it could be hashed out there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

note

My response to you at the RfA talk page may appear defensive. That is not directed at you personally, but more toward the "IP". If it appears that I am being overly-defensive toward you, my apologies. I don't mind in the least discussing the situation with you. If you're not aware of it - you may also want to see the IP talk page here: Note also that the response was from an account that has less than 20 edits to en-wp. As I said, I'm more than willing to discuss the situation, at any place of your choice (either on or off wiki). I just wanted to clarify that I'm not upset with you personally in the least. Cheers. — Ched : ? 17:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched: I apologise, too, that my reply may be seen as defensive and directed towards you. My comment there was a response to the entire comment thread under my support vote. I wasn't sure whether you were referring to me or not, so I tagged you to make sure you're aware of my comment. Thanks for your detailed responses on the RfA talk page and here. Der yck C. 21:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plowback retained earnings

I believe that the discussion regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect which you recently closed as "no consensus" resulted in a clear consensus to delete the redirect as no reasonably acceptable argument was presented for keeping it.

Despite a number of strong arguments for deleting the redirect, and no valid arguments for keeping it, you determined the outcome of the debate to be "no consensus." Your closing statement failed to provide an explanation of why your analysis of "the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of [the] issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy," led you to conclude no consensus was achieved.

In light of the above, as well as your having been WP:INVOLVED in the matter under discussion prior to enacting your recent closure of the latest in a series of related discussions, as evidenced by your closure of the previous discussion regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect,[7] I'd like to ask you to undo your closure thus allowing an uninvolved administrator to handle the matter. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Iaritmioawp: Not enough has changed since the last RfD and our subsequent discussion of it that pushes a sufficient delete consensus. "Involved" does not include admins who act in the same administrative capacity in multiple recurrences of related issues, otherwise we'll end up with a progressively worse situation where it's impossible to close a debate because everybody's been dragged into it. Der yck C. 17:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, just because something is technically allowed doesn't mean it's a good idea. The previous discussion, as you know, was originally closed by an editor who had closed another one on the same item beforehand, and the consensus during the closure's review was that this was suboptimal. Effectively repeating that editor's suboptimal action, which was nullified by consensus, was a bad idea. Second, that "[n]ot enough has changed" implies that anything had to change, which is not my opinion. The Plowback retained earnings redirect is, and always has been, in clear violation of our policy on page titles, is a nonsensical misnomer which has never been used outside Wikipedia and that escapes WP:R3 on nothing but a mere technicality, i.e. the fact that it was originally a stub article that qualified for speedy deletion in its own right, and is entirely redundant to boot. In the complete absence of reasons to keep it, other than some vague claims of its harmlessness/usefulness—all of them not only unsubstantiated but also at length debunked—this more than suffices to not only justify but indeed mandate the redirect's deletion. Third, your previous closure was invalid to begin with as its rationale went directly against the principles laid out in WP:CONSENSUS; the only reason it wasn't taken to DRV was that the RfD became too tangled for its another relisting to make sense as it was, in my opinion, nothing short of impossible for uninvolved editors to meaningfully participate in due to the discussion's length and complexity. I will give you 24 hours to reconsider your decision not to reopen the discussion; after that, should you fail to change your mind, I'll be requesting a review. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm sure a third DRV will help find consensus to delete this redirect, after four RfDs and the first two DRVs have found none. Deryck, thanks for this close. I suppose I'll be formally supporting it at DRV shortly. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Plowback retained earnings

The purpose of this message is to inform you that your recent closure of a discussion regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect is currently undergoing a review. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hermit crab

Although edits are very low, none of IP edits were good. Extend PC? --George Ho (talk) 07:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: Yep, good idea. Done. Der yck C. 13:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Towards a New Wikimania results

Last December, I invited you to share your views on the value of Wikimedia conferences and the planning process of Wikimania. We have completed analysis of these results and have prepared this report summarizing your feedback and important changes for Wikimania starting in 2018 as an experiment. Feedback and comments are welcome at the discussion page. Thank you so much for your participation. I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, 22:47, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Baldasaro

You protected this article for a few days a while back. It seems to need some more... maybe. Debouch (talk) 03:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debouch: I've given it 3 months of pending changes as edit volume is low and 100% reverted. Der yck C. 12:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Masturbation redirects listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Masterbated and Masterbatory. Since you had some involvement with these redirects, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is English relevant on English WP?

I'm not going to name names because everyone is so super-sensitive around here but I think you'll work out what's motivated me to visit your page. I'm curious what stance you take on the question of whether it matters that our editors (that's on English WP) have better than (or even just) rudimentary skills in English grammar. Is it wise to give encouragement on these pages to editors who give us "I think I might have reversed another edit out of intention"? So is that "intentionally" or quite the reverse? Don't ask the author because he/she doesn't know. And if that is the rule rather than the exception in the case of a certain editor, i.e. the editor could not recognise or reproduce English if it leapt up and grabbed him/her by the throat, would we be wanting to give that editor additional rights to decide about the performance of others on this centre for English expression? Or have we no standards at all? Is the WP crew resigned to the fact that it will do anything to attract and keep people willing to contribute, even if it's unmitigated trash? Just wondering. sirlanz Sirlanz 10:38, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirlanz: Thanks for the message. I'm sorry for your frustration and sympathise with it. I agree that we need standards for our encyclopedic content. If an editor falls short of it, the rest of us should correct them and bring them up to standard. My own English was also outrageous when I first joined the project and received much help from more experienced editors. Der yck C. 11:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: Here's a little known or remarked upon fact: a search of the expression "another edit out of intention" on google returns just one hit, yes, just one - I think it probably deserves an award for super-drivel. sirlanz Sirlanz 11:57, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirlanz: But we all make mistakes, and the more work we do the more mistakes we make. Before we present the super-drivel award, should we ask the editor in question what he/she actually meant? I have hope that we'll get a useful answer. Der yck C. 12:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: I wonder if we could rely upon the response to such a question if the editor, just by way of example, of course, was the sort of person who had a leaning towards choice bits of plagiarism from time to time, as well. Anyway, I'm sure that's fine with everyone. We need people like that in charge of what goes on in WP, I'm sure, talent being so hard to come by and all. sirlanz Sirlanz 12:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with "had a leaning towards [...] plagiarism". The few instances where a person or a bot posted on that user's talk page regarding possible plagiarism were all resolved satisfactorily by the user. Der yck C. 19:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what's needed to get sure about plagiarism. The entire page (bar one sentence about a recent event, not biographical) created by the unnamed editor to whom you decided it right to give additional rights was transparently lifted holus bolus from a Hong Kong Government bio of the subject, save for the unnamed editor's corruption of the grammar throughout in his/her attempt to disguise the plagiarism. The bio was single-sourced, no attempt was made to introduce a word sourced elsewhere. It does not get much more blatant than this. It was not only plagiarised, it was lazy as hell - minimalist page creation at its worst. How was the matter of plagiarism "resolved satisfactorily by the user"? By wrecking the English? sirlanz Sirlanz 08:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

deleted article to userspace Suggestion Comment

@DBigXray: I've moved the article history to User:DBigXray/Hanumanthappa Koppad. I see that you've already started a new article; it may be best to rewrite the whole thing from scratch, so you wouldn't need to attribute the internal copying. Der yck C. 11:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, will follow your kind advice --DBig Xray 13:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stereotypes of white people in the United States

Hello. I'm not sure what went wrong with your deletion/restoration of Stereotypes of white people in the United States, but the article's gone. Please fix it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Malik Shabazz: Fixed! (by using the "rollback" button on myself!) Thanks for telling me that I messed it up. Deryck C. 00:14, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. If I had realized that was all that was necessary, I would have done it myself and wouldn't have bothered you. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Malik Shabazz: You're welcome. It's always good to ask when we're unsure! Der yck C. 00:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 February 14#Neelix PTMs

Deryck, thanks for this close. Might I suggest revisiting Shenae, though, and specifically request it remain an {{R from given name}} too? Species are almost never referred to by the second part of their binomial names alone. I actually don't know of a single case. That's a true partial-title match. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BDD: I thought about closing that one as "no consensus, without prejudice against disambiguation", but then that'll end up with the same outcome as soon as anyone can be bothered to disambiguate it. The other course of action is for me to part-undo my closure as close that one as "relist standalone". I think I'll do that now. Der yck C. 16:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think the no consensus close would be better there, but if there's more discussion, I'll participate there. --BDD (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Deryck Chan: regarding Shenae, I had advocated for "keep" with that one, not disambiguate. From my understanding, species names are considered WP:PTM's and aren't disambiguated. You'll either see it as "Autosticha shena" or "A. shenae" but never simply "shenae" unless that happens to be the common name. A good example for precedent would be: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tinctoria. While I'm obviously biased, I don't think there is consensus to disambiguate that one. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC) moved from RFD[reply]