This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

User talk:Zzyzx11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
SEMI-RETIRED

I'm currently too busy in real life to handle the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia
(That does not necessarily mean that I have completely stopped reading Wikipedia, checking my talk page, or making occasional edits. It's time permitting in my real life.)
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia as of January 2020.
The archives Archives
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33
This user is an administrator

Current time: Saturday, December 4, 2021, 04:57 (UTC)
Last edit: November 23, 2021, 00:07 (UTC) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk · contribs)


Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins[edit]

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers[edit]

Hi Zzyzx11.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Zzyzx11. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Zzyzx11. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

16 team bracket[edit]

Is there a reason why you want to delete the templates? I just made them in case the playoffs increase in teams. Is there something wrong? AquilaXIII (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sports official template[edit]

Hi Zzyx11. I am very interested in referee articles and have been working my way through all the articles at Category:Sports officials. I came across Template:Sports official editnotice and thought it was a great idea (I made an edit to it to include WP:BALASP as it is probably the most overlooked policy). American football biographies are some of the more WP:due referee articles I have come across (and I have seen a lot) and although I doubt it is just down to the template it can't have hurt. I was hoping to add it to referee articles in other sports in particular the currently active referees at a high level in Baseball, Basketball, Cricket, Rugby and Soccer. I am pretty sure that only admins and template editors are allowed to create edit notices. I hate asking other people to do things I am perfectly capable of so I might have a go for template editor seeing as I might just scrape in under the criteria with about 160 edits to templates (should be less painful than running for RFA anyway). I just wanted to check with you first as to whether you think expanding the use of this edit notice is a good idea or if there are drawbacks I am not seeing. AIRcorn (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Aircorn:: yes, only admins and template editors are allowed to create and modify edit notices. The problem when I created Sports official editnotice is that, at the time, I did not have enough time to compile a list of every single bio article on referees, umpires and the like. If I had such a list, I could run the AWB tool to complete the job. However, compiling a list of such articles became a low priority because I have yet to see a significant impact: fans upset by a controversial call are still going to be determined to vandalize and add POV edits to the articles no matter what. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I am sort of doing that now at Category:WikiProject Referees (will probably be a few more weeks yet before I get there). Some of those tagged are not strictly biography articles though (like List of ODI cricket umpires and Rugby union referee). There is also Category:Sports officials, which is basically where I am finding the articles to tag. Some of those are not really referees, more like high level administrators, and it also includes the list and overview articles.
I got sick of seeing referee articles balloon with addition of non-notable criticisms with very little oversight beyond our usual vandal fighters. This area has now become a pet project for me here and I am willing to do the legwork required to compile such a list. Would you like a list of all the referees with biographies (which would be relatively easy) or should I concentrate on the ones currently or recently active who control high profile games (the articles of older referees are noticeably more balanced). AIRcorn (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Whatever is easiest for you. Zzyzx11 (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
User:Aircorn/Current referees (about 450) I went with the current referees as they tend to attract the most interest straight after a game. It should cover most of the major tournaments. I also didn't include American Football and Ice Hockey as they had the edit notice already. Thanks for your assistance. AIRcorn (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Done. I only grabbed the blue links off of your list using AWB, ignoring the few redlinks. An unwritten rule I have observed is that there should not be an editnotice for articles that do not exist yet. Those eventually get generally nominated for speedy deletion. For reference: I then exported the list to my computer (List->Save list); opened it up in the notepad text editor to do a find and replace to modify it to the editnotice title format; reloaded the text file back into AWB; and used the "Prepend text". Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for this. I hope it makes a difference. That list was made up through various different means, hence the rather jumbled formatting. I have added all the blue links to my watchlist (pushing 2000 now) so I can keep an eye on them. I will do the same for the redlinks when I format everything a bit better so I know when they are created. If they survive deletion I can just use {{adminhelp}} to get the edit notice added. Thanks again, I really appreciate it. AIRcorn (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Apportionment (politics)[edit]

Am not sure it is worth jousting with your large addition of uncited essay here, but please curb the excesses. The additional explanation of the Connecticut Compromise might be helpful, but "the less populous states were afraid" seems unencyclopedic. The rationales are probably covered in the article linked to. The new paragraph on the total number of House members is irrelevant to apportionment. Washington, D.C. is perhaps better known than the District of Columbia, but the District is the state-like territory that lacks the rights of a state; the fact that it comprises exactly one city is a side issue. And there is "encourages the candidates to spend exponentially more time". Exponentially? This is hyperbole. Spike-from-NH (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Legend transclusion[edit]

It's nice that you're trying to make the RDT legend templates transcludable, but since you can't actually do that (at the bottom, anyway) with almost half of the RDTs which exist right now, there's not much point doing it until they're all converted to {{Routemap}} or {{BS-map}} first. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me
08:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I will concede that. I have also replied to this on the Template talk:Railway line legend discussion. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Times have changed[edit]

I stumbled upon this gem and it gave me a good laugh. Imagine the reaction today if someone AFDed the page of a Heisman winning, unanimous All-American, 4-time Pro Bowler, NFL 1960s All-Decade Team member who was also a collegiate head coach and athletic director at multiple schools. Surely that was a silly AFD even way back in 2005, no? Lizard (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017[edit]

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

Admin mop.PNG Administrator changes

Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirateSchwede66K6kaEaldgythFerretCyberpower678Mz7PrimefacDodger67
Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg BriangottsJeremyABU Rob13

Green check.svg Guideline and policy news

Octicons-tools.svg Technical news

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

Scale of justice 2.svg Arbitration

Nuvola apps knewsticker.png Obituaries

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

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Thanks for making recent edits to the lead section of Los Angeles, California. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

NFL year naming conventions[edit]

I opened a topic under the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League about the naming conventions for individual playoff games. In moving the article, you claimed that the NFL naming conventions reflect the year of the regular season. However, under the naming conventions in the NFL WikiProject, naming the year of individual playoff games is not discussed. A cursory search online also reflects both 1998 and 1999 as the year for this game. Feel free to contribute to the discussion. Helltopay-27 (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Instant replay in American and Canadian football into Instant replay. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:TEMPLAR. I meant to change the edit summary to indicate that specific article before hitting submit. Looks like I did not. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Switching Muni and BART s-rail[edit]

I see you were the creator of a number of the s-rail templates for Muni and BART about a decade ago. Right now, their directionality is non-intuitive: "previous" (left) corresponds to the inbound (Muni) or East Bay-bound (BART) direction. Would you bear any major objection to me switching the directionality? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't care. I think I just created them to get them going. When I created the BART templates first, I think I originally based it off of the fact that their long descriptive names of the BART lines, like Dublin/Pleasanton–Daly City line, lists the East Bay destination first. And so when I went on to create the MUNI ones, I did it so the directions match, especially for those dual stations along the Market Street Subway. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation - and thanks for your work in creating these originally! I'm going to figure out how to pull off the switch as efficiently as possible to minimize disruption. Maybe someday BART will use more intuitive names; as a new Bay Area resident, it's rather confusing sometimes - especially when a train is announced only by its short turn location. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

San Francisco Bay Area article[edit]

Hey there, I know your banner says that you are semi-retired, but I noticed that you made some edits to the San Francisco Bay Area article recently. I am currently re-doing the article from the ground up, as it has several issues – it has multiple empty sections, is largely unsourced, and is not particularly well organized. I have a running draft up at my sandbox right now, and would appreciate it if you could take some time too look at it, and maybe contribute a bit here or there.

Thank you again! --haha169 (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Long-term significance of organ[edit]

That statement in our discussion made me chuckle.

Far in the future we will listen to synthesized music probably on outer planets, and the instrument organ will be long forgotten. We as humans will still however consist of organs or synthetic substitutes thereof, plagued by disease, needing replacement, awaiting improvement, and so on... so I can say with confidence the long-term significance of our internal organs, a key constituent to life, will outlong that of the instrument

--Tom (LT) (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Zzyzx11. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

User: Zanygenius potential recovery of Iceland Sea[edit]

@Zzyzx11: Please reply as soon as possible, but don't rush it :).

Greetings, (good evening for me) @Zzyzx11: and I understand of you don't respond swiftly (based on your note). However, I would like your input on the deletion of Iceland Sea, as I was scrolling the Special: Most Wanted Pages to see your page with over 4K links, so I was going to take it under my wings. Before I do (or don't), I would really make sure I know your purpose so I don't leave a mess in the house. Thank you.

Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 00:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Zanygenius: I'm not sure why you are messaging Zzyzx11 as he didn't create the deleted article on the Iceland Sea. For what it's worth the deleted article consisted of two sentences so if you want to have a go at an article on that topic, just go ahead. Nthep (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Nthep: Hi, that's what I've heard from the Village Pump(technical). Though that's exactly the confusion that sent me there to ask for a Hide Deleted articles button, as the page I was sent to said User: Zzyzx11 was the guy.
I do thank you for the clarification and suggestion, which I will take into consideration, and likely do. Also, for jumping in and providing a fast response for me. I just think they ought nto get a button for it.
Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 20:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm still puzzled where you saw my username. If you clicked on Iceland Sea, the page should have displayed the actual admin who deleted that article back on 19-March-2016, which was Sphilbrick, not me. As stated in the reply to your question on the village pump (tech), "perhaps you are looking at another entry" by mistake.[1] Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:31, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Zzyzx11: I do find this to be the case, so it's good that you clarified that :). (I'm grateful for that). So, the article was deleted by Sphilbrick for being to short? I'm trying to decide whether it's appropriate to approach (him?) about it or I would probably get nowhere. Advice?
Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 14:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
@Zanygenius: I can help you right now. An article that is merely short is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Looks like the page was actually deleted per WP:G7: the original author of the page requested its deletion. There were never any references or citations on the article when it was created. Its two sentences just said, "Iceland Sea is a sea surrounding Iceland. It is in the Arctic Ocean". And then after about a couple of hours later, another editor tagged it for proposed deletion with the reason, "I can not find any sources that says the water around Iceland is called the Iceland Sea.". The original author then apparently agreed with that assessment and subsequently tagged it for G7 deletion. Thus, the article could probably be restarted again, provided that there are actually citations and references added to the page.
For what its worth, I just looked at all those links to Iceland Sea, and the count of 4K links is that high because it appears that most of them are on talk pages. This is likely because Iceland Sea is listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Oceans/to do, which is posted on all those talk pages. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
That sounds quite wonderful, @Zzyzx11:, perhaps today I'll make room in my sandbox for it and tomorrow I'll go take it under my wings. Yeah, I always thought that Wikis were for making articles better over time. :)
Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 18:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Is this all sorted out? To confirm, an article is not deleted for being too short. I don't recall this specific deletion. let me know if you need anything.--S Philbrick(Talk) 04:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Sphilbrick: I believe everything is being worked out, I'm just a little busy. According to my understanding, someone made it without much detail, no one picked it up, and so bthe article lived a short life. However, if I can do better, than it's mine. (By the way, I'll developed it in my sandbox first, and hopefully by February it will be done.
Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 15:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
There's no dealine :) but I m a bit over-committed so didn't want to ignore this if I was expected to do something. Sounds good.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
No worries here, I have picked up the article, but I am ensuring to not miss any details, so I'm grateful there's no deadline. You can check my progress by clicking on this link, I'd say I've made some so far.
Sincerely, User: Zanygenius(talk page) 22:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Montecito, California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unincorporated (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

1998 NFC Championship Game for Today's Featured Article: 4 February 2018[edit]

Hello. I have requested the 1998 NFC Championship Game as the WP:TFA for 4 February 2018. If you wish to comment, please do so on its featured article request page. FunksBrother (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to remain neutral. Might have been better to nominate it next year for its 20th anniversary. IMO, posting it on the Main page just because of "the potential of the Vikings making" this season's Super Bowl is just asking for a jinx :-) Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
I understand your stance. I wanted to reach out to the main contributors of the article. FunksBrother (talk) 03:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 8[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Broadcast delay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Central Time (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Inquiry from The Washington Post[edit]

Hi there,

My name is Sonia, and I write for The Washington Post. I'm interested in pursuing a story about Wikipedia users who update/edit pages detailing specific histories of the Academy Awards (e.g. "List of black Academy Award winners and nominees," "90th Academy Awards"). I believe you might have edited a similar page recently, perhaps during the ceremony. People who are simply curious often end up on these informative pages, and I believe our readers might find it interesting to hear the story behind the quick edits — are there some Wikipedia users who wait for the awards to be announced and then update the pages immediately? How do you keep track of all the history? And so on.

If you'd be interested in chatting with me, please let me know as soon as possible. I can be reached at sonia.rao@washpost.com.

Thanks! Sonia

Soniarao23 (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Your readers would probably be better served by the opinions of the others that you have attempted to contact. I was not editing Wikipedia when the ceremony was going on. And my recent edits to those articles were primarily maintenance, either before or after the ceremony (e.g. copy writing, correcting factual information when the article did not match the cited source, reverting vandalism). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions on Oregon[edit]

Hi Zzyzx11, We’ve noticed that you edited articles related to Oregon. Thank you for your great contributions. Keep it up! Bobo.03 (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

AfD - List of 2012 NFL replacement officials[edit]

Hello, I have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2012 NFL replacement officials (2nd nomination). UW Dawgs (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2018NBAFinals.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2018NBAFinals.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: CBS Sports protection[edit]

It appears that the IP vandal who's been vandalizing the CBS Sports page is back at it and seems to keep vandalizing it the moment the page goes unprotected. As I noticed you were the admin that protected the page the last time, are there any other options for addressing this? J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Editnotices/Page/2009 NBA Finals[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Editnotices/Page/2009 NBA Finals has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:42, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Dan O'Halloran[edit]

Hey, I recently stumbled upon this page and noticed in 2010 you indefinite locked it due to BLP violations. Seeing as it is 8 years later do you think it could be unlocked? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

The guy is still an active NHL referee, correct?[2] Once these referees make a controversial call, or make multiple questionable calls in a particular game, it usually is vandalism/BLP violations from fans of the team that the call(s) went against. Just because it has been 8 years, all that means is they have not been able to vandalise O'Halloran's article. For example, I'm pretty sure that several Winnipeg Jets fans were just dying to vandlise the article after some questionable calls were made during the Jets' loss to the Vegas Golden Knights in Game 4 of the 2018 Western Conference Final earlier this year, in which O'Halloran officiated in.[3] But they were stopped by the article's semi-protection. There does not seem to be that great of a demand to make actual constructive edits to the page. Thus, I'm only willing to lower it to pending changes protection, and no further. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Okay no problem, do what you feel is best. I have expanded the article a bit (and I will continue to look into it) but I am autoconfirmed so it does not affect me. I know popular referees like Wes McCauley aren't protected and we manage it fine but he is well loved in the hockey community, I guess you could say [4]. I just wanted to make sure because I have stumbled upon articles that were semi-protected like 10 years ago for issues that occurred 10 years ago and the admin just never removed it. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, some article's like McCauley's never got protected, perhaps because it never had any vandalism. There are probably other articles where they were once locked, but another admin decided to unlock it. So I will not object if you get a second opinion from another admin, perhaps one who is far more active at WP:HOCKEY. It's just that I just do not want it under my name knowing how angry fans can be when calls do not go their team's way. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:05, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
No worries, I respect your stance. If a problem ever arises because of the protection status then we can handle it, but you're right, there is no need right now. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Zzyzx11. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Protection of referee articles[edit]

Hi Zzyx11. After a discussion at Bishonens talk page (see User talk:Bishonen#Angus Gardner) I was hoping to get some level of protection for active high level referees. I know you have done this for quite a few American sports officials so thought I would seek your input. It is also possible that opening an RFC on this could have the unintended consequence of removing protection from some of the articles you have already protected. I started a list of what I consider elite referees at User:Aircorn/Elite referees and so far have only looked at the logs of the American Football ones. I read the above thread so understand if you do not want to be too active in this, but I would appreciate any advice you have. Currently I was thinking of a form of rolling pending changes protection (say a year) to all those on the list (the above conversation just reminded me to look into NHL referees). That way if someone retires protection will naturally expire. Thanks AIRcorn (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@Aircorn: I don't actively put these articles on protection or pending changes anymore (as you probably noticed, the newer NFL referees do not currently have any protection). There are articles where I once locked them, but another admin decided to turn it off.[5][6] I primarily starting doing the American football officials only because, at the time, it seemed like I was the only admin actively editing them. Those NFL referee articles are probably still under protection because there have not been any other admin to significantly challenge me to turn those off. I'm not familiar with the articles on most of the other sports, and which admins and editors are more active in those areas. I'm not in the mood to get into a dispute/discussion/wheel war with those who more strictly interpret Wikipedia:Protection policy#Vandalism and WP:PCPP ("[protection/pending changes] should not be used as a preemptive measure against violations that have not yet occurred"), and therefore they MUST see very frequent, repeated violations in the page histories of each individual article.
This reminds me of a 2013 proposal: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/RfC to add Pending Changes to all BLP with few or no watchers. There was clear consensus against it. Although I opposed it for a different reason (that pending changes should not be used as a mere substitute for the lack of page watchers), it seemed that many were against prepreemptive protection in general.
Therefore, if you do post your proposal on WT:PPOL or WP:VPP, I fully expect that you would get opposition from those who strictly follow those policy protection rules. I could probably predict what they would argue: "Articles like Deniz Aytekin are barely edited during the off-season." "There has been no evidence of frequent and repeated vandalism or violations on article like Aleem Dar within the past couple of years." "Blocking users and putting the articles on semi-protection for a few months is sufficient. If vandalism is solely the result of a news spike because of a recent controversial call, there is no need for long-term protection because, again, there is no evidence that it will be regularly edited during the off-season." Again, this would be a significant policy change for a whole class of articles (referees and umpires), and I do not believe it would pass without some sort of fight from them. Because if it does, somebody could propose similar preemptive protection to another class of articles, and then it becomes a slippery slope. I'm sorry if this seems like a long reply, and I cannot give you a more positive spin on your chances, but that is based on that 2013 proposal and other experiences here. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I am glad you gave a long detailed reply so no need to apologise. It has given me a bit of a reality check on this area, I knew that preemptive protection was discouraged, but did not realise the level of philosophical opposition to protection in general. I am probably the only editor who watches referee and umpire across all sports. There are definitely some helpful experienced editors that watch sport specific articles though. As such I feel I could lay a decent case for referees and umpires in general as they are as a rule BLPs, poorly watched with virtually all ip and new editors adding vandalism or at best unconstructive info. The more overt vandalism is usually picked up by cluebot or dedicated patrollers so while often nasty it is usually suppressed quickly. However I find getting protection for the articles can be slow. I make most of the requests, but am constrained by my timezone and general inactivity, not to mention RPP is often backed up. The bigger issue to me is the subtle vandalism. At its simplest it involves changing the referees place of birth to the hometown of one of the teams the have just officiated. There are other subtle edits too and these can be easily missed. As you can probably work out from my delay in replying I am only finding time to edit here sporadically, something that will probably not change for a few months. It was part of the reason I became more concerned about these articles as my watchlist is pretty full when I do look. It also means I can't really commit to running what would be a contentious RFC and even finishing my analysis would be time consuming (I was hoping that it would show some clear trend that the articles you protected get much less vandalism than the ones that aren't). Thank you for your thoughts I may come back to this, but at this stage I will concentrate more on pushing the case for adding pending changes to individual officials next time they get vandalised avoiding the preemptive minefield. AIRcorn (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Stadium location maps[edit]

Aren't these infoboxes long enough already without adding 2 or three maps that are probably already used in the relevant city articles? Can you point me to the discussion where it was decided the maps are necessary? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Check your Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets: the option "Show radio buttons to switch between views of certain content, such as some maps". If you are seeing all 2 or 3 maps simultaneously, yours is disabled. It is automatically enabled for all unlogged IPs as far as I can tell. Various people have been adding these maps to some of these stadium articles, both inside and outside the infobox, so I went ahead being bold and put them all in for consistency. There is no discussion I am aware of for or against. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah ok, thanks. I still question their usefulness on stadium articles, but I'm not in the mood to raise a ruckus about it at this time. To me, it's just more clutter like comprehensive concert lists amd international soccer match tables. - BilCat (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fastrak.png[edit]

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Has been superseded by SVG version File:Fastrak.svg. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
@Fluffy89502: I'm not sure this is the right thing to do. Can we prove that the FasTrak logo was developed by Caltrans? If it was developed by TCA then it has to be fair use. --Rschen7754 01:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
The SVG file was saved directly to Commons. If there is a non-free issue, it will have to be deleted there, and uploaded here on en.Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Imzadi1979 has retagged it as PD-simple since it is likely under the threshold of originality. --Rschen7754 02:25, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
To my knowledge the Fastrak logo is only trademarked, and not copyrighted. The logo probably does not meet the threshold of originality and as such would fall under both the aforementioned reason and PD-CAGov since it is an image possessed by not only the TCA but also Metro, etc., and images possessed by agencies in California are subject to the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250 et seq., Chapter 1473 of the 1968 Statutes) It’s just like the Metro (LACMTA) logo, which is trademarked but is not copyrighted. Even if any of those images are copyrighted, the TCA, Metro, nor Caltrans would hold the copyright privileges to the image, but a private group would, but again, the logo certainly shouldnt meet the threshold. Fluffy89502 (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

MOS:FORLANG does not cover infoboxes[edit]

Hello, Zzyzx11. You're removing native names from infoboxes of articles such as Sacramento Valley and Diaz Lake, citing MOS:FORLANG. However, MOS:FORLANG only covers the lead of an article, not an infobox. The |native_name= parameter in geographic infoboxes is supported by consensus. Please stop removing the native names from infoboxes. Thank you! —hike395 (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I see my mistake, because I am literally reverting to an older version of the article. The edit(s) I am undoing also added the infobox name.[7][8] Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
OK. I think we can't do a pure reversion. I'm going back through your edits and restoring the infobox entries. —hike395 (talk) 07:38, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I'll need to do some investigations here. The infoboxes seem inconsistent regarding the native names. For example, the guidelines for Template:Infobox body of water and Template:Infobox mountain state "name in local language". Template:Infobox settlement goes a bit further and says, "Name in the local language, if different from name, and if not English." Template:Infobox valley is not really specific and reads, "non-English name of valley (if not main name)".

MOS:FOREIGN says, "Foreign words should be used sparingly." The local language in California is primarily English, but the etymology is Spanish of these place names. As I mentioned in those edit summaries earlier, does it make a difference if the naming occurred after statehood? What if we are just merely posting literal Spanish translations, just for the sake of posting the Spanish translation because of its etymology, when it is not really a common or often used name -- like Diaz Lake, which was created after the 1872 Lone Pine earthquake when California was now part of US. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

The only thing I have found so far is Template_talk:Infobox settlement/Archive 5#Native name, where someone replies, "Native name is what it is called by the residents ... if English is not the a major/only language spoken". Therefore unless I can find consensus otherwise, my interpretation is similar regarding to most of the other infoboxes: native name should be only used if the majority language spoken in the area was not English at the time the place or geographical feature was named. Thus I disagree native name should be used, for example, on all those artificial lakes that were created in the 20th Century, when English was now the common/majority language in California. As I implied above, you just look like you are just merely posting literal Spanish translations, just because its etymology Spanish, without any evidence that it was ever used as common or official name. So as of now, I still stand removing them from the infoboxes on those particular articles. I have no objections for those features whose names existed when they were still in Native American/Spanish/Mexican/etc. rule. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
That makes a lot of sense. I have self-reverted my edits to the artificial lakes, leaving them without |native_name=. Are you proposing removing the rest, because of WP:V? —hike395 (talk) 14:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
That would be my preference. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Later: starting to do research into individual names, which is slow, of course. If you want to mark these as {{cn}}, I would not object. —hike395 (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I do not know of a good online source. I heard that there are actual books on California place names though. Good luck. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
How about this course of action --- we mark the remaining native names with {{disputed inline}} with a centralized discussion point (maybe at WT:CAL?), saying that the native names seem to be back-translations from English, pinging the other editor, and asking for a reliable source. After a week or two, if we can't resolve with good sources, then you delete. Does that sound good? —hike395 (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
That's fine by me. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Script errors[edit]

FYI, a couple edits you made on March 2 introduced Lua script errors: [9]. I'm not sure how that template is supposed to be functioning. Best, Mackensen (talk) 12:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

For the time being, I have switched to the pushpin maps. {{maplink}} apparently draws the coordinate information directly from Wikidata. If it is not saved on there or it cannot be found, it causes that error. Zzyzx11 (talk) 14:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

2006 Stanley Cup playoffs[edit]

I read your comment in your last edit on this article. The only other solution that I can come up with at this hour of the day would be to use: [10]. It may not be the best option but it looks cleaner. Deadman137 (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

That's the problem: if you literally list the defending champion, it would be the team that last won the Cup -- The Lightning in 2004. So that is why I added the note in fine print "notwithstanding the cancelled 2004–05 season". I also thought about it just leaving it blank, but then somebody else will want to fill it in sooner or later after seeing it filled out on the other playoff articles. I'll leave it open to other editors. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Fish Slapping Dance.jpg[edit]

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  • An IP removed the image from the article without any edit summary, treating as vandalism. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Disguise Day listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Disguise Day. Since you had some involvement with the Disguise Day redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BDD (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MUNI icon strip[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:MUNI icon strip has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Useddenim (talk) 13:34, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Renaming of 2018–19 NFC Championship Game[edit]

Hello,

In the talk space for 2018–19 NFC Championship Game, you noted the ambiguity as to what year individual NFL playoff games are referred and appear to lend the notion that the article should be identified by the year 2019.

If you recall, you and I had the discussion that led to establishing the naming convention for individual playoff games as detailed in the NFL Wikiproject. (The discussion can be found in archive 15 of the Wikiproject talk page)

For consistency sake, as well as to have an agreed upon convention for Wikipedia, I believe it's prudent to support the established naming convention. Otherwise, it would create numerous discrepancies across pre-existing articles. Helltopay-27 (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular[edit]

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 03:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)[edit]

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited CA5, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page California State Route 5 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 24[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited California State Route 154, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Santa Barbara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:JanIIISobieski cropped.jpg[edit]

Notice

The file File:JanIIISobieski cropped.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NFL gold logo.jpg[edit]

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Referee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Knock-on (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Cats and subcats[edit]

Hi Zzyzx11, I see you created and implemented the use of Category:Census-designated places in the Sacramento metropolitan area. Nice! Correct me if I'm wrong, but instead of placing individual pages in there, can't you collect them by using Category:Census-designated places in Placer County, California, Category:Census-designated places in Yolo County, California and so on? That is, put those county categories in the Sac metro area category? Killiondude (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I only did that to quickly diffuse the then-larger Category:Sacramento metropolitan area. If you are asking for something permanent like what Category:Census-designated places in the San Francisco Bay Area is organized, I'll have to do that later today or tomorrow when I have more time to run through what would be about 60-65 articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that's a good correlated category; I didn't think to examine other geographical areas for similar structures. I wasn't intending to criticize your edits, but rather to ask if that would be an appropriate course of action. It would probably be easy for someone with AWB. Unfortunately, I don't have a Windows computer and have tried a few times over the years to unsuccessfully get it on my Mac. Anyhow, thank you for the response. Killiondude (talk) 22:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I have just made the modifications -- except for Stateline, Nevada. I'm neutral on whether it should really be included in these categories for the Sacramento metropolitan area. It sits right on the Nevada side of the state line, and largely because the Sacramento metropolitan area article currently mentions Douglas County, Nevada. But I doubt that people locally in Sacramento view that community of casinos, sitting on the south shore of Lake Tahoe, as part of the Sacramento are. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NFL100th.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NFL100th.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Corky 00:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Replaced by SVG version: File:100 NFL seasons logo.svg. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:59, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Odd additions[edit]

I'm not sure why you find it necessary to add "the population reflects the CDP as defined by the United States Census Bureau, not necessarily the local understanding of the area" to the articles. It seems superfluous. Has it been discussed anywhere? Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm starting to see that phrasing or something similar appear in various articles.[11] So instead of adding it to the rest of the California CDPs all at once, I started small, just in case someone raised a question (which turned out to be you). I just took one of my favorite California counties, Kern, and went through its list of CDPs. I then just added that phrasing to those articles in which any explicit mention of it being a CDP was removed from the lead section. I say "removed" because User:Rambot, the Wikipedia bot that was used to maintain U.S. settlement articles, originally added it in 2004.[12] And any editor adding the 2010 Census figures would have likely double-checked to make sure CDP was mentioned in the lead, and the "settlement type" row in the infobox (which was not regulalry used in 2004). I ended up only editing Buttonwillow and Frazier Park. There is nothing currently on their respective talk pages indicating why any mention of them being being CDPs should be omitted from the lead section or removed from the infobox. And it takes too much time to dig into the article page histories, especially if it was vandalism made by unregistered editors that do not leave edit summaries.
So the answer to your question: the edits were based on those on other CDP articles. At this time, I do not know if there has been an actual discussion. Therefore, I have started one on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities#Census-designated places "may not precisely correspond to local understanding of the area" in the lead Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Logging[edit]

Just a friendly reminder...I notice you placed {{American politics AE}} at Trump–Ukraine_scandal and Impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump but I couldn't find corresponding log entries at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#American_politics_2. Also, forgive me if I've approached you about this before, but I was wondering if you have considered using the "24-hr BRD" sanction instead of the "Consensus required" sanction. The latter tends to result in gridlock, preventing changes without explicit talkpage consensus, which isn't always a good thing in new articles about current events that are under rapid development. Anyway if you're interested it's just done by changing the parameters of the template to {{American politics AE |Consensus required=no|BRD=yes}} ~Awilley (talk) 04:04, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: still? (context) El_C 04:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Asking Zzyzx11 to consider something hardly impinges on anybody's discretion. ~Awilley (talk) 04:24, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
It comes across as a bit much, is all. El_C 04:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I must have forgotten to add it to the log.
I'll consider the BRD option, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a newspaper. A current event article full of WP:RSBREAKING-sources can still be contentious and full of disruption and edit warring, especially in an era of so-called fake news, or "reliable" web sites full of opinion pieces instead of hard-core news. Disruptive editors with some type of POV-agenda could still edit war based on these sources and material, and will just continue to wait until the 24-hours expire. Wikipedia is also not under the same pressure as those 24-news sources who feel it is more important to get anything out there in real time before really correcting any serious inaccuracies. In that type of scenario, maybe "gridlock" may be a good thing. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! 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) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks![edit]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hearst Castle[edit]

If you're ready to put some work into a worthy article, the Hearst Castle peer review has been underway for a month and could use some more topic experts. Binksternet (talk) 00:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Oakland Raiders Page Protection[edit]

Hi, I know you are semi-retired, so I posted this at WP:RFPP, Firstly, I am asking for the current protection to be reduced time-wise, not sure why it's currently set until June 2020. Secondly, not sure why move protection is set for admin only, since there hasn't been any move vandalism as best as I can tell and I tried to do an advanced page move but wasn't able to do it. So I think an autoconfirmed page protection for maybe a week or so more until the new name change news dies down would be appropriate, and maybe a page move for either autoconfirmed or page-mover if you can do that in the system would work. Thanks, Sir Joseph (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like I was messing with the protection settings when I originally set it to semi-protection to prevent IPs from consistently changing it prematurely. Even if move protection was not there, I have not checked the current permissions on page mover if you would have actually been allowed to move it anyway. The target already had substantial number of edits, enough that the software would have said that the other page would have needed to be deleted first. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Zzyzx11, thanks, but just so you know a page mover can do page-swaps which takes away the manual burden of deleting the redirects. I use a script that does all the round-robin stuff except for one manual entry that I have to fix. But anyway, glad it's resolved. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash[edit]

It's fine that you protected, but please restore the article as its wasn't just Kobe who died. Given precedence, this crash would be notable even if Kobe was not involved. The investigation going forward would be written on this page not Death of Kobe Bryant. Valoem talk contrib 22:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please will you a) remove the full protection and b) restore the article to its last good state.
I have had lost of issues accessing Wikipedia tonight, which I alluded to at WP:ITNC. Once I was able to get reliable access, I started the 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash article on the accident. This in entirely within established precident that general aviation accidents involving otherwise wikinotable people are capable of sustaining stand-alone articles.
Once I'd created it and nominated it at ITNC, I got multiple edit conflicts, misformed attempts to redirect it, and redirects of a valid, referenced article to a poorer quality article without discussion or notification. I was not the only editor who reverted these edits. Again, I'm asking you to restore the article to its last good state. Mjroots (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
It was an inappropriate duplication of an existing article which has an ongoing discussion about proposed merge / move. The content & scope of the two articles were identical. Use the discussion instead. — MarkH21talk 22:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@MarkH21: The precedence would be to redirect Death of Kobe Bryant to 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash not there other way around. Valoem talk contrib 22:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
@Valoem: Nope, the precedence is to maintain the status quo while a discussion is ongoing. — MarkH21talk 22:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
What policy are you basing that on? The crash is clearly notable even without Kobe's involvement. The actual precedence is to allow both article during the discussion as both articles clearly pass WP:GNG. Valoem talk contrib 22:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
On the basis of the following parts of the guideline on disruptive editing (esp. points 4a and 5). It's disruptive to push through a redirect, merge, or duplication while its discussion is ongoing. Respect the discussion. Re GNG: Of course both articles may satisfy GNG – they're the same article under different titles. GNG has nothing to do with move or merge discussions for overlapping topics. — MarkH21talk 23:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
You are not the only ones who had issues accessing Wikipedia today, so with these problems, along this lengthy discussion between MarkH21 and Valoem above, sorry for the delayed reply. As being uninvolved, I did not prefer one version either way. So whenever the protection command eventually went through, that's the version that it would be. If it went the other way, I'm sure many from your opposition would be contacting me instead, like MarkH21 here with those arguments posted above, but instead arguing that articles like Death of Aaliyah (instead of "2001 Marsh Harbour Cessna 402B crash") are the consensus/precedent, or some of the other comments raised on the talk pages. So because the question of whether to redirect or not is at the heart of the editing dispute (and there is no worry about any policy-violating content on the protected page, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people that WP:PREFER mentions), it would not be proper to restore "the right version". Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
The issue I have with Mark's argument is that it hinges on WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, if I were to write an article on the 2001 Marsh Harbour Cessna 402B crash it would certainly pass our GN guidelines, unfortunately editors have not gotten a chance to write it likely because it is no longer a current event, therefore only editors with specific interests in aviation accidents would write such an article. Given the fact that there is "no worry about any policy-violating content on the protected page" why would restoring the article not be proper? If you look at the discussion there appears to be several calls to merge the Death of Kobe into 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash not the other way around. Since this is a current event, expansion regarding the technicalities of the crash would most likely occur now, not in the future. Valoem talk contrib 00:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
A new separate article on the 2001 Marsh Harbour Cessna 402B crash would also likely to be challenged as a content fork (as also mentioned on those current discussions) or a A10:Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. Restoring the article would not be proper because it would essentially be preferring one side of the edit war; the current version protected does not have "policy-violating content" (vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people) that would force me to restore the other side. If there is eventually consensus to use the 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash title, then we can unprotect and then merge. What I do not understand is what is stopping you from adding the technicalities of the crash to the existing Death of Kobe page now? Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll make a bet that a split article on Marsh Harbour crash will not be seen as a content fork and survive AfD, probably would not even be nominated if properly written. In regards to your second question technicalities about the crash belong on a page about the crash not about the Death of Kobe, this is the primary reason why the two articles need to exist. This page is eventually going to focus on tributes, legacy and the social impact of Kobe's death. Five people were killed not all of them related to Kobe therefore I cannot stress the importance of a seperate article on the crash. Valoem talk contrib 00:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Also if this is seen as an edit war wouldn't not restoring be seen as "preferring one side of the edit war" as well? Shouldn't an article written with reliable sources default to retention unless the outcome of a discussion favors otherwise? Valoem talk contrib 00:33, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
No, I do not see how WP:PREFER explicitly addresses that. I also think you will be making some of these same arguments if I have to protect Death of Kobe Bryant too because of what looks like the start of edit warring on whether to have Infobox aircraft occurrence! Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Or worse, a block for a WP:3RR if you are the only editor on that side who is removing it. Talk:Death of Kobe Bryant#Should the article have an infobox?. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
TRIPLE EDIT CONFLICT: I've written over 1000 words. I am not home right now I am across the country right now on a laptop which is not mine. This computer does not save my edits in the history as my home computer does. Every time I have to rewrite it is less eloquent. WP:PREFER is for uncontested pages, I've contested the redirect as it two separate notable events and I am not alone. As per WP:PREFER "When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people" PREFER also states "Protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". WP:PREFER does not favor a protected redirect over a protect page with content, I am not sure why you favor this redirect as it prevents further expansion on crash related details which would be added to the page while the topic is current. WP:PREFER does not appear to suggest this is the correct path in fact it favor neither. I am also not the only editor in favor of retaining the article on the crash itself. Mjroots has supported this as well as the editors who favor renaming the page to Kobe Bryant plane crash (strange title IMO). Valoem talk contrib 01:18, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

That was not my interpretation because the question of whether there should be a redirect or separate article is at the very heart of the edit warring.

When protecting a page because of a content dispute, administrators have a duty to avoid protecting a version that contains policy-violating content, such as vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people.

A redirect does not have any such policy-violating conduct like vandalism, copyright violations, defamation, or poor-quality coverage of living people. Therefore, this clause in the policy does not automatically force me to re-apply protection to the other version.

Administrators remain uninvolved when exercising their discretion, subject to this proviso, to decide whether to apply protection to the most current version of an article, or to an older, stable, or pre-edit-war version

As I stated above, I do not care which version was protected, so long as the protection command came through due to the traffic and web issues. There was really no stable version here because the article was created within hours. The heart of the issue was whether to have to separate articles or have one redirect to the other. So whatever version of the page that was current when it finally processed was protected. I did not intentionally favor a protected redirect over a protected page.

Protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus.

I would say that removing the redirect and having what was viewed by the other side as a content fork would be controversial. That again was the heart of the editing dispute. Therefore this clause would prevent me from re-applying the protection to the other version.

Editors convinced that the protected version of an article contains policy-violating content, or that protection has rewarded edit warring or disruption by establishing a contentious revision, may identify a stable version prior to the edit war and request reversion to that version. Before making such a request, editors should consider how independent editors might view the suggestion and recognize that continuing an edit war is grounds for being blocked.

Obviously, you feel that protection has rewarded the edit warring by establishing this contentious revision. But can you really "identify a stable version prior to the edit war"? Again, the page was in its infant stage, and the editing dispute was solely on whether to have a redirect or a separate page. Thus "A stable version prior to the edit war" should be irrelevant. How would independent editors view it? In my experience, independent editors would likely not be able to identify "a stable version prior to the edit war" because it was irrelevant to the contested issue. Of course, we are welcome to find several independent editors that would vouch for you, but I would probably refer them to the ongoing discussions to better achieve a consensus. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

It would be extremely difficult to establish a stable version when the information itself coming out at this time is hardly stable. But what does occur when a page undergoes full protection is the inability to expand the article as information comes to light. Now there is information on the page Death of Kobe Bryant such as victims unrelated to Kobe and the ongoing investigation which are much more relevant to the crash itself then his death. This information may give undue weight to the most notable victim and trivialize others involved. The goal is to prevent this from happening. Valoem talk contrib 03:35, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Now you are just basically repeating your content dispute arguments that you have made elsewhere on your talk page and on Talk:Death of Kobe Bryant. Your recent edits to Death of Kobe Bryant#Victims were also just basically reverted, restoring the other victims of the crash. Please form a consensus on Talk:Death of Kobe Bryant first. That's where your arguments should go. As of now, it looks like unprotection may compound the problem. You and Mjroots are the only ones who have complained to me, compared to several on the other side. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
From what I am seeing Mark is the only one complain to you about two split articles. Nohomersryan also appears to favor inputting the information into Death of Kobe Bryant, the other revert was due to content duplication so it appears it is two in favor split and two in favor of merge. I've opened a discussion. The inclusion of victims not related to Kobe is WP:UNDUE as they are completely uninvolved with the death of Kobe. Per AGF we can assume these editor did not know about this policy. If there is a source which states they connected to Kobe or are traveling together with Kobe we can mention them in the Death of Kobe. If there was an article specifically about the crash then a brief mention in the Death of Kobe Bryant does not violate undue weight. Any aviation accident which cause 9 deaths would already have a standalone article, but because one person was far more notable we've trivialized the other 7. My motives are completely based in policy. I can't find another article titled "Death of" where completely unconnected people were mentioned. I am currently investigating the possibility that they were traveling with Kobe in which a brief mention is warranted. Valoem talk contrib 04:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Because you are not visible to the thank you notifications I have received from editors who either tried to restore the redirect before I applied the protection, or have expressed comments in various talk pages to not have separate articles. They would definitely complain if I did what you suggest, which would not help matters. Also WP:UNDUE, like any other content issue, can be subjective and open to debate, but everyone can clearly see what an edit war or a 3RR is when it happens. And now every admin monitoring WP:AN is aware of the issue, so really I cannot unprotect if it will escalate the edit warring again when the discussions are still in progress. And I am reminded that a fully protected article full of content that no one can update would also not be ideal. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Update to self on current status of discussions on Talk:Death of Kobe Bryant (Special:Permalink/937944146):

  • Splitting proposal is currently trending to oppose
  • RM discussion was started at 00:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC), suggesting that the article should be moved instead over the 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash redirect. Others are also suggesting one of the other current redirects or to a new title. Currently, there is little support for the currently protected 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash; if that is the case, protection would then be removed to fix the ensuing double redirect.

Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

With the splitting proposal closed with no consensus, and the RM discussion still going with suggestions other than 2020 Island Express Sikorsky S-76B crash, I am going to let the protection expire. Remember WP:BRD and WP:3RR. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Cup-o-coffee-simple.svg Thank you for protecting the article. Sorry you're getting The Wrong Version flak. – Levivich 02:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — MarkH21talk 04:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox award[edit]

Template:Infobox award has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox military award. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. PPEMES (talk) 14:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1973 NFL season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to War Memorial Stadium
1996 NFL season (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Ericsson Stadium

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Trivia: naming punctuation[edit]

Hello Zz, I see you're busy these days, but a courtesy note:

I'm trying to clean up the different spellings of Beef 'O' Brady's and saw you weighed in on this ages ago. Relevant discussion if interested. – SJ + 19:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Of course WP:CCC, and WP:COMMONAME based on WP:RS may be different now than about a decade ago, but I would probably have to see more national reliable sources than just ones in FL, and ones that are more critical and independent than the favorable ones that they would want to link from their web site. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:22, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Football League on television, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FS1 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

June 2020[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. CrazyBoy826 00:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@CrazyBoy826: Remember, Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars, so using the boilerplate {{uw-move1}} is unhelpful to me. Which page move(s) are you referring to? Any type of page move was WP:AGF and WP:BOLD, and I cannot tell which violated one of the numerous naming conventions if you do not provide specifics. I cannot read your mind, and based on your user contributions you seemed to post this out of the blue so I cannot tell what you were looking at that prompted you to post uw-move1 here. I can only assume you were merely testing whatever you were doing with that User:Username of user account and posted here accidentally just before you got blocked.[13] Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:21, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Primaries & caucuses[edit]

Would be best to move all primaries & caucuses articles to include 'presidential', going back to 1912. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

see [14]. Had to check over and over again, but apparently they only go back to about 1996. Such individual state articles going from 1992 back to 1912 have not been created yet. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Coming back[edit]

Thanks for expanding on my edits, and when ( if ever ) will you resume normal editing Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I forgot the ? Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Image deletion request by uploader[edit]

Hi, can you delete this? https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jamie_Dimon.jpg

I uploaded it and thought I saw it had it was under "fair use" under their image policy, by AP Images, but I misread their statement on which images constituted fair usage (this one fell into a category I misinterpreted). Thanks in advance! Golfpecks256 (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2020 (UTC) Golfpecks256 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Commons:File:Jamie Dimon.jpg has already been marked for deletion as a file without a valid licence. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I am aware. I want to expedite the process by directly asking you to delete it. Golfpecks256 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! :) Golfpecks256 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 12[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Stanley Cup Finals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NHLPA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability and links[edit]

On February 2012 an edit of yours stated "This edit does not relate to the current dispute - I have a non-controversial request to add an explicit cross-reference to WP:ELNEVER/WP:COPYLINK regarding the linking of material that violates copyright". Do you happen to remember where this matter was discussed at the time, or what was the "current dispute". I can't quickly find a reference from the contemporary archive of the talk page. Nemo 12:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Because this was over eight years ago, the following may not be entirely accurate, especially the last point:
  • The "current dispute" refers to the edit war/content dispute/page protection that was there at the time. This was the dispute discussed at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Archive 56#Summary of V's importance.
  • Although the page was protected at the time, the protection policy states that "Protected pages may not be edited except to make changes that are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus". That is why I explicitly put "This edit does not relate to the current dispute" in the edit summary: to make it very clear that this was the case -- adding mentions of WP:ELNEVER/WP:COPYLINK was in no way related to the disputed WP:V's importance section -- and therefore permitted by policy.
  • As for who made the protected edit request to copy content from WP:ELNEVER/WP:COPYLINK to WP:V, I can only guess who that person was: it looks like it was a bold edit by me. In the hours prior to editing WP:V, I removed several copylink citations such as this and this. Because the issue of copyright is very important to Wikipedia, I probably felt it was important to include mentions of this in WP:V. If I found a few citations to sources that violated copyright, I was probably assuming there was likely others on many other articles as well. Therefore, it was probably something that I felt that was urgent and non-controversial enough that it should not wait for a discussion. And since I have administrative rights, I went ahead and added it. There has been no complaint that I am aware off that I went against protocol, or even discussions to remove it. People might have decided that the addition was warranted, and thus non-controversial, it was common sense, and that making this bold edit was no big deal (at least back then in 2012).
Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for 2020 World Series[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 29 September 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 2020 World Series, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2020 World Series will be the first to be held at one ballpark since 1944? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2020 World Series. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, 2020 World Series), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! 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) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:NFL75th.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:NFL75th.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Slated to be replaced by SVG version File:NFL75th.svg. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:46, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

NHL[edit]

Hey, thanks for all the help. But, do we really need to list those games which were postponed and later rescheduled, still with a grey background and postponed? I feel like those can be removed and the note next to the date explaining it all, would be enough. Kante4 (talk) 11:28, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kante4: All the other 2020-21 NHL team articles are currently doing it. 2020–21 Dallas Mavericks season#Regular season (see the Mavericks' postponed January 11 game against the Pelicans), 2020–21 Golden State Warriors season#Regular season (the postponed January 15 game against the Suns), and all the other 2020-21 NBA team articles seem to be currently doing it. 2020 San Francisco Giants season#Game log (see the postponed September 11 and 12 games against the Padres) and all the other 2020 Major League Baseball articles were doing it. Why should the Sharks article be the only one that is not consistent and not doing this? Instead of removing them, this method gives a more easy way to track and reference of when these postponements and Covid outbreaks among the NHL, NBA and MLB teams actually occurred. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
I never said that the Sharks should be do it otherwise. I was just questioning it and still have a different opinion but if that is the way to go on a consistent basis, then so be it. Kante4 (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Contributions[edit]

I added some things but I’m having trouble organizing the table of the evolution of ViacomCBS. MegaSmike46 (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot tell exactly what you need help or are trying to do on Template:ViacomCBS evolution. And even if I did know, my preference would be to instead revert it back to the 03:43, 25 January 2021 version, where that editor wrote in that edit summary, "No, it is quite excessive. This quick reference timeline template is not meant to serve as a comprehensive record of every transaction in the history of all the predecessor or successor companies. It is about how Viacom was spun off from CBS, grew through a few key acquisitions, acquired its former parent, they split, and then reunited".[15] Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MUNI icon[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:MUNI icon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Mackensen (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

(Possibly) stale page restrictions[edit]

Hi, I was recently doing a review of all the page restrictions I've placed or taken ownership of over the years, and I noticed that a majority of the pages were no longer battlegrounds and didn't require restrictions anymore. I was looking backwards a couple of months on the article history and talk page looking for major diputes, and for the most part things were pretty quiet. I've removed the BRD restrictions from about 70% of the articles that I had put them on, and the 1RR restrictions from probably 90% of pages.

I figured while I was at it I might as well try to track down the other pages with active sanctions and see if the admins who placed them might also be interested in doing a similar review. The following list might not be complete, but it's the best I could come up with by tracking usages of the American Politics AE template. (Perhaps you can compare it to whatever system you have for tracking your active sanctions.)

I'm hoping that removing some of these restrictions can help restore some sense of normalcy to the topic area. In any case I hope this list is helpful. ~Awilley (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course these articles are now quiet. These topics are no longer in the news, no longer a target of recentism, no longer reliant primarily on breaking news sources, no longer attracting various IP's and others with the intent of posting their original research, not attracting causal editors not interested in adhering to a neutral point of view -- leaving us regular admins to clean up the messes when these events end.
Since you have also contacted others for help, I'll defer it to you. I do not think you need me. Best if one person leads this effort with the same criteria across the board. Anything with {{American politics AE/Edit notice}} or the {{American politics AE}} talk page banner are the ones I know, and I do not have any other system. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Is AARoads a reliable source?[edit]

Good afternoon Zzyzx11,

I'm hoping not to bother you, but ask for a few seconds if possible.

But I wanted to ask if you'd consider AARoads a reliable source? I know it's a blog, and I was asking since I've noticed there's what I would see as "useful" images on there.

Thanks, JayzBox (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@JayzBox: Yes, it is a blog, and some in the larger Wikipedia community might consider it a "self-published source" under the Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published source guideline. But it is still cited in several articles when I look up the search results at Special:Search/aaroads. If you would like a more definite answer, I suggest you also post your question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads where you can find editors who do the regular work on the U.S. roads and highways articles. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Asking about removal of paragraph[edit]

Hello,

Is their a reason why you removed the following section from the 93rd Academy Awards?

"After the ceremony, a special aired called ''Oscars: After Dark,'' hosted by [[Colman Domingo]] and [[Andrew Rannells]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Welk |first1=Brian |title=Oscars Song Contenders to Perform for Pre-Show, ‘After Dark’ Special Set for Post-Awards|url=https://www.thewrap.com/oscars-song-contenders-perform-pre-show-after-dark-special/ |website=The Wrap |date=16 April 2021 |access-date=26 April 2021}}</ref>"

Thanks, Heart (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. That's why I do not normally edit pages on recent events because it is hard for me to keep up with edit conflicts. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Zzyzx11, no problems, it is always hard to keep up! I accidentally announced the wrong winner on one. Oops! Have a great night! Heart (talk) 05:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2020 United States presidential election[edit]

Hello, Zzyzx11,

Can you check recent edits to this article? I see you've edited it in the past you would be more familiar with it than I. Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Special:Diff/1026735039. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 1[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Interstate 110 and State Route 110 (California), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arroyo Seco.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Special:Diff/1031362844. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:2021 NBA Finals logo.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:2021 NBA Finals logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Deleted Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 11[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Figueroa Street, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Olympic Boulevard.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

California State Route 193[edit]

I have posted a picture with new information about California State Route 193. However, as a Wikipedia editor I am not permitted to quote my own work as a basis for updating the Wikipedia article. I hope another editor will incorporate the new information into the article. T71024 (talk) 21:48, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you! T71024 (talk) 08:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion on Talk:Silicon Valley[edit]

Hi Zzyzxl1! I am reaching out because I have noticed you have been quite active on discussions concerning the Bay Area before. There is an important ongoing discussion at Talk:Silicon Valley#RfC: Inclusion criteria of Silicon Valley, Santa Clara Valley and Santa Clara County, California concerning whether Silicon Valley is a region or not and whether it should be regarded as such both in its article and in references to it across Wikipedia. I invite you to join the discussion and present your thoughts on the matter, as more opinions are sorely needed to build anytime of understanding or consensus. Best, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I see that Binksternet has decided to expand this dispute onto WP:ANI. Best for me to wait until sufficient uninvolved intervene. Thx. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

COI Assistance for Silicon Valley Community Foundation[edit]

Dear User:Zzyzx11: I work with Silicon Valley Community Foundation and am therefore in a COI relationship. I understand I can not make improvements to the page myself, so I am looking for some volunteers to help/provide feedback on some page updates. I have reached out to User:Cristiano Tomás who graciously offered to help, but has been busy over the last month or so. I am writing to inquire if you might find it a good use of your time to help improve the page. I see that you have made edits to other Bay Area pages. I have some edits currently in my sandbox User:ChauSVCF/sandbox. I look forward to any feedback or assistance you might provide. Thank you, ChauSVCF (talk) 21:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion, and I see you have also asked other editors to also look at it. But personally, I have been trying to refrain from devoting entire sections that just describe an organization's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Not just your organization, but other entities and businesses as well. I find this more as added PR, and more focus on recent events under what we call "Recentism", than just describing the entity's overview alone. But I'm sure others you have contacted may think differently. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi User:Zzyzx11: Thank you for your feedback. What you are saying certainly makes sense. Silicon Valley Community Foundation has updates on several new sections and I had thought it would be good to share one at a time. But perhaps I should include all of them in my sandbox at once? Another question as I work to adhere to the COI rules, is it preferred that I draft content or, instead, provide Wiki formatted sources under a section heading? As you can see, we really only have a ‘history’ section right now, and we have updates to include between 2018 and now. Any additional feedback or advice you have would be appreciated. Best ChauSVCF (talk) 08:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Have you looked at the following guidelines (you probably seen the first one but might not have seen the second)?
  1. The main guideline at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest
  2. The frequently overlooked Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide
I should also warn you that I or any other regular Wikipedia editor is in no obligation to add what you eventually propose. We are bound by the rules of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Responding to requests, and in most cases we should not add large amounts of content that would, in effect, have been ghostwritten by the COI editor without the readers' knowledge. This principle is also emphasized on Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide#Creating draft articles and proposals. Because there are some editors who even feel that any suggestion by any COI editor is unethical under any circumstance, especially if COI editors ignore negative content, news or criticism that would put their organization in a very bad light. Or if COI editors propose more content that is viewed, as I mentioned earlier, as added PR. Even I have limits on what to add to articles under the various Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and under normal circumstances I would not, for example, post a long laundry list of various donations and activities and that a charitable organization has done between 2018 and the present.
That said, you should definitely draft content. Do not under any circumstance touch the article directly and add a new section with Wiki formatted sources. You can also follow the steps listed on Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide#Steps for engagement to get more input from other editors (looks like your colleague User:David svcf did attempt to do Step 1, post a suggestion on the article talk page Talk:Silicon Valley Community Foundation, but failed to include adding the {{request edit}} template). Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 8[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kingston, California, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kings River.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! 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) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)